The URL can be used to link to this page

10/10/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION October 10, 2023 Tuesday 2:30 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 2:30 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting No Formal Meeting Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled briefing meeting. Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 09:05:59 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Informational: Initial Discussion of Legislative Intents for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 2:45 p.m. 40 min. The Council will hold the first of three planned briefings on its Legislative Intent statements for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Legislative Intents are formal requests the Council makes of the Administration that are adopted along with the annual budget. This briefing will consist of conversations with the Administration designed to exchange any preliminary information and feedback needed to clarify each Intent. In addition, the Council will review and consider any staff recommendations for closing some previous years’ intents. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Resolution: Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds ~ 3:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about substantial amendments to the City’s five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The amendments to recognize the funding and eligible uses are necessary for compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs. This is a follow-up from prior Council briefings about how to use unallocated housing program income. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023; Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street ~ 4:05 p.m 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 6.Tentative Break ~ 4:25 p.m 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action - 7.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple ~ 4:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time, however the applicant may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Larsen Sequist FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8.Informational: Housing Report from the Gardner Policy Institute ~ 5:00 p.m. 60 min. The Council will have a presentation and discussion with James Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow at the Gardner Policy Institute, on their Housing Market Report, released in September. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Dinner Break ~ 6:00 p.m. 30 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 10.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives Follow-up ~ 6:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023; Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 11.Resolution: Certification of Downtown Plan Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about certifying the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for 13 TRAX and Frontrunner stations in the downtown area. Certification is necessary to be in compliance with recent state law requirements for municipalities to have station area plans for all fixed rail transit stations within their boundaries or within a half mile of City limits. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 14.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 6, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative Updates October 10, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceArts Council •2023 Public Art Goals – West Side Iconic Art •Survey closed end of September •270 responses •Call for artists projected to be released next year Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in Place Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in Place Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in Place Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Location Date Time Day-Riverside Library Oct. 11 3pm-5pm Homeless Resource Fair Oct. 13 9:30am-12:30pm Honeysuckle Coffee Co.Oct. 25 10am-12pm Glendale/Mountain View CLC Oct. 27 3pm-5pm October Community Office Hours Homeless Resource Center Utilization •Oct 2nd-6th HRCs: Rapid Intervention/ EIM •No EIM Plans this week •58 HEART-tracked camps •RIT locations: o VOA Outreach Engagement: 2 o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 8 (+12) Resource Fair •Friday 10/13 @ Pioneer Park •My Hometown Chili Dog BBQ Homelessness Update Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF MEMO CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:October 10, 2023 RE: INFORMATIONAL: INITIAL DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 On October 10, the Council will have the first of three planned work session briefings, beginning with Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) Legislative Intents. Legislative Intents are the Council’s formal requests to the Administration, and they are adopted as part of the annual budget. This first discussion, which is typically held in September (see Attachment C1), is envisioned as an informal “post-budget discussion” with relevant department heads and the Mayor’s Office. The briefing is designed as an opportunity for the Mayor’s Office and department leaders to provide preliminary information and feedback on the intents, including how any might be refined according to a department’s previous experience. Because the purpose of this discussion is to clarify the Council’s requests, the Council may make any desired editing changes to the Legislative Intents for this purpose. As a reminder, this briefing is not the time to “solve” an issue, or to engage in an in-depth discussion. The idea is to provide feedback to the Administration, so that they can plan their work on the Legislative Intents most efficiently. For example: -A department may explain their ideas for how specific a legislative intent could be refined; -The department may share relevant information about requested items; or -If a particular item has been addressed in the months since the budget was adopted, the Council could indicate that the intent has been completed and no further Administration action is needed. The list of FY24 Legislative Intents and outstanding Legislative Intents from previous years appears in Attachment C2. The goal of this briefing is to modify any new Legislative Intents as needed, now that the pressure of the budget season has passed, and to facilitate the Administration’s work on these requests before the next briefing, which is planned for March. Council staff will follow up with the Administration and provide a response to Council Members on anything that will require some time to research. Page | 2 The second and third briefings include discussion of both FY24 and previous years’ Legislative Intents. They are more formal discussions, based on written descriptions of progress from relevant departments. The responses for the second briefing are transmitted to the Council in January or February, and for the third briefing they are transmitted as part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. ATTACHMENTS Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents Attachment C2. FY24 New and Outstanding Legislative Intents Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion •Transmittal: n/a •Work Session: September •Purpose: o Q & A with department representatives o Workshop to refine the Legislative Intents o Receive information from the departments: what’s been tried and/or whether they would like to propose a better approach, etc. o Early status information, first-round thoughts, feedback Briefing #2: Mid-year status update – Timed to coincide with Budget Amendment 3 or 4 •Transmittal: January - February •Work Session: March •Purpose: o Briefing from department representatives o Mid-year update on progress made, department response, impact to budget, if any, etc. o This is not expected to be a 100% complete report or close-out, but rather a mid-term update Briefing #3: Combined with annual budget report •Transmittal: No separate transmittal; information and updates included in annual budget information •Work Session: Intents would be discussed as part of department annual budget briefings •Purpose: o Continue tracking legislative intents and close out as applicable o Refine status and next steps for the coming fiscal year Exceptions: Some items may have a separate timeline identified and those will be considered separately. NEW AND OUTSTANDING LEGISLATIVE INTENTS Updated October 5, 2023 A. Airport FY24 - Air Quality and Transit Investment. The City Council formally requests that the Airport submit a written plan (and funding proposal if needed) to the Council regarding plans to encourage and facilitate transit, ride sharing and other transportation options which do not rely on single- passenger vehicles. The Council requests that the plan include milestones and metrics to measure progress on the Airport's investment in mitigating the air quality impact of private vehicle trips to the airport, the environmental impact of the addition of parking lot impervious surface to accommodate those vehicle trips, and shared advocacy. Efforts to support and encourage transit opportunities for the traveling public are also encouraged by the Council. In making this request the City Council recognizes that the Airport makes strong environmental investments in its construction and operations. B. Attorney’s Office FY24 - Department Role Clarity in Ordinance. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that define and discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but not be limited to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council discussion, Sustainability is the priority. FY24 - Pay Parity among Attorneys. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration evaluate pay parity among the City Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, the City prosecutors, and the County prosecutors. Because this may be a longer-term issue, the Council could ask that the Human Resources Department conduct a more thorough evaluation on this topic and recommend strategies to achieve pay parity over the longer term. First priority is that attorneys on both sides of a courtroom have pay parity; second would be parity among agencies (County, State, Municipal). FY23 - Boarded Building Fee. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration for a timeframe when the Council can consider an updated boarded-building fee, or request that the Attorney’s Office provide a draft directly to the Council Office. FY23 - Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA). It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to ensure that any City loan or grant processes comply with the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The Council could request that the City Attorney’s Office develop an ordinance more specifically codifying this understanding. FY21 - Decriminalization Review of City Code. It is the intent of the Council that an in-depth review be conducted of the City Code to consider items that could be de-criminalized. Council staff could work with Council Members and the City Attorney’s Office to draft a scope and come back with a report on the timeline. C. Community and Neighborhoods Department FY24 - Options for Citywide Zoning Re-evaluation. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare a work plan that outlines options for potential Citywide zoning improvements. FY23 - Youth and Family Program Streamlining. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate whether to consolidate all City youth and family programs into the Youth & Family Division. The purpose would be to increase efficiency and propose options for future budget discussions. Additionally, the Council would like the Administration to evaluate the City’s role in youth and family programming in relation to other community organizations to identify efficiencies and reduce duplication, factoring in overall community demand for those services. Step 1 of this multi-step process was completed in FY23. Other steps involve evaluating potential staffing redundancies and reviewing Fire Department and Police Department programs for potential changes. FY22 - Trips-to-Transit Expansion Evaluation - It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide their strategy for evaluating whether to expand the Trips-to-Transit program, which will begin to serve Westside neighborhoods in late 2021, to other areas of the City. D. Department of Economic Development FY15 - Maintenance of Business Districts. See description under Public Services Department. E. Finance Department FY24 - Legal Defenders Association. It is the intent of the Council to request the Administration: ▪shift funding for the Legal Defenders contract to Funding Our Future, under the policy umbrella of Public Safety, with the rationale that these attorneys are an integral piece of the criminal justice system and often connect clients to resources and services to help them recover from an addiction or otherwise help them get back on their feet. ▪discuss with Salt Lake County whether it would be more efficient for the County to manage the full contract, with the City contributing funding towards it. FY23 - Consolidated Fee Schedule Holistic Review. It is the intent of the Council to complete a holistic evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Fee Schedule in conjunction with the Finance Department. This evaluation would include equity considerations and evaluate whether to increase, reduce, or in some cases eliminate, City fees. FY23 - Grants and Ongoing Programs. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate the extent to which new City programs have been created through grants whose costs have continued beyond the life of the grant. The Council will use this information to inform a policy or system for evaluating when and whether it is appropriate for the City to create new programs with grants. FY15 - Maintenance of Business Districts. See description under Public Services Department. F. Mayor’s Office FY24 - Apprenticeship Program Incentives. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to recommend strategies to incentivize an employee who works through the City Apprenticeship program to remain with the City once they are certified. FY24 - Evaluating Efficiencies of All Diversified Response Teams. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate all response teams that may be considered part of a diversified response to public safety, establish common metrics, and evaluate whether there are opportunities for efficiencies or streamlining, including clarity on dispatch and whether/if the public is intended to contact any teams directly and how resources are deployed. In addition, to clarify roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one team to another, and how calls from the public are routed. G. Police Department FY21 - Police Department Role. It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate the role the City asks the Police Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that role, and ask the Administration to evaluate moving certain programs out of the Police Department, like park rangers and social workers, and potentially add a function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the independence of the Internal Affairs unit. Park rangers were shifted to the Public Lands Department in 2021. a.Social Workers. b.Internal Affairs Unit. c.Police Civilian Response Team. H. Public Lands Department FY24 - Golf Fee Structure. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate developing a program for the Golf Division that could provide discounted rates to reduce financial barriers for City residents, especially those with limited financial resources. I. Public Services Department FY24 - Building Security. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prioritize hiring the new Safety and Security Manager FTE proposed for the Public Services Department and return to the Council by the end of 2023 with recommendations for how the building security funds could be used. FY15 - Maintenance of Business Districts. It is the intent of the Council to hold a briefing regarding the costs of enhanced services provided to the Central Business District, in order to consider: a) revising how City services are provided and paid for, b) services that may be offered to other established or developing Business Districts in the City, and c) maintenance of amenity upgrades (such as lighting and benches). It is also the intent of the Council that this discussion happen in time to incorporate any changes into the renewal of the Central Business District agreement and Sugar House Business District. This Intent includes SAAs. The work should involve the Department of Economic Development and the Finance Department. J. Public Utilities Department FY23 - Water Usage by the City. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate water usage by the City and make recommendations for water conservation. This includes evaluation of water savings opportunities for CIP projects. K. Council-Led Intents FY23 - Rotating Outside Auditing of Each City Department. It is the intent of the City Council to re-establish its practice of conducting management and performance audits of City departments, divisions, and functions on a rotating basis in the coming years. These audits are in addition to the financial audit that the City Council oversees annually. The audits are intended to bring consultants in for an independent look at existing City services to identify opportunities for improved efficiencies. In addition to a focus on identifying potential efficiencies, the Council intends to ask the auditors to identify or evaluate professional best practices, definitions of success for each program, metrics associated with key functions, and any duplication that exists with other City departments and/or other levels of government. The Council intends for the audits to inform evaluations of how City services are meeting residents’ needs while being fiscally responsible with the taxpayer dollars. FY21 - Police Department Reporting Ordinance. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s Office to create an ordinance that establishes reporting requirements for internal information collected by and related to the Police Department. The Council adopted a body worn camera ordinance in 2020, but not broader reporting metrics. Initially, the Council also intended to create an ordinance that establishes reporting requirements for internal information collected by and related to the PD. The Council’s operational audit of the PD (Matrix Consulting) recommended expanding public reporting, such as metrics related to: o internal affairs, o external complaints, o workforce demographics and vacancies, o body worn cameras (new software to facilitate review was funded), and use of force. Lisa Shaffer (Oct 5, 2023 13:49 MDT) 10/05/2023 10/05/2023 Dormant Housing Funds Summary Chart HUD - CDBG HUD - HOME/ ADDI NON- RESTRICTEDTYPEPROJECT/PROGRAM LEAD Next Steps Advertised as part of the RDA's upcoming Notice of Funding Availability, and Housing Stability Division prepare substantial amendments transmittalRDA NOFA RDA $6,476,014 $3,000,000 DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION Housing Stability Division coordinates with City Housing Authority for potential direct award to this development, and prepare substantial amendments transmittal1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs)HASLC Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT CAN, HASLC,Housing Stability Division prepare substantial amendments transmittal$5,755,941Property Acquisition and/or RDA Pending transmittals of the final Thriving in Place Plan RENTAL ASSISTANCE Tenant Relocation Assistance Housing Stability $180,000 and the new Five-year Housing Plan, and Council briefing(s) Neighborhood Business Improvement Program Housing Stability Division prepare substantial amendments transmittal Housing Stability Division prepare substantial amendments transmittal Housing Stability $250,000 $250,000 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements Transportation/ Engineering Homebuyer Program $1,000,000 Housing Stability draft new or amendments to existing policies for transmittals and Council briefing(s)TENANT & HOMEOWNER LOAN FUND Community Land Trust Home Repair Program NOAH Renter Rehab Program First Step House, Employment First Step House, Peer Support SL Donated Dental $1,144,187 $500,000Housing Stability $1,200,000 $26,492 Housing Stability proceed with one-time allocations to these nonprofits to bring them back up to the board and mayoral funding recommendation amounts$22,892 $5,308 $5,308 PUBLIC SERVICES DEBT SERVICE Non-profit organizations n/a The Inn Between Housing Stability proceed with payoff and closing these lines of creditLine of Credit Payoff $3,000,000 TOTAL:$6,255,941 $9,476,014 $7,084,187 Last updated July 27, 2023 HUD PROGRAM INCOME SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS – 5 YEAR CON PLAN & ANNUAL ACTION PLAN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION //October 10, 2023 $23,000,000 $21,000,000 ACCUMULATED FUNDS PROGRAM INCOME SOURCE BALANCE HUD REGULATIONS CDBG $6,133,510.71 HOME $9,890,743.13 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)$48,967.10 TOTAL $16,073,220.94 $6,500,000 $21,000,000 MOVING FORWARD - BEST PRACTICES & TRANSPARENCY •Beginning with the FY24 fiscal year, program income (PI) generated from HUD-funded activities will be recaptured on an annual basis. •PI will be estimated and considered as part of the annual HUD application process, with final funding allocations by the City Council. $6,500,000 $21,000,000 HUD TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS •There will be strict expenditure/timeliness requirements once the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan are amended to recognize the funds. •CDBG and HOME have different timeliness requirements. CDBG requirements are more immediate. $23,000,000 $21,000,000 PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATIONS TYPE PROJECT/PROGRAM LEAD HUD - CDBG HUD - HOME/ ADDI DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA RDA $6,939,710.23 1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs)HASLC $3,000,000.00 ACQUISITION Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT Property Acquisition CAN, HASLC, and/or RDA $5,633,510.71 RENTAL ASSISTANCE Tenant Relocation Assistance Housing Stability NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Business Improvement Program Housing Stability $250,000.00 Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements Transportation/ Engineering $250,000.00 TOTAL:$6,133,510.71 $9,939,710.23 *Note: An RDA NOFA allocation of $6,476,014.00 in HOME PI has been formally approved by City Council and budgeted for expenditures as part of the FY24 budget process. The additional $463,696.23 in proposed funding allocation to the RDA NOFA accounts for additional HOME PI received through June 30, 2023. $6,500,000 $21,000,000 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: CDBG Property Acquisition:$5,633,510.71 •Acquisition of property for future housing development (80% AMI and <). •CAN with work with the RDA and/or Housing Authority to identify and purchase a property or multiple properties. The Council could identify policy priorities such as: o Family Housing (3+ bedroom) o Mixed-Income – Workforce to deeply affordable o Geographic equity – deconcentration of deeply affordable housing Westside Improvements:$250,000.00 •Sidewalk and/or related infrastructure improvements on the West Side, to promote safety, accessibility, and connectivity. •Funding will likely be leveraged with an existing infrastructure project to maximize community impact. Façade Program:$250,000.00 •Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (aka Façade Program), providing grants of up to $50,000 for for-profit businesses. •Housing Stability will increase the amount of funding available to allocate through this year’s application round, from $925,000 to $1,175,000. $6,500,000 $21,000,000 PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS: HOME RDA NOFA:$6,939,710.23 •Gap financing for the development of affordable housing. •Funding to be issued through the RDA’s annual Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). •The RDA can move forward with issuing the NOFA and selecting projects for funding while the HUD substantial amendments are in process. HUD will need to approve the substantial amendments before contractual obligations are issued. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – 1159 WEST TEMPLE: $3,000,000 •Gap financing for a Housing Authority of Salt Lake City project that is adjacent to City-owned property by Smith’s Ballpark. Affordability will range from 25% to 60% AMI. •Funding would be leveraged with allocations already approved by the RDA Board and would be subject to the underwriting and lending standards outlined in the RDA’s HDLP policy. $6,500,000 $21,000,000 NEXT STEPS & TIMELINE 1.Council will set a date for a public hearing, to be held as part of the 30 -day minimum public comment process. 2.After public input, City Council considers and adopts resolutions for the Con Plan and Action Plan substantial amendments. 3.Once adopted, Housing Stability submit the substantial amendments to HUD. 4.HUD has 30-days to approve the amendments. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Substantial Amendments to the Salt Lake City five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan to recognize and utilize U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) generated Program Income. STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, Director of Housing Stability 801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com Heather Royall, Deputy Director of Housing Stability 801-535-7273, heather.royall@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Substantial Amendments and appropriate the associated funding. Per the regulatory requirements outlined in HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section in 24 CFR 91.505 (b), HOME Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 92.503, CDBG Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 570.504, and the City’s approved 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, Salt Lake City must request Substantial Amendments to: •The five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan •The one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan These amendments are required to recognize additional funds, for utilization of previously unallocated HUD CDBG and HOME Program Income. 09/25/2023 09/25/2023 BUDGET IMPACT: $16,073,221 of program income generated from HUD program funding. Part of these funds have been recognized through previous budget action and the remainder will need to be recognized through a forthcoming budget amendment. Funding allocations and programmatic expenses will not impact the City’s General Fund or future annual HUD allocations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On an annual basis, the Division of Housing Stability (“Housing Stability”) deploys millions of dollars to address the critical needs of residents and neighborhoods. Funding is ultimately provided to a variety of City departments, agencies, and outside organizations to implement projects and programs. Some of these projects and programs generate revenue, known as program income (“PI”). PI generated as a result of activities originally funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) and Home Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”) programs retain their federal identity in perpetuity and are subject to all federal requirements. The Administration and Council have been working toward the recognition and allocation of HUD PI that has been received and retained by the City and is available for housing and community development activities. While previous briefings have also considered PI generated from non-HUD sources, this transmittal focuses solely on the unallocated HUD PI, which is subject to federal requirements and needs to be formally recognized through the HUD Consolidated Plan (“Con Plan”) framework. To formally recognize these funds, substantial amendments to the City’s 2020-2024 Con Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (“Substantial Amendments”) need to be adopted by the City Council and approved by HUD. A status update is as follows: Complete: • February 7, 2023: The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Housing Stability briefed the City Council on unallocated HUD PI, and the City Council provided policy direction on the utilization and allocation of these funds. • June 13, 2023: The City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2024 (“FY 24") budget, which includes the following HUD PI appropriations: o Revenue: The HUD PI balance as of April 30, 2023. o Expenditures: $6,476,014 of PI to the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) to be administered through a notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”). • August 15, 2023: CAN and Housing Stability briefed the City Council on the Administration’s proposed funding allocations for the HUD PI revenue that is not appropriated to a program, activity, or project in the FY 24 budget. Current: • This transmittal will initiate the process with the City Council to adopt the Substantial Amendments. • Upon submittal of this transmittal to the City Council, Housing Stability will commence the required 30-day minimum public comment period that includes various noticing and outreach requirements. Next Steps: • The City Council holds a public hearing to be scheduled anytime within the public comment period. • After the public hearing, the City Council considers and adopts a resolution approving the Substantial Amendments and corresponding budget allocations – refer to Exhibit 6: Resolution. Prior to adoption, modifications can be made to the resolution to incorporate feedback from the Council or the public. • Once approved by the City Council, Housing Stability will submit the Substantial Amendments to HUD. HUD has 30-days to approve the amendments. • A FY 24 budget amendment will be required for the following: o Revenue True Up: The substantial amendments are based on the HUD PI balance as of June 30, 2023, however the FY 24 revenue appropriations are based on the HUD PI balance as of April 30, 2023. As such, a budget amendment will be required to true up the budget revenues to reflect the June 30 balances. o Funding Expenditures: A budget amendment will be required to appropriate and clarify the expenditures identified through the substantial amendments in the FY 24 budget. Available Funds PI is gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds. This may include, but is not limited to, proceeds from the disposition or sale of real property purchased or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; income from the use or rental of real property acquired, constructed, or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; and payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG or HOME funds. Since the June 2023 transmittal, the unallocated HUD PI has continued to generate new revenue with the following balances as of June 30, 2023, at the close of the Fiscal Year: PROGRAM INCOME SOURCE 6/30/2023 BALANCE CDBG $6,133,510.71 HOME $9,890,743.13 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)* $ 48,967.10 TOTAL $16,073,220.94 *Note: ADDI is a discontinued HUD initiative that was provided through the HOME program. As such, the ADDI Program Income is treated as HOME Program Income and used in accordance with HOME regulations. Proposed Allocations The Administration proposes the following funding allocations, considering the various eligible uses and timeliness requirements of the different funding sources: TYPE PROJECT/PROGRAM CDBG HOME/ADDI DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA $6,939,710.23* 1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs) $3,000,000.00 ACQUISITION Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT Property Acquisition $5,633,510.71 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP) $250,000.00 Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements $250,000.00 TOTAL $6,133,510.71 $9,939,710.23 *Note: An RDA NOFA allocation of $6,476,014.00 in HOME PI has been formally approved by City Council and budgeted for expenditures as part of the FY24 budget process. The additional $463,696.23 in proposed funding allocation to the RDA NOFA accounts for additional HOME PI received through June 30, 2023. Additional information on the proposed projects and activities is as follows: 1. DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA, $6,939,710.23 1159 S West Temple, up to $3,000,000.00 • RDA NOFA Funding will be allocated to specific projects via a competitive Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) through the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”). • 1159 S West Temple (Book Cliffs Lodge) Due to the inter-governmental relationship between the City and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (“HASLC”), the Administration inquired with HASLC on development projects that, once a funding gap is filled, are shovel-ready and would be on a development schedule that would meet HUD’s timeliness requirements. The project, located at 1159 S West Temple and known as Book Cliffs Lodge continues to have a funding gap. Up to $3,000,000.00 is proposed to be combined with the funding already allocated by the RDA to provide construction financing for the project. Funding would be allocated subject to the underwriting and lending standards outlined in the RDA’s HDLP policy. The project is adjacent to City-owned property by Smith’s Ballpark and will include ~55 units ranging from approximately 30% to 60% of the area median income (“AMI”). 2. ACQUISITION Strategic, East Side, and/or CLT Property Acquisition, $5,633,510.71 • Due to strict timeliness requirements for CDBG, the acquisition of property is the likeliest way for the City to meet spend down requirements. As such, the Administration recommends allocating the majority of CDBG PI for the acquisition of property, as follows: o A partnership between CAN, RDA, and/or the HASLC to identify and purchase property that is either located in a strategic location or in a high opportunity area for development of affordable housing; or o Single-family homes and/or missing middle typology housing that will be incorporated into to the City’s CLT, with the City retaining ownership of the land in perpetuity and homeowners purchasing the housing units. 3. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Building Improvement Program, $250,000 Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, $250,000 • Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (“NBIP”) The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG PI to the NBIP, aka the façade program. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to the NBIP, which would be combined with the $925,000 already allocated through the FY24 HUD funding process. This will bring the FY24 total to $1,175,000, which is almost double that of the previous fiscal year’s budget. Housing Stability has already issued a competitive application process and will increase the number of projects awarded funded if the Council appropriates these additional funds. • Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG PI to sidewalk and/or infrastructure improvements, with a focus on the City’s west side. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to this initiative, to be combined with other CDBG infrastructure funds that are unexpended and continue to be factored into the CDBG timeliness ratio, including: o $322,000, FY 21-22 bus stop improvements o $92,789, FY 22-23 bus stop improvements o $550,000, FY 22-23 Ballpark TRAX pedestrian crossing PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS: Due to the City’s unallocated HUD PI funding, which has not previously been formally allocated by Council action to projects and recognized in our five-year Consolidated Plan or any subsequent one-year Annual Action Plans to HUD, Substantial Amendments are required for both the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. HUD REQUIREMENTS HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for Substantial Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen Participation Plan the criteria it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial Amendment. It is these Substantial Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.” SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a Substantial Amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy already identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial Amendment must be completed. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Recognize Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 148 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The HUD PI represents additional allocations of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, for projects in Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding available. #2 Add New Goals Eligible for Funding Considerations Section SP-45, The Strategic Plan, Goals. HUD 24 CFR 91.215(a). Located on page 159 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. An allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, would be an addition to the list of adopted goals, for projects considered under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the addition of Neighborhood Improvements as an eligible goal. (See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and SP- 45 Goals) Substantial Amendment to 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP-15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 27 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to recognize the unallocated HUD PI. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The City’s current 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding expected to be available during the program year. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding available. #2 Add New Projects to be Funded Under the Annual Action Plan Section AP-35, Projects. HUD 24 CFR 91.220(D). Located on page 35 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to provide an allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, as an eligible project to be funded under the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the addition of Neighborhood Improvements: Sidewalk & Infrastructure Improvements as an eligible project. (See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to AP-15 Expected Resources and AP-35 Projects) PUBLIC PROCESS: A 30-day-minimum public comment period will begin following the submittal of this transmittal to the City Council and specifically for the above-mentioned Substantial Amendment components. The public comment period will be posted in English and Spanish. At a minimum the public comment period will be noticed through the following channels: a newspaper of general circulation, Housing Stability’s comprehensive contact mailing/email list, Housing Stability’s website, the State’s Public Notice website, and provided to the Mayor’s Office and the Council Office for dissemination on social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication and noticing. At least one public hearing, to be scheduled at City Council’s discretion, will also be held during the 30-day-minimum public comment period. EXHIBITS: 1) Eligible Uses of CDBG and HOME PI Funds 2) 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2024 Citizens Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan) 3) 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan 4) Substantial Amendments Regarding HUD Unallocated PI 5) Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources, SP-45 Goals, AP-15 Expected Resources, and AP-35 Projects 6) Resolution ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES CON PLAN ELIGIBLE TYPICAL NATIONAL OBJECTIVE DETAILS HOUSING Rehabilitation: Single and Multi-Unit Residential YES Construction of Housing (limited)YES Direct Homeownership Assistance YES Housing Counseling YES Public Housing Modernization YES Energy Efficiency Improvements YES Rehabilitation Administration YES Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazard Test/Abatement YES Code Enforcement YES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & FACILITIES Senior Centers NO Facility for Persons with Disabilities NO Homeless Facilities (not operating costs)NO Youth Centers/Facilities NO Neighborhood Facilities YES Parks, Recreational Facilities YES Parking Facilities YES Solid Waste Disposal Facilities NO Flood and Drainage Facilities NO Water/Sewer Improvements NO Sidewalks YES Child Care Centers NO Fire Stations/Equipment NO Health Facilities NO Removal of Architectural Barriers NO PROPERTY ACQUISITION Acquisition of Property Disposition Clearance and Demolition Clean-up of Contaminated Sites/Brownfields Relocation ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Commercial/ Industrial Building Rehabilitation YES Commercial/Industrial Land Acquisition/ Disposition NO Commercial/Industrial Infrastructure Development NO Commercial/Industrial Building Construction NO Micro-Enterprise Assistance NO Note: Public Services and Administration & Planning activities are not listed, as they cannot be funded with the Dormant PI. Note: "LMI" is low and moderate-income, which is generally defined as 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below. Note: CDBG funds for Housing activities must be utilized for permant housing and not transitional or emergency shelters. Housing activities for multifamily units are limited to new construction. Rehabilition and new constuction activiteis are eligible for single-family and duplexes. LMI persons, families, or area; businesses providing LMI jobs or services; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent need EXHIBIT B: ELIGIBLE USES of FUNDS - CDBG LMI persons, families, or area; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May buy, clean up, demolish, dispose of, and relocate occupants from a property for a public purpose. May assist commercial or industrial activities. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by creating or retaining permanent LMI jobs or serving an LMI area. Project examples range from working capital loans, to neighborhood store expansion. LMI households; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May rehabilitate or reconstruct or convert structures, provide homeownership assistance, and housing counseling. Includes all activity costs such as applicant intake, construction specs and procurement, and construction. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by providing housing to an LMI household. LMI households; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May acquire, construct, reconstruct, or rehabilitate a public facility or improvement. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by providing access to a facility or improvement to an LMI clientele or to LMI persons residing in a qualified area. EXHIBIT 1 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS CON PLAN ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES TYPES OF ASSISTANCE TBRA YES New Construction - Rental and Homeownership YES Rehabilitation YES Reconstruction YES Conversion (Adaptive Reuse to Housing)YES Site Improvements & Infrastructure YES Acquisition of Property or Vacant Land YES Demolition YES Homeowner Refinancing (concurrent with Rehab)YES Project Operating Reserve YES Project-Related Soft Costs Note: Administration & Planning activities are not listed, as they cannot be funded with the Dormant PI. Rental Housing or Tenant- Based Rental Assistance: 60% AMI < 5 or > units: 20% of units at 50% AMI < All funds must be for 80% AMI and below. EXHIBIT B: ELIGIBLE USES of FUNDS - HOME HOME allows virtually any form of financial assistance, or subsidy (i.e. grants, loans, interest subsidies, equity investments, loan guarantees) to be provided for eligible projects and to eligible beneficiaries. 2020 - 2024 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan HUD PROGRAM YEARS 2020 - 2024 FISCAL YEARS 2021 - 2025 EXHIBIT 2 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL JAMES ROGERS ANDREW JOHNSTON CHRIS WHARTON ANA VALDEMOROS DARIN MANO DAN DUGAN AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBHORHOODS 2 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary (ES) ...................................................................................................................................... 4 a. ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ................................................................... 5 II. The Process (PR) .................................................................................................................................................. 10 a. PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................ 11 b. PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) ............................................................................. 11 c. PR-15 Citizen Participation ................................................................................................................ 26 III. Needs Assessment (NA) ................................................................................................................................ 48 a. NA-05 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 49 b. NA-10 Needs Assessment – Housing Needs Assessment – 91.205 (a,b,c) ..................................... 54 c. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b )(2) ..................... 70 d. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b )(2)....... 73 e. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b )(2) ............. 75 f. NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205 (b)(2) .................................... 76 g. NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205 (b) .................................................................................................... 79 h. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205 (c) ........................................................................ 82 i. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment – 91.205 (b,d) .......................................... 85 j. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) .................................... 93 IV. Housing Market Analysis (MA) .................................................................................................................. 97 a. MA-Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 98 b. MA-10 Number of Housing Units 91.120(a) & (b)(2) ...................................................................100 c. MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing – 91.210 (a) ...........................................104 d. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210 (a) ................................107 e. MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210 (b) ......................................................................111 f. MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210 (c) ...............................................................113 g. MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210 (d) ......................................................116 h. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210 (e) ..................................................................118 i. MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.210 (f) ..................................120 j. MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis: Discussion .....................................................................128 k. MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low - and Moderate-Income Households – 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ..............................................................................................132 l. MA-65 Hazard Mitigation – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2) ...................................................................133 V. Strategic Plan (SP) ............................................................................................................................................135 a. SP -05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................136 b. SP -10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ...................................................................................137 c. SP -25 Priority Needs – 91.215 (a)(2) .................................................................................................142 d. SP -30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (a )(2) ...............................................................147 e. SP -35 Anticipated Resources – 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2) ........................................................149 3 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 f. SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215 (k) .....................................................................154 g. SP -45 Goals ..........................................................................................................................................160 h. SP -50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215 (c) .......................................162 i. SP -55 Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215 (h) ......................................162 j. SP -60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215 (h ) ...................................................................................166 k. SP -65 Lead-based Paint Hazards – 91.215 (i) ..............................................................................170 l. SP -70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215 (j) .......................................................................................171 m. SP -80 Monitoring – 91.230 ................................................................................................................172 VI. Appendix A: 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan .........................................................................174 VII. Appendix B: Summary of Public Comment and Citizen Participation ...............................186 VIII. Appendix C: 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan......................................................................286 IX. Appendix D: 2020-2021 Action Plan......................................................................................................296 4 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary serves as an introduction and summarizes the process of developing the plan, the key findings utilized to develop priorities, and how the proposed goals and objectives will address those priorities. 5 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 ES-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the product of a collaborative process to identify housing and community development needs and to establish goals, priorities, and strategies to address those needs. This five-year plan provides a framework for maximizing and leveraging the city’s block grant allocations to build healthy and sustainable communities that better focus fundi ng from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula block grant programs. The entitlement grant programs guided by the Consolidated Plan are as follows:  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic activities to persons of low- and moderate-income.  Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis.  HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households.  Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with housing prices that are rising more rapidly than wages, resulting in a lack of affordable housing. This Consolidated Plan outlines a comprehensive set of policies that respond to the City’s current challenges by u tilizing new and collaborative strategies. Affordable and safe housing serves as the foundation for individuals to move out of poverty and to avoid homelessness. However, it is increasingly recognized that housing must be connected to opportunities for education, transit, recreation, economic development, healthcare, and services. Instead of addressing these needs separately, Salt Lake City takes a comprehensive and geographic approach to community development by integrating these various aspects into its Consolidated Plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan encourages investment in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and supports at-risk populations by promoting goals that increase access to housing, transportation, economic development, and critical services. By building upon the growth and successes realized in the previous Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is continuing to work toward closing the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, job training, access to transportation for low -income households, homeless prevention services, and medical/dental/behavioral health services for at -risk populations. In addition to expanding opportunity for low -income households living in concentrated areas of poverty, Salt Lake City will continue to support essential housing and supportive services for the City’s most vulnerable populations, with focus on the chronically homeless, homeless families, disabled persons, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and low-income elderly persons. Process & Overview 6 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is organized into four primary sections, as follows: I. The Process The Process section of the Plan outlines the development of the Plan, including citizen participatio n efforts and stakeholder involvement. II. Needs Assessment (NA) The Needs Assessment section provides an analysis of housing, homeless and community development needs, with focus on the needs of low -income households, racial and ethnic minorities, homeless persons, and non-homeless special needs populations. III. Housing Market Analysis (MA) The Housing Market Analysis section provides information and data on Salt Lake City’s housing market, including an evaluation of local resources. The housing marke t analysis supplements information supplied by the needs assessment and establishes a framework for five -year goals and priorities to be developed. IV. Five -Year Strategic Plan (SP) Once community needs, market conditions, and resources are identified, program goals, specific strategies, and benchmarks for measuring progress are set forth in the Strategic Plan section of the Consolidated Plan. Efforts are prioritized to direct the allocation of federal funding to maximize impact within the community. Throughout this Plan period, Salt Lake City will look to address strategies and funding resources that help address community responses to emergency need. This may include preparing for, responding to, and recovery from community wide emergencies. These em ergencies would likely be identified through a national, state or local declaration of a state of emergency. Where appropriate, Salt Lake City will maximize all resources to address such instances. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process will co nclude with the development of the City’s First -Year Action Plan. The First-Year Action Plan will outline the activities and funding priorities for the first year of the Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. 2. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN THE PROCESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN 7 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. Identified below are 5 goals with associated strategies to achieve the goals. Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units av ailable for income eligible residents  Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness  Expand housing support for aging resident that ensure access to continued stable housing Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.  Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas  Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations  Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas Build Community Resiliency Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability.  Provide job training/vocational training program s targeting low-income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities  Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement a nd visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring.  Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness  Provide support for homeless services includi ng Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations  Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 8 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to sup porting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation 3. EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and pri orities. The City’s program year 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018 CAPER can be viewed at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated -plan/con-plans-aaps- capers/. During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. TABLE ES -05.1 SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Goal Description Estimated Projected 1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430 2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70 3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925 4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homeless Individuals and Families 965 3,217 5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individuals & Families 15,000 7,380 6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At-Risk Populations 35,000 24,385 7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Areas 75 50 8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344 9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112 4. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND CONSULTATION PROCESS: Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of community needs and preferences. In addition, the citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Pl an. A comprehensive public engagement process included a citywide survey (2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one -on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, internal technical committee meetings, and a public c omment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into this plan. 9 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housin g advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For more information on citizen participation efforts, refer to t he PR-15 Citizen Participation section of this Plan. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A summary of public comments will be available in the appendix of the finalized Consolidated Plan. 6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OR VIEWS NOT ACCE PTED AND THE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THEM: Comments received to date have been considered and utilized to inform the needs assessment, goal setting, and prioritization of funding. 7. SUMMARY: The Salt Lake City Council is scheduled to adopt the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan on April 21, 2020. 10 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 THE PROCESS The Process section of the Consolidated Plan identifies the lead agencies responsible for the development of the plan and the administration of the grants. In addition, this section outlines the process of consulting with service providers and other stakeholders, as well as citizens participation efforts. 11 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES - 24 CFR 91.200(b) DESCRIBE AGENCY/ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FO R ADMINISTRATION OF EACH GRANT PROGRAM AND FUNDING SOURCE. The following agencies/entities are responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and administrating grant programs: TABLE PR -05.1 LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Salt Lake City is the Lead Agency for grant funds received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs as listed above. The City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Division in the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) is responsible for the administration of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement grants which includes the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), th e HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. HAND is also responsible for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and Consol idated Annual Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPER). Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information: Salt Lake City welcomes questions or comments regarding the Consolidated Plan. Please contact the following: Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Jennifer Schumann at Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or (801) 535-7276. PR- 10 CONSULTATION- 91.100, 91.200(B), 91.215(I) INTRODUCTION: The City conducted robust outreach with representatives of low -income neighborhoods, housing and social services providers, homeless shelter and homeless services providers, faith -based organizations, community stakeholders, City departments, and many others. In to tal, these comprehensive outreach efforts engaged over 4,000 stakeholders during a one-year period. The citizen participation process is described in greater detail in ‘PR-15 Citizen Participation.’ Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies. (91.215(I)). 12 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City led a proactive, community-based process to solicit public and stakeholder input for t he development of the Consolidated Plan goals, strategies, and priorities. The City created a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that met three times during the planning process. In addition, the City worked directly with service providers and other government agencies to gather data used in the technical analysis for the Consolidated Plan. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness: Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continu um of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to crea te and fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives served on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and actively participated in meeti ngs and efforts. Describe consultation with the Continuum of Care that serves the jurisdiction’s area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the admi nistration of HMIS: Working closely with the other two CoCs in the state- Mountainlands and Balance of State, as well as other city, state, and county representatives, City representatives provided direction and support for how funding SLVCEH’s priorities are considered in Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Utilizing data sources like the annual ‘Point-in-Time Count’ and Utah Homeless Management Information System (UHMIS) outputs, City representatives worked with other SLVCEH members to assess pro gress on shared metrics such as an individual’s average length of homelessness, likelihood to return to homelessness, and the percentage of exits from emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing projects to permanent housing. The City has agreed to use common measures with other SLVCEH members to grade service providers. City representatives also actively participated in meetings regarding the funding, policies and procedures for the administration of the UHMIS. UHMIS helps homeless provi ders coordinate care, manage operations, and better serve clients by tracking client service needs over time. All ESG-funded entities participate in UHMIS. City representatives helped to develop consistent data standards and create a HMIS training manual . The manual provides guidance on HMIS data elements for CoCs, HMIS Lead Agencies, HMIS System Administrators, and users. City representatives helped to disseminate information regarding the accompanying HMIS Data Dictionary to define data elements and requirements for HMIS compliance for HMIS Vendors and System Administrators. DESCRIBE AGENCIES, GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS AND DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S CONSULTATIONS WITH HO USING, SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES AND OTHER ENTITIES: TABLE PR -10.1 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 13 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching pri orities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non-Homeless Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these eff orts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that 14 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agenc y/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health 15 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching pri orities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these eff orts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus 16 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refugess What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy 17 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborat ive effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Community Action 18 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti - Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities 19 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee 20 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 26 Agenc y/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Council Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non-Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographic ally focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occ ur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization 21 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographic ally focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working 22 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Civic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to worki ng collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Departm ent Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee 23 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations w ill continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. TABLE PR -10.2 PLAN CONSULTATION Community Plan Consultations 24 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights initiatives centered on using the Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places minimal restriction on persons to place them into safe housing. Housing goals include promoting the construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all income levels and to put speci fic emphasis on housing homeless persons. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in-Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative to find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliable estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five year period of this plan will focus on: 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long-term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitabi lity and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for future development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community‐wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re ‐house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective us e of mainstream programs, optimize self ‐sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness 6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. 7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan 25 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do abo ut it. 10 Name of Plan Continuum of Care Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake County is responsible for coordinating the HUD Continuum of Care (CoC ) grant application process and community -wide goals on ending homelessness for the Salt Lake County CoC (UT-500). The CoC provides annual funding for local homeless housing and service programs. Although Salt Lake County Government manages the local process, ultimate funding decisions are made at the national level by HUD. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness is responsible for oversight of the CoC. DESCRIBE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE STATE AND ANY ADJACENT UNITS OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNME NT, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN: (91.215(I)) The City coordinated and cooperated with other public entities, including the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, and neighboring cities on the implementa tion of the Consolidated Plan. These coordination efforts included City representatives serving on the Commission on Housing Affordability, the Utah Lt. Governor’s Affordable Housing Taskforce, the SLVCEH Steering Committee, and other State agencies. In ad dition, the City worked closely with Salt Lake County’s Housing and Community Development Division to foster regional collaboration for implementation. PR- 15 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION SUMMARIZE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND HOW IT IMPACTED GOAL SETTING. The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through robust planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to provide equitable services, offer funding, and create housing opportunities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under - resourced communities. 26 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City recognizes that citizen participation i s critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan that reflects the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2 020, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, community -based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts. CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, economic development, and public services in the most underserved and under -resourced areas of the community. The survey and all accompany ing collateral material was translated into Spanish, with additional language translation services available upon request. The survey was posted on the City website and social media platforms, third -party digital applications like Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder advisory and interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were ask ed to distribute the flyer to their respective constituencies. FIGURE PR -15.1 FLYER - ENGLISH 27 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.2 FLYER - SPANISH The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019, with a total of 2,068 respondents completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. 28 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. FIGURE PR -15.3 QUESTION #1 SURVEY RESULTS Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as the areas of the City with the most unmet needs for underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current 29 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 housing stock was sufficient to meet the needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. FIGURE PR -15.4 MAP OF UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES FIGURE PR -15.5 MAP OF WHERE RESPONDENTS LIVE 30 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Since the Consolidated Plan survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self - selection bias. To supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the City also compared them with the recently completed annual resident survey results. Both surveys showed that residents wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community. FIGURE PR -15.6 KEY TAKE-AWAYS FROM SLC ANNUAL SURVEY 31 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 REGIONAL COLLABORATION The City collaborated closely with Salt Lake County as the two entities worked in tandem on their respective Consolidated Plans. City staff consistently attended County meetings, and vice versa. In addition, the two entities worked together on the question wording and format for their respective surveys to ensure an “apples - to-apples” comparison of survey results. This approach allowed the City to consider both qualitative stakeholder feedback and quantitative survey results within a broader, regional context. In total, 222 Salt Lake City residents took the Salt Lake County survey. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE The City assembled a Stakeholder Advisory Committee comprised of nonprofit providers and agency partners. The Com mittee met three times in 2019 on July 30, September 24, and December 11. These meetings were strategically scheduled at critical milestones to maximize the impact stakeholder feedback would have in the identification of Consolidated Plan goals, objectives , and priorities. On average, approximately 40 stakeholders attended the meetings. FIGURE PR -15.7 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 32 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Initial Meeting- July 30, 2019 To maintain consistency with the resident survey, the City asked the same survey questions to the stakeholder advisory committee members via real -time, interactive polling software. Stakeholders ranked housing, homelessness, and mental health services as their top three unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. They indicated street improvements, job training, and the construction of more affordable housing units should be top priorities for City inv estment. Stakeholders identified Glendale, Fairpark, Ballpark, and Poplar Grove as the areas within the city with the most unmet needs for under -served individuals and families. FIGURE PR -15.8 POLL RESULTS 33 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Second Meeting- September 24, 2019 To ensure stakeholder feedback would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City held a second meeting and asked stakeholders to prioritize the unmet, unfunded needs that they had identified at the initial stakeholder meeting in July. Stakeholders indicated that their first and second priorities were housing and transportation respectively. They outlined a number of suggested fu nding strategies that the City, in partnership with nonprofit service providers, could consider employing. These strategies include, but are not limited to:  Provide ‘aging in place’ programs  Offer affordable housing voucher programs  Provide client centered community -based case management  Eliminate housing barriers  Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along transit corridors  Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the allocation of resources and to reduce redundancies  Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable housing demand and supply  Offer free fare or reduced transit options  Expand transit service in underserved communities  Subsidize rideshare options FIGURE PR -15.9 34 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.10 Third Meeting- December 11, 2019 35 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 To further refine goals based on previous stakeholder feedback, the City held a third and final stakeholder advisory committee meeting in December. The meeting was held in conjunction with the City’s Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) members to ensure collaboration between City departments and nonprofit service providers. The meeting centered around the following five objectives:  Homeless Services  Housing Services  Transportation  Economic Development  Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community -based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five objectives. FIGURE PR -15.11 HOMELESS OBJECTIVE FIGURE PR -15.12 HOUSING OBJECTIVE 36 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.13 TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE FIGURE PR -15.14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 37 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.15 SUBSTANCE ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH OBJECTIVE INTERDEPARTMENTAL TE CHNICAL ADVISORY GRO UP To facilitate coordination across the various City departments and ensure input from the City’s subject -matter experts was incorporated into the Consolidated Plan, the City created an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG). Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City met with this internal group three times during the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Meetings occurred on July 29, September 23, and December 11, 2019. 38 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Initial Meeting- July 29, 2019 Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City surveyed ITAG members via real-time, interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to ensure consistency and compare feedback “apples-to-apples.” ITAG members ranked housing and transportation as top priorities and expressed concern that there was insufficient housing to meet the needs of a growing population, particularly for low-income individuals and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. While fee dback differed somewhat from the resident survey results, ITAG members generally expressed similar concerns as residents. ITAG members were also asked a series of questions regarding their most unfunded/underfunded, unmet needs. Through an interactive “sticky-note” exercise, they wrote their answers on notes and posted them on a wall in the room. A discussion regarding the results of the feedback then ensued and the notes were categorized based on key themes. Q1- What are your biggest unmet needs relate d to underserved and/or under resourced communities within the city? FIGURE PR -15.16 Q1 RESPONSES Q2- What are you currently doing to try to meet these needs? FIGURE PR -15.17 39 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Q2 RESPONSES Q3- What are your suggested strategies to help address these unmet needs through the Consolidated Plan? FIGURE PR -15.18 Q3 RESPONSES Q4- From your perspective, what is or could be your role as it relates to the Consolidated Plan? 40 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.19 Q4 RESPONSES Second Meeting- September 23, 2019 To ensure feedback from City staff would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City held a second meeting and asked ITAG members to prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July. Housing, transportation and the provision of needed services ranked as the highest priorities. FIGURE PR -15.20 FIGURE PR -15.21 41 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.22 Final Meeting, December 11, 2019 42 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 As mentioned previously, the City held a third and final ITAG meeting in December in conjunction with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to further refine goals based on feedback from previous meetings. The objective of a combined meeting was to ensure collaboration between City departments and nonprofit service providers. The meeting centered around the following five goals:  Homeless Services  Housing Services  Transportation  Economic Development  Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community -based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five goals. COMMUNITY EVENTS The City led a robust, grassroots citizen participation ef fort between May 2019 and November 2019. Staff attended community events such as the Rose Park Festival, the Sorenson CommUNITY Fair, Partners in the Park, Groove in the Grove, the Monster Block Party, and many others. In keeping with recommendations outli ned in the SLC Citizen Engagement Guide, the City engaged directly with the public through existing forums where opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a time. City staff managed information booths at dozens of events and solicited input from residents and stakeholders through interactive materials such as “sticker dots” that could be placed on poster boards to indicate priorities for City services and to identify neighborhoods with the most unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. The efforts were hugely successful, with over 1,322 people participating. FIGURE PR -15.23 COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL FUNDING 43 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC MEETINGS City staff gave presentations regarding the Consolidated Plan to the Planning Commission and City C ouncil on September 25, 2019 and October 8, 2019, respectively. In these public meetings, staff presented information regarding the following: challenges of rising housing and transportation costs; housing and stability needs of an aging population; the homelessness challenges our community faces; and discussed the need to address behavioral health concerns which include both mental health and substance abuse. Staff provided a high -level explanation regarding the Consolidated Plan funding programs, the proc ess and timeline for developing the Plan, and eligible activities. Staff provided an interim report regarding citizen participation efforts and through conversation responded to questions regarding the outcomes of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the ev olution of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. 44 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARINGS On October 24, 2019, the City conducted a General Needs Hearing to gather public comments on housing and community development needs as they relate to low - and moderate-income residents. One resident attended the hearing and two residents submitted comments via email. Comments were accepted from October 21 - November 1, 2019 and identified needs associated with streets, police, community gardens, and tennis courts. To ensure that as many residents as possible are able to participate in public hearings, subsequent public hearings were held to seek feedback on the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan (AAP). These City Council Public Hearings were held on March 24, April 7, and April 21, 2020. Approximately 20 residents attended the public hearings and submitted electronic and/or provide direct feedback to the Council Members via WebEx Teleconference. All comments were accepted and considered in the final adoption of the plan. Notices of all public hearings were communicated within 14 calendar days of the hearing and posted on Utah’s Public Notice website. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS In addition to the 30-day public comment period required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City requires a 45-day public comment period on all master plan documents, including the Consolidated Plan. Both the HUD-required public comment period and the City -required public comment periods occurred simultaneously from February 7, 2020 through March 22, 2020. The City initiated the public comment period by contacting all impacted Registered Community Organizations. The proposed Consolidated Plan was published on the City’s website and the Utah Public Notice website, and printed copies were made available in the City Main Library and City Hall. PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY FIGURE PR -15.24 SUMMARY CHART Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Internet Outreach Survey Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2,068 Respondents Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 45 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Other: City Collaboration Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee Other: City Departments/Div isions On average, approximately 30-40 City staff attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Focus Group Stakeholder Advisory Committee Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing On average, approximately 40-50 representatives from non -profit service providers and government entities attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to City Council Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to Planning Commission Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 46 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public Hearing General Needs Hearing Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 1 resident attended the hearing and 2 residents emailed public comments Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan (AAP) Hearing Planning Commissioners, City staff, Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2 hearings were h eld, 8 members of the public attended, and 117 members of the public emailed public comments. Discussion focused on the support of individual applications and projects covering a range of immediate and long-term needs for the city. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan Hearing City Councilmembers , City staff, Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 3 hearings were held, 6 members of the public emailed public comments. Discussion focused on the detail of the long-term planning document, the supporting data, and the priorities of the plan. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: Community Events Community Events Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Over 1,322 respondents Staff attended dozens of community events over the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Respondents ranked homelessness, substance abuse & mental health, All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 47 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons and transportation services as their top priorities for the City. NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan, in conjunction with information gathered through consultations and the citizen participation process, provides a clear picture of Salt Lake City’s needs related to affordable housing, special needs housing, community development, and homelessness. From the Needs Assessment, the City identifies those needs with the highest priority to form the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered. 48 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 NA-05 OVERVIEW Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is intended to identify the most critical, unfunded gaps in community needs within the City, while coordinating with the larger regional needs of the entire Salt Lake Valley. The purpose of this Needs Assessment (NA) is to identify and evaluate needs, along with funding resources, and align those needs with the input received through the public participation process. Goals and strategies are then developed to target priority geographic locations and needed servic es in those areas, as well as citywide. Numerous news articles over the past year have spotlighted what is termed an “affordable housing crisis” in Utah. Due to public concern over housing issues, the Governor commissioned the Utah Department of Workforce Services to compile a statewide Affordable Housing Report in 2018 to identify causes and address issues. That report concludes: Significant population growth from natural increase and economic development continue to drive Utah’s demand for housing. Production factors such as the high value of land, higher material costs, and a shortage of construction labor significantly contribute to delays in developing an adequate supply of affordable housing. Unless Utah invests in a more pre -emptive approach to hou sing policy and plans 49 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 more effectively for its future needs, its housing shortage will only increase, and the gap in housing affordability will continue to widen. An effort has been made throughout to connect people with resources to expand opportunities for decent housing, economic development, and vibrant communities. The Needs Assessment clearly establishes that housing and community development needs have increased while funding to address those needs has diminished. As demonstrated in Figure NA-05.1, Salt Lake City’s annual CDBG award has decreased by $1.5 million over the past 16 years. This represents a 30% decrease in funding to address the critical housing and community development needs within the City. FIGURE NA-05.1 SALT LAKE CITY’S ANNUAL CD BG AWARD, 2003 - 2019 Source: HUD Awards and Allocations, HUD Exchange A summary of the key data identified in this study, leading to the strategies developed, is summarized below. In short, homeless services ranked high in the data researched, as well as in the surveys conducted as part of the public participation process. Affordable housing needs also scored high with both the public and in the evaluation of the data. Within these two overarching concerns, critical needs were also identified for assist ance with transportation accessibility and costs (thereby reducing cost burdens on low -income families and special populations), economic development opportunities (such as job training) to increase self -sufficiency, and substantial improvements in the services offered to those with behavioral health concerns. Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transportation, quality education, healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increa se overall self - sufficiency. Significant findings are as follows: Homeless  The State of Utah Annual Report on Homelessness 2019 reported that there were 9,367 total homeless persons between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018. On average, these individuals spent 70 nights homeless in that same time period. $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 50 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  According to the 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in-Time Count, which is an annual count of all homeless peoples in the county on a single night, there were 1,844 people experiencing homelessness in the County on the night of the count in January 2019.1 Of those experiencing homelessness, 73.2% were White, non-Hispanic, 11% were Black or African American, 5.3% were American Indian or Alaska Natives, 3.5% were Pacific Islander, and 2% were Asian. There were also 21.3% who were Hispanic. There are 193 homeless individuals who are unsheltered.  According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018 Point-in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in Utah is severely mentally ill, and one in four have a substance use disorder.  Specific service gaps for the homeless were identified through stakeholder meetings as follows: o Affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency beds o Mental health services and substance use disorder treatment o Case management o Prevention, diversion and outreach services o Data systems that capture more of the full story o Available transportation Affordable Housing  Median incomes in Salt Lake City have increased by 52.6% between 2000 and 2018, representing one of the fastest income growth rates in the nation. However, median home values have increased by 89.8% over the same time period and contract rents have increased by 81.8%, thereby increasing the gap between wages and housing costs.  39.5% of Salt Lake City renter households and 19.7% of homeowner households are cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Over 18.9% of renter households spend over 50% of their monthly income on housing.2 Families who are cost-burdened have limited resources for food, childcare, healthcare, transportation, education, and other basic needs. Despite the community wide efforts to increase housing availability and reduce housing costs, 29.9% households are cost-burdened.  The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers Housing Choice vouchers for 3,000 households and has 7,053 total households on all of its waiting lists. Countywide there are 15,981 households on the Housing Connect waiting list. A family on the waiting list can expect to wait 6 years before receiving a Housing Choice voucher.3 A large percentage of those on the waiting list are elderly or have a disability.  Rental vacancy rates are at historic lows, further limiting the available stock of housing and pushing prices upwards.  Concerns were identified regarding the “gentrification” of neighborhoods and the need to put anti - displacement strategies in place, preserving existing affordable housing stock. Demographics 1 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time report 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012-2016 CHAS 3 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect 51 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  The demographic makeup of Salt Lake City has changed substantially since 2000. While the White, non-Hispanic population has remained relatively flat since 2000, minority groups have increased by over 14,000. White, non-Hispanic has declined from 71% of the population in 2000 to 65% in 2018.  Over the past 5 years, an average of 450 refugees have settled in Salt Lake City annually. 16.4 % of Salt City residents are foreign-born creating a need for services for individuals who do not speak English.  12% of the City’s population is over 65 years old. Residents this age are often li ving on limited income and can often have more difficulty finding maintaining their homes. This can often lead to the elderly population moving into care facilities or assisted living communities. If care facilities are cheaper outside of the City then elderly residents may end up leaving to other cities in search of lower living costs.  There are 20,504 people in Salt Lake City with a disability. 37% of those reporting one or more disabilities are over 65 years old and 21% are over 75 years old. The most c ommon disability for those over the age of 75 is ambulatory difficulty, which is defined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, followed by hearing and independent difficulty.  About 21% of the City’s population is under the age of 18. Th e largest age group is under 5 years old with over 31% of the City’s children reportedly falling in that range. Salt Lake City has a child dependency ratio4 of 30.0.  14.7% of Salt Lake City’s children (under 18 years) 5 live below the poverty level as def ined by the poverty thresholds determined by the U.S. Government using the Consumer Price Index. The 2019 Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report reaffirms that children growing up in poverty experience challenges to healthy developm ent both in the short and long term, demonstrating impairments in cognitive, behavioral, and social development. The younger the child is when his or her family is impoverished the greater the likelihood for poor outcomes.6  55.8% of Salt Lake City School District students qualify to receive free school lunch.7 Families qualify for free lunch if they earn 130% or below the federal poverty level, about $33,500 or less per year for a family of four. Many of these households are considered food insecure. The 2019 Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report indicates that there are 135,940 children experiencing food insecurity in Utah and in past reports has stated that these children are ill more frequently, struggle academically, are less li kely to graduate from high school and enroll in college; and less likely to earn enough income to feed their families when they are adults.  In 2017 there were 152,479 children in Utah under age 6 who needed care, but there were only 41,144 slots available in childcare programs.8 The main reasons families are not able to get adequate childcare is cost (31%) and “lack of open slots” (27%).9 4 A measure derived by dividing the population under 18 years by the 18 to 64 years population and multiplying by 100 5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates 6 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019 7 Salt Lake City School District, Fall Low Income Report, 2017 8 ChildCare Aware of America. 2017 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. Retrieved from http://usa.childcareaware.org/ wp - content/uploads /2017207/UT_Facts.pdf 9 Schochet, Leila. “The Child Care Crisis Is Keeping Women Out of the Workforce” Center for American Progress, https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/early -childhood/reports/2019/03/28/467488/child-care-crisis-keeping-women -workforce/. Authors analysis of National Center for Education Statistics, “2016 National Household Education Survey: Early Childhood Program Participation Survey” 52 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Behavioral Health Needs  In 2018, Salt Lake City’s Downtown area reported in the highest age -adjusted drug deaths in the state at 72.2 deaths per 100,000 population, which is much higher than the state average ratio of 22.4. The Rose Park and Glendale areas also report higher ratios of 33.3 and 30.4 respectively. Of the 15 neighborhoods in Utah experiencing the highest a ge-adjusted drug deaths, Salt Lake City has three of them.10  A recent study concluded that 1 in 5 Utah adults experience poor mental health and that over half of the adults with mental illness did not receive mental health treatment or counseling.  Another study concluded that Utah ranked 48th in a state-by-state ranking indicating that Utah is amongst the worst states in the nation when handling mental illnesses based on 15 measures used to create the rankings. The ranking indicates higher prevalence of m ental illness and lower rates of access to care.11 This is an improvement from 2018, when Utah ranked 51st . Economic and Social Service Needs  15.8% of Salt Lake City’s adults (18 years and over) live below the poverty level.12 A recent report indicated that 39,487 adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are employed but unable to meet the needs of their families.13 Families experiencing intergenerational poverty need to be connected to resources that assist them with employment and job training.14  Job training needs were identified as part of the stakeholder meetings and are a critical component of increasing self-sufficiency for individuals.  The United States Department of Agriculture defines food insecure families as those households that, at times during the year, are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they have insufficient money or other resources for food. Based on information provided by Utahns Against Hunger, August 2018, 12.5% of households struggle to buy enough food for themselves and their households. According to Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap 2018, 12.2% of households in Salt Lake County are food insecure, with 15.4% of children food inse cure in the County.  The 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimate performed by the United States Census Bureau reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake City that reported no internet access. This represents almost 12% of the City’s households. Internet access has been shown to increase student performance for students and to improve the placement rates for unemployed persons seeking employment.  The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has established 12 project areas, 9 of which ar e currently collecting tax increment. These project areas have been established for a variety of reasons, including the elimination of blight, development of affordable housing, economic development opportunities, and public works improvements. Geographica lly, these project areas cover a large portion of the 10 Utah Department of Health, Public Health Indicator Based Information System: Poisoning: Drug Deaths by Utah Small Area, 2014 - 2018, https://ibis.health.utah.gov/ibisph -view/indicator/complete_profile/PoiDth.html 11 Mental Health America, Ranking States, https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states 12 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018, 5-Year Estimates 13 International Welfare Reform Commission, Utah’s Eighth Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty, Welfare Dependency and the Use of Public Assistance, 2019 14 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019 53 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 lowest-income areas of the City. A significant amount of tax increment is generated by these project areas, reaching nearly $34 million in 2018, affording the opportunity to leverage HUD funding with ta x increment in the future. Public Improvements  Salt Lake City will utilize an $87 million General Obligation (GO) Bond to limit the cost to City residents while still addressing street reconstruction. Using a GO Bond will allow the City to utilize its AAA bond rating (highest available) to provide road reconstruction in a more affordable and responsible way. These funds will only be used for street reconstruction and not street maintenance, which will be funded by sales tax dollars.  Salt Lake City increased its sales tax by.5% in 2018. This sales tax increase, also known as Funding Our Future, will support several critical need areas within the City, including Street maintenance. In addition, Salt Lake City Transportation received a .25% County Sales Tax funding stream which will enable Transportation Division to address some of the critical infrastructure and connectivity needs within the city.  It’s estimated that the annual household transportation cost within the City is $12,524 o r about 20% of household income.15 The City may consider increasing the quality of commuting by enhancing bus stops and light rail stations and trains to encourage use of public transportation. This would result in household savings in transportation costs and cleaner air within the City. NA-10 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(a, b, c) SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS Affordable housing needs in Salt Lake City are significant and have been increasing over the past several years. A primary reason is that constructi on costs have been increasing at a far greater rate than wages and thereby placing a greater cost-burden on households. An extremely low vacancy rate of 3.8% in rentals is further exacerbating this problem. The problem is especially severe for those househ olds making less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). A summary of housing needs and conditions is as follows:  Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners . Incomes for both renters and homeowners have increased, but at substantially lower rates as shown in Figure NA-10.1. o The median contract rent increased by 81.8%, but renter incomes only increased by 48.7%; in 2018 the median household income for renter -occupied units was $36,997. o Home values increased by 89.8%, but homeowner incomes only increased by 59.4%. In 2018, the median household income for owner-occupied units was $83,750.16 FIGURE NA-10.1 HOUSING COST INCREASES VS. INCOME INCREASES SINCE 2000 15 Center for Neighborhood Technology , Housing + Transportation Index , https://htaindex.cnt.org/ 16 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 54 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  The Affordability Index, which is a calculation of the median home value divided by the median household income, has increased from 4.2 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2018. This is yet another indication that income increases have not kept pace with the increasing hom e values.  The homeownership rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. In 2000, rental units comprised 48.8% of occupied housing units. In 2018, that percentage increased to 51.6%.17 Therefore, the increasing number of rental units could partially account for the decreasing rate of homeownership. With increasing housing costs, residents may be hesitant to buy homes and are opting to rent despite increasing rental costs.  Many households in Salt Lake City struggle to make their monthly payments and to find affordable rental housing. Of the 39,000 renter households within Salt Lake City, 39.5% are cost-burdened meaning there are about 15,500 renter households who experience difficulty paying their monthly rent. There are also approximately 7,100 homeowners who are cost -burdened and have difficulty meeting their mortgage obligations.  Due to the shortage of units affordable to extremely low -income households (<30% AMI), residents who fall into this category are usually forced to rent housing they cannot afford. Very low -income (<50% AMI) households with high housing costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this category are forced to live in substandard, unhealthy, unsafe, or overcrowded housing. In some cases, the lack of affordable housing can lead to homelessness for some residents.  Since 2000, Salt Lake City has continued to see population growth with roughly 13,95 8 new residents and approximately 9,253 new households. That coupled with high housing costs has reduced the supply of units and increased costs. DEMOGRAPHICS 17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census & 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2000 2018 Median Contract Rent Renter Incomes Home Values Homeowner Incomes 55 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Table NA-10.1 shows the total population, number of households, and median income as reported b y the 2000 and 2010 Censuses. It also shows those same demographics from the most recent American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2014-2018. The percentage of change between 2000 and 2018 has been calculated and included in the table. TABLE NA-10.1 DEMOGRAPHICS: 2000, 2010, AND 2018 2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS % Change 2000 to 2018 Population 181,743 186,440 195,701 7.68% Households 71,461 74,513 80,714 12.95% Median Income $36,944 $44,223 $56,370 52.58% Source: 2000 & 2010 Census, 2014-2018 ACS, ZPFI Since 2000, Salt Lake City has seen slight increases in population. Median income has grown significantly. More growth has occurred between 2010 and 2018 (9,261 persons total or an average of 1,158 persons per year). However, when considering recent population estimates, it is not unreasonable to assume that the population within the City has surpassed 200,000 since the 2018 ACS.18 Interestingly, the White, non -Hispanic category has seen a net decrease of 373 people since 2000, while minorit y groups have increased by 14,331 persons. Figure NA-10.2 shows how this growth has changed the population composition within Salt Lake City since 2000. In 2000, minorities made up just over 29% of the population. That number increased to 34.6% in 2018. FIGURE NA-10.2 RACE AND ETHNICITY SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates As shown in Figure NA-10.3, approximately 38.9% of the City’s population falls in the 20-39 age range. This concentration of young-adults/adults differs from the common demographic makeup of the rest of Salt Lake County where this age range is not as highly represented. The 20-29 age range is particularly concentrated in Salt Lake City where the 20-24 and 25-29 age ranges make up over 20% of the residents. As shown in Figure NA-10.4, the County reports that young adults fitting those same age ranges account for 15.4% of the population. This difference is likely due to the university student population concentrated in Salt Lake City. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division , Annual Estimates of the Residential Population July 1, 2018 128,377 122,325 128,004 53,366 62,163 67,697 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS White, non-Hispanic All Minority 56 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE NA-10.3 SALT LAKE CITY AGE STRUCTURE Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates FIGURE NA-10.4 SALT LAKE COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE 15%10%5%5%10%15% Under 5 Years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over % Male % Female 57 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Table NA-10.2 shows the number and types of households by HUD-Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). TABLE NA-10.2 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI 80%-100% HAMFI > 100% HAMFI Total Households 13,805 11,475 12,995 7,115 30,045 Small Family Households 3,465 3,375 4,315 2,415 13,880 Large Family Households 1,020 1,270 1,055 745 1,735 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 2,385 1,490 1,905 1,020 5,390 Household contains at least one- person age 75 or older 1,455 1,375 1,240 545 1,570 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 2,335 2,170 2,045 925 3,945 Source: 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARY Table NA-10.3 shows the number of households with housing problems by tenure and HAMFI. TABLE NA-10.3 HOUSING PROBLEMS 1: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE OF THE LISTED NEEDS 15%10%5%5%10%15% Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over % Female % Male 58 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Substandard Housing - lacking complete plumbing/kitchen facilities 155 105 35 4 299 60 15 15 4 94 Severely Overcrowded - with >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 240 185 70 15 510 15 30 10 - 55 Overcrowded - with 1.01- 1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 575 485 530 250 1,840 110 195 115 60 480 Housing cost-burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 5,970 1,230 205 - 7,405 1,150 875 375 120 2,520 Housing cost-burden greater than 30% - 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 1,470 4,125 2,160 210 7,965 505 900 1,440 740 3,585 Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems) 1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. Table NA-10.4 displays the number of households which have no housing problems, one or more housing problems, and negative income by tenure and HAMFI. TABLE NA-10.4 HOUSING PROBLEMS 2: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEM Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Having 1 or more of 4 housing problems 6,925 2,005 510 480 9,920 1,335 1,115 840 925 4,215 Having none of four housing problems 2,935 5,860 6,995 2,960 18,750 910 2,500 4,645 3,695 11,750 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% Table NA-10.5 shows cost-burdened households by household type, tenure, and HAMFI. Figure NA-10.5 shows how the current number of households compare to what was reported in the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan. TABLE NA-10.5 COST-BURDEN > 30% 59 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Owner Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total Small Related 2,385 2,125 655 5,165 560 530 765 1,855 Large Related 825 505 185 1,515 140 405 155 700 Elderly 1,460 615 235 2,310 725 620 430 1,775 Other 3,590 2,760 1,390 7,740 400 385 480 1,265 Total 8,260 6,005 2,465 16,730 1,825 1,940 1,830 5,595 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.5 shows that 22,325 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are cost -burdened to the extent that they are paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs. Of these 22,325 households, 16,730 are renter households while 5,595 are homeowner; therefore, nea rly 75% of households with greater than a 30% cost-burden are renting. Figure NA-10.5 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are cost -burdened has changed since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in renter households u nder 50% of HAMFI and a decrease in renter households in the 50 to 80% threshold. While the recent construction market appears to be serving the needs of 50 to 80% fairly well, it has not met the needs of those under 50% of HAMFI. The unmet needs of those under 50% are increasing. FIGURE NA-10.5 COST-BURDEN > 30% IN 2011 AND 2016 Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.6 shows that 10,700 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are severely cost -burdened because they are paying 50% or more of their income on housing costs. Renters account for 8,130 of these households while 2,570 are homeowners. Severely cost -burdened households are at the greatest risk for homelessness. TABLE NA-10.6 COST-BURDEN > 50% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Nu m b e r o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter 60 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Owner Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total Small Related 1,915 475 30 2,420 510 225 95 830 Large Related 620 30 - 650 105 125 20 250 Elderly 1,045 175 45 1,265 410 335 145 890 Other 3,020 650 125 3,795 280 205 115 600 Total 6,600 1,330 200 8,130 1,305 890 375 2,570 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Figure NA-10.6 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are severely cost -burdened has changed since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in households under 30% of HAMFI and a decrease in cost-burdened households in the 30 to 80% thresh old. FIGURE NA-10.6 COST-BURDEN > 50% IN 2011 AND 2016 Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Nu m b e r o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter 61 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Figure NA-10.7 shows a map of the cost-burdened renters within the City by census tract. It shows that most of the cost-burdened renters are located just west of I-15 with more than 50% of renters in the tracts in that area reporting that rental costs constitute more th an 30% of their household income. There are also two tracts to the west of Liberty Park and in the 300 West area from 900 South to 2100 South which report more than 50% of renters as cost-burdened. FIGURE NA-10.7 PERCENT OF RENTERS IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED 62 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Figure NA-10.8 shows a map of the cost-burdened owners with a mortgage within the City by census tract. The percentage of cost-burdened owners is much lower – less than 20%. However, like renters, most of the cost-burdened homeowners are located just west of I-15. These tracts show that 20-30% of owner’s costs are more than 30% of household income. FIGURE NA-10.8 PERCENT OF OWNERS WITH A MORTGAGE IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED 63 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates 64 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Figure NA-10.9 shows the market value of single-family residential units in Salt Lake City. Interestingly, areas with the lowest home values have the highest cost -burden. FIGURE NA-10.9 MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019 Table NA-10.7 shows the number of households considered to be crowded by having more than one person per room. Crowded households are displayed by HAMFI and household type . There are 2,873 households with crowding in Salt L ake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data. TABLE NA-10.7 CROWDING Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Single Family Households 685 535 575 205 2,000 110 170 100 30 410 Multiple, Unrelated Family Households 95 60 4 40 199 15 44 25 30 114 65 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Other, Non - Family Households 40 70 25 15 150 - - - - - Total 820 665 604 260 2,349 125 214 125 60 524 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.8 shows the number of households with children present by having more than one child under the age of 6. There are 7,475 households in Salt Lake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS data. TABLE NA-10.8 HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Households with Children Present 1,955 1,505 1,280 415 5,155 380 665 765 510 2,320 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF SINGLE PERSON HOUSEHO LDS IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE: The needs of single-person households located within Salt Lake City can be difficult to calculate due to the large student population attending the University of Utah. In many cases , these students may have little income, and be living in poverty, while they are enrolled in classes. This can inflate the number of single households living in poverty and facing housing challenges. However, this is a temporary situation for most student s as they generally have the ability to grow their incomes after graduation. Of the 78,229 total households (family and nonfamily) in the City, 27,838 were reported as being nonfamily and living alone. According to these numbers, 35.6% of households in Salt Lake City live alone. This is higher than the national average of 34.2%.19 A portion of the 27,838 single-persons households represent young professionals, students, and other individuals that are not in need of housing assistance. The at-risk single person households in need of housing assistance include working residents earning low wages, residents who are unemployed, and residents who are disabled and cannot work. ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIO LENCE, SEXUAL ASSAUL T AND STALKING AND/OR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: 19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 66 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic -violence in 2018 and has also reported 32 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in 2018 and 16 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 20 In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Uta h domestic violence shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domestic violence shelter system stayed for an average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic violence to overcome including securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental healthcare, and addressing the needs of children. Domestic violence resources currently available in Salt Lake County include shelter services, a children’s justice center, survivor’s assistance programs, and sexual assault programs. The Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) is Salt Lake City’s primary resource for survivors of domestic violence seeking out emergency shelter services. Emergency and extended shelter faci lities are available twenty - four hours a day in a 181-bed facility for women and children fleeing unsafe situations. In addition, the YWCA provides transitional housing for women and dependent children for up to 2 years through a partnership with the Salt Lake City Housing Authority. Eligibility prioritizes women who have experienced intimate partner violence within the last year, qualify under the federal definition of homeless, and are eligible for the services through the Housing Authority. During the 2018-2019 program year, the YWCA provided services for 770 women and children for a total of 37,114 days of service. The Rape Recovery Center provides 24-hour crisis intervention, advocacy, emotional support, and referrals to sexual assault victims, their f amilies, and their friends in 150 languages. The center empowers those victimized by sexual violence through advocacy, crisis intervention, and therapy to educate the community about the cause, impact, and prevention of sexual violence. During the 2018-2019 program year, the Rape Recovery Center served about 268 unduplicated clients in the Salt Lake area living below the poverty level. There was a total of 374 total unduplicated clients served in that same year. The Journey of Hope is a Salt Lake County based organization which provides services to at -risk women in Salt Lake City. It provides support to Utah women whose status puts them at -risk for criminal charges and provides support through mentoring and case management. It also provides job training to allow at-risk women to enter the workforce as educated and productive employees. These services are available to women who are survivors of abuse, experiencing homelessness, survivors of trafficking, struggling with substance abuse or mental illness, and w omen who are on parole or probation. The Journey of Hope assisted just over 400 women in the 2018 - 2019 program year. Persons with Disabilities Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 21,828 residents, or 10.9% of the City’s population, is living with a disability. The City’s elderly population is most affected by disability with 37.6% of residents over the age of 65 experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% the citizens of the City who are 75 years ol d and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability among the elderly is ambulatory difficulty which is defined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.”21 Salt Lake City looks to work collaboratively with partners that provide services for persons with disabilities, which include but are not limited to, Alliance House, Disability Law Center, Aging Services, ASSIST, and others. 20 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Domestic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019. 21 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17, 2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection -acs.html 67 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 22 WHAT ARE THE MOST CO MMON HOUSING PROBLEMS? HUD has defined housing problems and severe housing problems as follows:  Housing Problems o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities o Household lacks complete plumbing facilities o Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room o Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on housing costs  Severe Housing Problems o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities and/or complete plumbing facilities, in addition to one of the following:  Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room  Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on housing costs All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a business license. Landlords are required to maintain minimum standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Cod e. The purpose of the Residential Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the City. The most common housing problem in Salt Lake City is cost -burden of monthly housing costs. Cost burden is a problem among all income groups but is most prevalent among low -income renters. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 45% of renters are cost-burdened, spending at least 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Among homeowners, 25.5% of owners with a m ortgage and 10% of owners without a mortgage were cost -burdened. FIGURE NA-10.10 PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING BY TENURE Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates ARE ANY POPULATIONS/HOUSEHOLD TYPES MORE AFFECTED THAN OTHERS BY THESE PROBLEMS? 13% 41% 23% 22% 26% 48% 18% 8% 72% 18% 5% 5% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Less than 15% 15 to 29.9% 30 to 49.9% 50% or more Renters Owners with a Mortgage Owners without a Mortgage 68 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Housing problems, including cost-burden, are more likely to affect households earning 0 to 50% of the area median income (AMI). Households within this income range struggle to find safe, decent, and affordable housing and often spend a high proportion of their income on housing. These households have limited resources for other basic essentials, including food, healthcare, childcare, and transportation. Housing problems also significantly impact households in the 50 to 80% AMI income groups, elderly households, and single- parent households. The high rate of housing cost -burden and other housing problems points to the need to expand affordable housing opportunities throughout Salt Lake City. Healthcare costs have been rising and are projected to do so in the near term.23 This can add significantly to the burden of rising housing costs and reduce a household’s ability to save for retirement, obtain additional education, access good childcare, and even impact such basic needs as good nutrition. DESCRIBE THE CHARACTE RISTICS AND NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME) WHO ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED BUT THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS. ALSO D ISCUSS THE NEEDS OF FORMERLY HOMELESS FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RECEIVING RAPID RE -HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND ARE NEARING THE TERMINATION OF THAT ASSISTANCE. In Salt Lake County, the largest group experiencing homelessness is adult -only households. The number of households with both adults and children experiencing ho melessness in 2018 decreased by about 36% between 2014 and 2019. The number of unaccompanied youths experiencing homelessness decreased by about 85% over the same time period.24 Those transitioning out of assistance need continued counseling and often financial support to not revert back into homelessness. When they can, area service providers try to offer this support. However, the stakeholder meetings conducted as part of this Consolidated Plan revealed that caseloads are too high and that services are spread too thin due to a lack of funds and a shortage of a highly -skilled workforce. This results in lack of sufficient support for counseling, job training and guidance, and assistance with behavioral health issues. It is a critical time period for tho se transitioning out of assistance and homelessness, when support services are most essential in order to embark upon, and maintain, self -sufficiency. This Plan recognizes a critical need in this area and proposes strategies to strengthen support for vulne rable populations at critical junctures in their lifetimes. IF A JURISDICTION PROVIDES ESTIMATES OF THE AT-RISK POPULATION(S), IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE AT -RISK GROUP AND THE METHODOLOGY USED TO GENERATE THE ESTIMATES. According to HUD, at risk of homelessness25 is defined as an individual or family who: i. Has an annual income below 30% of median family income for the area; AND 23 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 24 2014 and 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time 25 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, At Risk of Homelessness, https://files. hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AtRiskofHomelessnessDefinition_Criteria.pdf 69 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 ii. Does not have sufficient resources or support networks immediately available to prev ent them from moving to an emergency shelter or another place defined in Category 1 of the “homeless” definition; 26 AND iii. Meets ONE of the following conditions: A. Has moved because of economic reasons two or more times during the 60 days immediately preceding the application for assistance; OR B. Is living in the home of another because of economic hardship; OR C. Has been notified that their right to occupy their current housing or living situation will be terminated within 21 days after the date of application for assistance; OR D. Lives in a hotel or motel and the cost is not paid for by charitable organizations or by Federal, State, or local government programs for low -income individuals; OR E. Lives in an SRO or efficiency apartment unit in which there reside more than two persons or lives in a larger housing unit in which there reside more than one and a half persons per room; OR F. Is exiting a publicly funded institutio n or system of care; OR G. Otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and an increased risk of homelessness, as identified in the recipient’s approved consolidated plan SPECIFY PARTICULAR H OUSING CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAV E BEEN LINKED WITH INSTABILITY AND AN INCREASED RISK OF HOMELESSNESS The greatest predictor of homelessness risk is severe cost-burden on households. Households paying more than 50% of their income towards housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% of AMI are at the greatest risk to experience homelessness. DISCUSSION The most prevalent housing problem is cost -burden – especially for those who make less than 50% of AMI. While Salt Lake City has seen a significant shift to smaller apartment units (i.e., less bedrooms), there is still significant need for all housing types for the severely cost -burdened. Residents who fall into this category are usually forced to secure housing they cannot afford. Very low -income families burdened with high housing costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this category are forced to share housing, causing overcrowded housing conditions. The lack of affordable housing can lead to homelessness for our most vulnerable residents. The City, through efforts of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, the City’s Redevelopment Agency, and community partners, aim to address housing problems by preserving existing affordable housing, increasing the supply of affordable housing, and improving substandard housing with a focus in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty. These efforts will effectively reduce the incidence of overcrowding and cost -burden. NA-15 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2) INTRODUCTION 26 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Homeless Definition, http://ctagroup.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/Homeless-Definition-and-documentation.pdf 70 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 This section provides an assessment of housing problems (not including severe housing problems which are discussed in the following section) by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. HUD defines housing problems as the following:  Household lacks complete kitchen facilities  Household lacks complete plumbing facilities  Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room  Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on ho using costs According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. Tables NA-15.1- NA-15.8 show the number of households with housing problems by income, race, and ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level. TABLE NA-15.1 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 5,860 1,580 885 70% Black/African American 470 10 70 85% Asian 610 49 295 64% American Indian, Alaska Native 240 50 - 83% Pacific Islander 270 - - 100% Hispanic 2,630 180 310 84% Total 10,235 1,870 1,700 74% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. While a significant number of households in this income category have one -or more housing problems, this percentage is fairly consistent with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. TABLE NA-15.2 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 9,560 76% 10,235 74% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.3 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME 71 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 4,980 2,475 - 67% Black/African American 335 19 - 95% Asian 340 190 - 64% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 30 - 40% Pacific Islander 135 50 - 73% Hispanic 2,230 525 - 81% Total 8,140 3,335 - 71% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.4 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 6,720 70% 8,140 71% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.5 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 3,245 5,970 - 35% Black/African American 100 114 - 47% Asian 160 360 - 31% American Indian, Alaska Native 130 80 - 62% Pacific Islander 95 80 - 54% Hispanic 1,140 1,225 - 48% Total 4,950 8,045 - 38% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.6 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 72 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 5,345 37% 4,950 38% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.7 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 865 4,515 - 16% Black/African American 10 110 - 8% Asian 34 145 - 19% American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0% Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50% Hispanic 415 785 - 35% Total 1,405 5,710 - 20% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.8 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2011 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 2,095 24% 1,405 20% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS DISCUSSION The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Tables NA 15.1 to NA 15.8 were conducted with a sample size of 45,390 households to analyze housing problems. Out of the total sample 24,730 households or 54.5% had one or more of the four housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative income but none of the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing problems by income level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic gr oups is extremely small, thereby producing unreliable results.  0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had o ne or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders showed the highest disproportionate need with 100% reporting at least one housing problem.  30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,475 households with low -income. This group made up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Black/African American households showed the highest 73 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 disproportionate need with 95% reporting at least one housing problem and the Hispanic house holds also showed a high disproportionate need with 81% reporting at least one housing problem.  50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,995 households with moderate income. This group made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households i n this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, American Indian/Alaska Native households showed the highest disproportionate need with 62% reporting at least one housing problem.  80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,115 households with middle income. This group made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem. NA-20 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: SEVE RE HOUSING PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2) INTRODUCTION This section provides an assessment of severe housing problems by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. HUD defines severe housing problems as a household that lacks complete kitchen facilities, lacks complete plumbing facilities, in addition to one of the following:  Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room  Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on housing costs Tables NA-20.1 – 20.4 display the number of households with severe housing problems by income, race and ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level. TABLE NA-20.1 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 4,565 2,870 885 55% Black/African American 405 75 70 74% Asian 545 115 295 57% American Indian, Alaska Native 160 130 - 55% Pacific Islander 265 4 - 99% Hispanic 2,160 650 310 69% Total 8,260 3,845 1,700 60% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.2 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 1,755 5,705 - 24% 74 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems Black/African American 195 160 - 55% Asian 165 365 - 31% American Indian, Alaska Native - 50 - 0% Pacific Islander 35 150 - 19% Hispanic 940 1,815 - 34% Total 3,120 8,360 - 27% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.3 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 715 8,500 - 8% Black/African American 14 200 - 7% Asian 50 470 - 10% American Indian, Alaska Native 60 155 - 28% Pacific Islander 55 120 - 31% Hispanic 455 1,915 - 19% Total 1,350 11,640 - 10% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.4 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 200 5,185 - 4% Black/African American 10 110 - 8% Asian 15 165 - 8% American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0% Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50% Hispanic 180 1,020 - 15% Total 465 6,655 - 7% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% DISCUSSION 75 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Tables NA 20.1 to NA 20.4 were conducted with a sample size of 45,395 households to analyze severe housing needs. Out of the total sample 13,195 households or 29.1% had one or more of the four severe housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative income but none of the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing problems by income level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic groups is extremely small, thereby producing unreliable results.  0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders showed the highest disproportionate need with 99% reporting at least one severe housing problem.  30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,480 households with low -income. This group made up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Hispanic households showed the highest disproportionate need with 55% reporting at least one severe housing problem.  50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,990 households with moderate income. Thi s group made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 31% reporting at least one severe housing problem.  80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,120 households with middle income. This group made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem. NA-25 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING COST BURDENS – 91.205(b)(2) INTRODUCTION This section provides an assessment of housing cost burdens by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points highe r than the percentage of persons in category as a whole. Table 25.1 shows the number of cost-burdened households by race and ethnicity. Data is broken down by no cost-burden (less than 30%), cost-burden (30-50%), severe cost-burden (50% or more) and no/negative income. TABLE NA-25.1 HOUSING COST-BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 76 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0 - 30% 30% - 50% >50% No/Negative Income (Not Computed) Number Share of Total Number Share of Total Number Share of Total White 39,765 71% 8,745 16% 6,665 12% 930 Black/African American 545 36% 300 20% 590 39% 70 Asian 2,120 59% 480 13% 680 19% 300 American Indian, Alaska Native 355 52% 170 25% 160 23% - Pacific Islander 430 49% 200 23% 245 28% - Hispanic 5,490 48% 3,160 27% 2,545 22% 310 Total 49,360 65% 13,290 18% 11,045 15% 1,750 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS DISCUSSION Similar to the 2015-2019 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan, cost-burden continues to be the most prevalent housing problem in Salt Lake City. Of the 75,445 households included in the sample, 32.26% of all households are shown as being cost-burdened. Black/African American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households all have a higher prevalence of cost-burden with over 50% of all households that report spending 30% or more on housing costs. Renter-occupied households also show a significant cost -burden with 39.5% of all renter occupied units reportedly are cost-burdened. NA-30 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: DISCUSSION – 91.205 (b)(2) ARE THERE ANY INCOME CATEGORIES IN WHICH A RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP HAS DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED THAN THE NEEDS OF THAT INCOME CATEGORY AS A WHOLE? Based on 2012-2016 CHAS data, the following racial and ethnic groups experience disproportionately greater housing needs:  Black/African American  American Indian/Alaskan Native  Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander  Hispanic/Latino Salt Lake City has evaluated disproportionate needs across racial and ethnic populations and household compositions. In general, low -income households, which are disproportionately com prised of racial and ethnic minorities, are more likely to experience housing needs. Figure NA-30.1 demonstrates the variation in per capita income across racial and ethnic groups in Salt Lake City. FIGURE NA-30.1 PER CAPITA INCOME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 77 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Census data indicates that 13.9% of the City’s White, non-Hispanic population is living below the poverty level, while 28.1% of Hispanics and 32.7% of Black/African American populations are living below the poverty level. Racial and ethnic children are more likely to live in poverty than their White , non-Hispanic counterparts, as many of the City’s racial and ethnic minorities are children. The media n age of the City’s White, non -Hispanic population is 35.2 while the median age of the Hispanic population is 26.3.27 IF THEY HAVE NEEDS NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE, WHAT ARE THOSE NEEDS? Considerable efforts are needed to improve housing opportunity to address t he needs of minorities, with focus on minorities living in concentrated areas of poverty. Minorities face housing impediments on several fronts, including few rental opportunities for large families, a high risk of predatory lending practices, and a high r isk for housing discrimination. Gaps in access to housing opportunity and economic opportunity are likely to widen as the City’s demographics continue to shift. Therefore, Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to improve housing opportunity and is in the process of developing and implementing a multifaceted strategy to address needs. The City is collaborating with Salt Lake County, local municipalities and community partners to define and address regional issues and priorities. Through outreach , partnership building, workforce training, early childhood education, and other efforts, the City will expand capacity within neighborhoods to take a comprehensive and proactive role in redevelopment efforts. Efforts will focus on two areas: 1) expanding opportunity in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project investment areas; and 2) diversifying the housing stock throughout the City to expand affordable housing opportunities. ARE ANY OF THOSE RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUPS LOCATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS OR NEIGHBORHOODS IN YOUR COMMUNITY? Figure 30.2 demonstrates that the vast majority of the City’s minority population lives west of Interstate 15 with many of the block groups located in west -side neighborhoods having a minority share above 50%. The City’s overall population growth between 1990 and 2010 can be attributed to minority populations, with minorities increasing in share from 17.4% in 1990 to 29.4% in 2000 and then to 33.3% in 2010. The rate of increase in population share has slowed recently, as the min ority population only increased by 0.8% between 27 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. $40,992 $17,195 $13,709 $29,621 $15,777 $13,585 $18,339 $16,729 $34,711 $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Alone American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino Jurisdiction as a Whole Per Capita Income 78 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2010 and 2017 to 34.1%. Hispanics/Latinos represent the largest minority group in the City, increasing in share from 9.7% in 1990 to 22.3% in 2010 and decreasing slightly to 21.3% in 2017. In comparing the east and west sides of the City, there are significant differences in socioeconomic status with a gap in opportunity for those generally living on the west side. Both minority renter and minority owner - occupied households are more concentrated west of I-15. Minority populations are more likely than White, non-Hispanic to be low-income renter households, as Citywide minority homeownership rates are 11 percentage points lower than rates for White, non -Hispanic residents. However, the minority share of owner- occupied units is significantly higher west of I-15. A majority of the housing stock affordable to low and moderate-income residents is located on the west side. FIGURE NA- 30.2 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP POPULATION THAT IS MINORITY, SALT LAKE CITY 2017 Sou rce: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates NA-35 PUBLIC HOUSING – 91.205(b) INTRODUCTION 79 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordabl e housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties emphasizing safe, decent, and affordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC maintains a strong financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continued access to affordable tax credits, foundations, and grant resources. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and below). This program provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low -income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless cl ients. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Oppo rtunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelter plus Care Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional qualified program participants. TABLE NA-35.1 PUBLIC HOUSING TOTALS IN USE* Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled # of units/vouchers in use 99 369 2,536 279 1,704 133 59 361 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTS 80 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Program Type Mod-Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program # Homeless at admission 18 23 381 190 82 108 1 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 16 285 628 118 454 54 2 # of Disabled Families 71 162 1,286 221 937 123 5 # of Families requesting accessibility features NA NA NA NA NA NA NA # of HIV/AIDS program participants NA NA NA NA NA NA NA # of DV victims NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.3 RACE OF RESIDENTS Race Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled White 78 296 1,571 233 920 119 45 254 Black/African American 16 24 295 17 227 15 5 31 Asian 1 25 57 6 45 0 0 6 American Indian, Alaska Native 4 4 53 20 22 5 2 4 Pacific Islander 0 4 33 3 29 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.4 ETHNICITY OF RESIDENTS Ethnicity Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled Hispanic 11 59 385 32 218 7 27 101 Not Hispanic 88 310 1,684 247 1,019 126 32 260 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 SECTION 504 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBE T HE NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS AND APPLICANTS ON THE WAITING LIST FOR ACCESSIBLE UNITS: 81 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Administratively the Housing Authority makes every effort to comply with Section 504 requireme nts on a continual basis. Their self -evaluation resulted in the following summary of measures, administrative actions, motivations, procedures, or adoption of policies in order to comply.  Placing notices of compliance in the legal section of local newspap ers.  Maintaining a general mailing list of organizations concerned with and offering assistance to people with disabilities.  Providing assistance to people with disabilities in filling out forms and applications, obtaining translators when needed, and havi ng staff available to read or sign if required.  Providing the Equal Housing Opportunity (EHO) statement on housing materials and Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) statement on employment applications and job announcements.  Conducting 504 compliance orientations for new employees and ongoing training for all staff.  Maintaining a list of all Reasonable Accommodation requests.  Assigning the Compliance Manager as the official person to coordinate and deal with 504 issues.  Adopting of grievance procedures by their Board of Commissioners. WHAT ARE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES ON THE WAITING LIST FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE (SECTION 8) T ENANT -BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE? The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City reports that there are currently 1,865 households on the Housing Choice waiting list and 5,188 on the Public Housing waiting list. There is a total of 7,053 households on both lists. Of the households on both lists, 27% are elderly, and 53% have a disability. There are 14% Hispanic, 78% are White, non-Hispanic, 13% are African American, 3% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 3% are Asian, 3% are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 4% are Multi -Racial, and 1% are unknown. The waiting list is currently not open. An applicant for voucher funding can expect to be on the wait list for approximately 1 to 6 years. Housing Connect (Salt Lake County Housing Authority) also provided information on the waiting lists for public housing and Housing Choice TBRA. Within Salt Lake County, there are 15,981 households on the waiting list for public housing. Of those households, 2% have a disability, 11% are elderly, 22% have children, and 51% are single. The average annual income is $15,399 and 77% are extremely low -income. The average wait is about 2 years, but it varies depending on bedroom size. In Salt Lake County, there are 447 households on the waiting list for Housing Choice. Of these households, 93 have a disability, 21 are elderly, 233 are single, and 110 have children. The average annual income is $12,954 and 90% are extremely low -income. The average wait time is 6 years. It should be noted that within the County’s data, households on the waiting list are required to self -report a disability and this may have resulted in a lower percentage of d isabled households in the data. BASED ON THE INFORMATION ABOVE AND ANY O THER INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE JURISDICTION, WHAT ARE THE MOST IMMEDIAT E NEEDS OF RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE V OUCHER HOLDERS? 82 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transportation, quality education, healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increase overall self - sufficiency. HOW DO THESE NEEDS COMPARE TO THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE PO PULATION AT LARGE? Salt Lake City is experiencing a high demand for multi -family rental units as evidenced by the overall low vacancy rates in the City. This demand has resulted in an increase in the number of new market rate units being constructed throughout the City. The need for quality affordable housing scattered throughout the City has become greater as the overall demand for rental housing has grown. Because land and development are more expensive on the east side of Salt Lake City, there are fewer naturally occurring affordable housing units on the east side. This leads to additional subsidy and creating affordable housing financing needing to be deployed for developments occurring on the east side of the city. Even with significant public investmen t to subsidize and stimulate the production of affordable housing, the supply is not meeting demand. DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City will continue to work with the Housing Connect and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to leverage and strategically target resources to address increasing housing needs. The number of households on waiting lists is significant, especially for the elderly and those with disabilities. Further, the short supply of rental units and low vacancy rates has exacerbated the need for a dditional affordable rental housing. NA-40 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(c) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Cares (COC) executive board and its prioritization committee to ensure the Continuum of Cares priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and COC activities to make sure services are not being over or under funded and services being funded mee t the community’s needs and goals. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the State are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Currently, HMIS is supported by Client Track. Salt Lake Continuum of Care conducts an annual Point -in-Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI -SPDAT to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. A number of critical reports define n ot only the issues facing the homeless but likely solutions to these issues. The most recent report is The State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness September 2019. Priorities of this Plan include:  Fewer days spent in emergency beds or shelters  Fewer persons returning to homelessness  Fewer first-time individuals who experience homelessness  More persons successfully retaining housing 83 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 This study also found that there are service gaps in the following areas:  Affordable housing, permanent supportive housi ng, and emergency beds  Mental health services and substance abuse disorder treatment  Case management  Prevention, diversion and outreach services  Data systems that capture more of the full story  Available transportation Essential facts about homelessness in Utah include:  As of January 2018, Utah had an estimated 2,876 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that total, 287 were family households, 239 were Veterans, 191 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 306 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.  Per State of Utah Annual Report on homelessness, there were 14,289 persons that experienced homelessness state wide in 2019. 9,387 were located in Salt Lake County.  Public school data reported to the U.S. Department of Education during the 2016 -2017 school year shows that an estimated 15,094 public school students experienced homelessness over the course of the year. Of that total, 636 students were unsheltered, 994 were in shelters, 459 were in hotels/motels, and 13,005 were doubled up. According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844 homeless individuals, representing nearly 66% of homelessness in the State. 193 of these individuals are unsheltered.  .09% of Utah’s population is homeless  29% of our homeless live in family groups of parents and children  Youth between the ages of 18 and 24 comprise 7% of our homeless population  Domestic violence impacts 22.1% of our homeless population  11% of the homeless population in Utah is experiencing “chronic” homelessness  55% of our homeless population is White TABLE NA-40.1 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # of incoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) - 526 N/A N/A N/A N/A 84 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # of incoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Only Children - 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons in Households with Only Adults 193 1,122 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Individuals 86 281 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Families - 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A Veterans 12 145 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unaccompanied Youth 19 95 N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons with HIV 1 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time TABLE NA-40.2 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - UNSHELTERED Population 2014 2019 Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 5 - Persons in Households with Only Children - - Persons in Households with Only Adults 105 193 Chronically Homeless Individuals 25 86 Veterans 15 12 Unaccompanied Youth - 19 Persons with HIV - 1 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time TABLE NA-40.3 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - SHELTERED Population 2014 2019 Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 813 526 Persons in Households with Only Children 2 3 Persons in Households with Only Adults 1,178 1,122 Chronically Homeless Individuals 265 281 Veterans 260 145 Unaccompanied Youth 616 95 Persons with HIV 49 13 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time Homelessness has declined significantly since 2014 for unaccompanied youth. The Salt Lake City & Salt Lake County have made efforts to target this population and these efforts are showin g positive results. TABLE NA-40.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS 85 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Population Unsheltered Sheltered Race White 151 1,198 Black or African American 12 191 Asian 2 35 American Indian or Alaska Native 13 84 Pacific Islander 2 63 Multiple Races 13 80 Ethnicity Hispanic 34 392 Not Hispanic 159 1,259 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES OF VETERANS. Salt Lake County has 150 families (526 individuals) and 157 veterans experiencing homelessness, with no known veteran families. The primary tool to help these families is rapid re -housing to reduce the time families experience homelessness to as short as possible. Families traditionally experience homelessness for short periods of time following cataclysmic events. Continuing the rapid re -housing program, coupled with homeless prevention efforts, will help families while they experience these cata strophic times. DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP. The majority of individuals experiencing homelessness are White, non -Hispanic (1,349). The second largest group is Hispanic (426), followed by Black/African America n (203) and American Indian/Alaska Native (97). This is similar to the makeup of Salt Lake City where White, non -Hispanic accounts for 73.7% of the population, Hispanic (21.3%), Black/African American (2.0%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3%). DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF UNSHELTERE D AND SHELTERED HOME LESSNESS Salt Lake City has 1,651individuals who are sheltered and 193 unsheltered homeless individuals. The Salt Lake homeless services community does a good job sheltering homeless individuals. However, it must continue to work to move people out of emergency shelters and transitional housing and into permanent stable housing. NA-45 NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEE DS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(b, d) INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the needs of non -homeless special populations to include the elderly, persons with disabilities (including physical, mental, developmental, as well as persons with chronic substance abuse disorders), persons living with HIV/AIDS, survivors of dating/domestic violence, single -parent households, large family households, and immigrants. TABLE NA-45.1 HIV AND HOPWA REPORT: 2013 - 2017 86 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Current HOPWA formula use: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cumulative cases of AIDS reported 1,995 2,009 2,037 2,080 2,094 Area incidence of AIDS 34 24 33 32 22 Rate per population 3.2% 2.2% 2.8% 2.7% 1.8% Current HIV Surveillance data: Area Prevalence (PLWH per 100,000 population) 168.5 168.6 160.6 162.2 162.6 Number of new HIV cases reported last year 67 95 74 101 83 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance TABLE NA-45.2 HIV HOUSING NEEDS Type of HOPWA Assistance Estimates of Unmet Need Tenant Based Rental Assistance 57 Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility 36 Facility Based Housing (Permanent, Short -Term, or Transitional 0 Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet DESCRIBE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY: A description of special needs populations in Salt Lake City is as follows: Elderly Salt Lake City has continued to be home to a younger populace as compared to the population of the rest of the United States. The Census Bureau tracks a metric called the “Old -Age Dependency Ratio” which measures the number of people aged 65 and older to every 100 work ing age people. In this case, working age is defined as anyone between the ages of 20 and 64. Table NA-45.3 compares the City’s ratio to those in the county, state, and national levels and shows that Salt Lake City has a higher share of working age residen ts compared to those who are 65 years and older. TABLE NA-45.3 2018 OLD-AGE (65+) DEPENDENCY RATIO Senior Dependency Ratio Salt Lake City 15.8 Salt Lake County 16.6 Utah 17.7 United States 24.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Another factor that will need to be considered is the expected growth in the elderly population. The elderly population has increased by just over 20,000 people between the 2010 Census and the 2014-2018 ACS 5-year estimates. As shown in Table NA-45.4, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute currently projects the elderly population to increase at a substantially greater rate moving forward. They project that the elderly population will account for 14.5% of Salt Lake County’s population by 2030 with t he trend continuing until almost one in every five residents will be considered elderly. This expected increase will have large impacts on housing demand, transportation, healthcare services and other supportive services. TABLE NA-45.4 87 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2018-2050 POPULATION PROJECTION, SALT LAKE COUNTY SENIOR (65+) Year Total Population Population 65+ 65+ Share 2018 ACS (most recent) 1,120,805 114,930 10.25% 2030 1,306,414 190,082 14.55% 2050 1,531,282 294,113 19.21% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Demographics and Housing Estimates, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute FIGURE NA- 45.1 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP RESIDENTS THAT ARE SENIORS, SALT LAKE CITY - 2017 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Persons with Disabilities Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 10.9% of the City’s population is living with a disability. It is also estimated that 21,828 citizens have a disability. The City’s elderly population is most affected by disability with 37.6% experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% the citizens of the City who are 75 years old and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability among the elderly is ambulatory diffic ulty which is defined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty 88 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 walking or climbing stairs.”28 A complete breakdown of the percentage of citizens aged 65 years old and older who are experiencing these disabilities is shown in Figure NA-45.2. FIGURE NA-45.2 SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 65+ Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics The younger population experiences a much smaller percentage of disability. For residents ranging in age from 18 to 64 years old, only 8.8% of the population has a disability. The most common disability is cognitive difficulty, which effects 4.4% of this age group. Second is ambulatory difficulty effecting 3.4% and independent living difficulty effecting 2.7%. Figure NA-45.3 shows the complete list of disabilities and percentages. FIGURE NA-45.3 SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 18-64 YEAR-OLDS Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics Female-Headed Households with Children In Salt Lake City, there are 6,743 households headed by single females, with no husband present. Of that group, 3,822 of these households have children under the age of 18 years old present in the home.29 These households frequently face many uniqu e and significant challenges that other populations do not currently face. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Salt Lake City’s family poverty rate is 10.6%, while the single-mother household poverty rate is 40.7%. 28 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17, 2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/d isability/guidance/data-collection -acs.html 29 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 7.2% 6.7% 9.0% 14.7% 17.6% 21.9% 0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0% Self-Care Difficulty Vision Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Hearing Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty 1.2% 1.4% 1.8% 2.7% 3.4% 4.4% 0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0% Self-Care Difficulty Hearing Difficulty Vision Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty 89 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Single female-headed households with children often lack the resources necessary to find adequate childcare or job training services. This in turn impacts the woman’s ability to provide stable housing and care for her children. If a mother is able to find work and childcare, the rising cost of childcare further diminishes single mothers’ paychecks. There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092 available slots reported in childcare programs. 30 This means there are at least two additional children in need of childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey reported that the main reason families had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with t he second most common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%). Immigrants and Refugees Salt Lake City’s thriving economy, including strong wage growth, educational opportunities, and availability of services attracts immigrants from around the world. Since opening in 1994, the International Rescue Committee’s Salt Lake City branch has resettled over 11,000 individuals from roughly 26 countries, with an average of about 450 individuals settled each year in the Salt Lake City over the past 5 years. Besid es refugee resettlement, Salt Lake City attracts immigrants for job opportunities, university studies, and family connections. According to the 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 32,709 (16.7%) of Salt Lake City’s 195,701 residents are foreign born. Victims of Dating and Domestic Violence The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic violence in 2018 and has also reported 19 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in 201 8 and 10 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 31 In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Utah domestic violence shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domest ic violence shelter system stayed for an average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic violence to overcome including securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental healthc are, and addressing the needs of children. Large-Family Households A large family is defined as having five or more members. According to the Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity Assessment, the number of large-family households receiving public assistance in Salt Lake City in 2019 totaled 9,991. The vast majority of large-family households receiving public assistance reside on the City’s west side in zip codes 84104 and 84116, with over 55% of the large-family households receiving public assistance residing in these zip codes.32 Persons with HIV/AIDS A report published by the Utah Department of Health indicates that 3,169 persons were living with HIV/AIDS in the State of Utah in December 2016. For nearly a decade, the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV in Utah declined steadily until 2011. After Utah experienced a large decrease in the number of cases during 2010, HIV infections have increased each year. During 2017, 83 people in the metropolitan statistical area were diagnosed with HIV. The cumulative number of AIDS cases reached 2,094, and the diagnosis rate was 1.8% per 100,000 population.33 30 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. 31 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Domestic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019. 32 Utah Department of Workforce Services: Research & Analysis 33 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance 90 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Medical and supportive resources for persons with HIV/AIDS are concentrated in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Therefore, the majority of Utah’s population w ith HIV/AIDS comes to Salt Lake City for medical treatment and services. This places a burden on local resource delivery systems aimed at providing stable housing, supportive services, and case management for these individuals. WHAT ARE THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE NEEDS OF THESE POPULATIONS AND HOW ARE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? The housing and supportive service needs of special populations was determined through focus groups with public service stakeholders, an evaluation of data derived from organ izations who work with these populations, and other local and national data sources. Needs are as follows: Elderly The housing and supportive service needs of Salt Lake City’s elderly population will increase as the baby boomer generation continues to age. Elderly residents have a greater need for housing maintenance and rehabilitation assistance than the population as a whole. The areas of the City where elderly populations are concentrated, the East Bench and upper Avenues neighborhoods, contain an older and mostly single-family housing stock. There is a need to retrofit, update, and provide accessibility modifications for housing units occupied by elderly residents to allow them the opportunity to age in place. In addition to housing assistance, elderly populations are in need of in -home medical care, food services, and transportation services. Persons with Disabilities Affordable, stable, long-term housing is the most critical need for persons with mental, physical, and/or development disabilities, as w ell as persons suffering from addiction. Persons with mental, physical, developmental, and substance abuse disabilities are more likely to experience housing instability and homelessness than the population as a whole. According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018 Point -in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in Utah is severely mentally ill, and one in four have a substance abuse disorder. Additionally, individuals who experience homelessness are less likely to access healthcare systems and to suffer from preventable diseases. A large portion of the City’s disabled population deals with ambulatory difficulties. Approximately 44.8% of residents reporting a disability indicat e that at least one of their disabilities is ambulatory. Just under one in every 20 residents in Salt Lake City has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.34 Accommodations for those experiencing these difficulties will necessitate more accessible un its with easier access to buildings. Female-Headed Households with Children More long-term stable housing is needed to address the needs of low -income female-headed households with children, as well as job training, employment placement services, and chil dcare opportunities There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092 available slots reported in childcare programs.35 This means there are at least two additional children in need of childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey reported that the main reason families across the nation had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with the second most common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%). This, combined with the State’s childcare discrepancy, indicates that there is an increased need for more affordable and available childcare services to allow female-headed households to provide for their children. 34 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 35 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. 91 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Immigrants and Refugees Immigrants and refugees come with many needs, including affordable housing, cultural orientation services, healthcare, legal assistance, and transportation. There are many barriers to affordable housing for this group, including language, lack of credit hi story, and lack of income/employment history. As such, immigrants and refugees are at high risk for homelessness and housing discrimination. Services needed for immigrants and refugees include a path to self -sufficiency. Such services may include language training, employment assistance, and assistance with locating housing and transportation. Resettlement programs, currently provided through the Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah, Catholic Community Services and International Rescu e Committee take a comprehensive approach to the long-term outcomes of resettlement. Survivors of Dating/Domestic Violence Because survivors of domestic violence often reside with their abuser, they are at high risk for homelessness. Many survivors resist leaving abusive situations because they do not have the income, training, or resources to acquire their own housing. Emergency and transitional housing is especially important to this group in order to provide them with a place to escape the cycle of abus e while they work to attain self -sufficiency. In addition, many survivors are in need of supportive services to address physical and mental trauma. Large-Family Households The City has seen a decrease in housing stock for large families. In 2013, 8.4% of all rentals had 4 or more bedrooms; this number declined to 6.7% by 2018. The percentage of 2-3 bedroom rental units increased indicating that smaller housing units are being built. Persons with HIV/AIDS Achieving housing stability is often difficult for persons with HIV/AIDS because of problems with substance abuse and physical or mental health issues. These challenges can also make it difficult for these persons to obtain and maintain employment that provides a stable source of income for housing. Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is committed to ensuring HOPWA project sponsors work together in a coordinated, collaborative, and flexible manner to effectively serve HOPWA program participants. This includes supporting efforts for HOPWA-assisted households to access and maintain housing, medical treatment, and sources of income. Project sponsors network with each other to alleviate identified barriers and promote an environment that ensures HOPWA clients are in treatment and ha ve access to safe, decent, and affordable housing. Clients with mental and substance abuse disorders can receive case management services through Utah AIDS Foundation to obtain further access to services. DISCUSS THE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF T HE POPULATION WITH HIV/AIDS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITHIN THE ELIGIBLE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA: Utah has seen a declining rate of individuals diagnosed with HIV who have ever been classified as stage 3 (AIDS). In 2012, there were 3.9 new cases of HIV/AIDS per 100,000 population according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance. According to this same source, in 2017 the rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In 2012, 110 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, according to the Utah Department of Health .36 In 2017, 83 new HIV cases were reported.37 36 Utah Department of Health, Utah HIV Fact Sheet, 2013. 37 United States Centers for Diseases Control, HIV Surveillance Report 2017 92 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Although Utah has seen slightly declining rates in new cases of HIV, there is significant racial disparity in the prevalence of new HIV cases. In 2015, 26.7% of new HIV cases were for Hispanic or Latino indivi duals who only account for 13.7% of the population in Utah. FIGURE NA-45.4 ESTIMATED ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS DIAGNOSED WITH HIV BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2015 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah – 2015 State Health Profiles https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdf/Utah_profile.pdf FIGURE NA-45.5 PERCENT OF NEW CASES WITH AIDS AT HIV DIAGNOSIS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2017 Source: Utah Department of Health, Utah HIV Factsheethttp://health.utah.gov/epi/diseases/hivaids/surveillance/HIV_2017_report.pdf The number of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV already progressed to AIDS at the time of diagnosis was significantly skewed to Hispanic and Asian individuals, as demonstrated in Table NA 45.5. It should be noted 24% 0% 50% 8% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Hispanic American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Black Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander White Multi-Race Unknown White, 58.6% Hispanic/Latino, 26.7% Black/African American, 6.9% Asian, 6% American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.7% 93 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 that there were only 6 total new HIV diagnoses of Asian individuals in 2017, so 50% indicates 3 individuals were also diagnosed at Stage 3 (AIDS) at their initial diagnosis. Meanwhile, there were 38 individuals of Hispanic ethnicity who were diagnosed with HIV in 2017 and 9 of those individuals were also diagnosed with Stage 3 (AIDS). NA-50 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT NEEDS – 91.215(f) DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES: Police and Fire Because of significant contributions to police and fire infrastructure during the past decade, public safety is not currently considered a top priority community development need. During that time period, Salt Lake City constructed a $125 million Public Safety Building which is shared with the City’s Fire Department and which is meeting the need for future growth -related police officers. Public safety also receives impact fees which will help to offset any future capital facility needs associated with new growth in the City. HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Parks and Public Lands In order to m aintain the current level of service, Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division plans to invest approximately $38.7 million between 2017 and 2027. These costs should be offset by impact fees related to new growth. The Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division participated in developing an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years (2012 -2021) to continue the current level of service and accommodate the service needs of projected growth. Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division currently owns 2,378 park acres with an estimated land value of $210,134,805 and improvements value of $96,351,475. These assets are used to provide the current level of service which equates to an investment of $1,594 per capita. Transportation In order to maintain the current level of service Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to invest approximately $303,200,600 in capital facilities over the next ten years, $41,805,960 of which is growth related, and therefore eligible to be paid for with impact fees. The remaining amount is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and therefore is not impact fee eligible. The remaining amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. The City has issued an $87 million bond to pay for street improvements. HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City. 94 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions participated in the development of an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) in 2016, reflecting growth from 2017 to 2027, and that identified the capital facilities the City will need to build within the 10-year timeframe to continue the current level of service and accommodate the service needs of projected growth. The bulk of the transportation improvements will be paid for with an $87 million bond issued by Salt Lake City, supplemented by impact fees. Therefore, street improvements are not considered to be a top priority of this Plan. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FO R PUBLIC SERVICES: The major need for public services is for affordable housing and for homeless services. Related to these two overarching needs are transportation needs for low -income households, economic opportunities such as job training to increase self-sufficiency and supportive services for individuals with disabilities and behavioral health challenges. A summary of needs for the homeless and non -homeless populations is as follows: Homeless Public Service Needs  More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are considerably too high  Supportive housing for the mentally ill  Job training  Permanent supportive services, co -located with other supportive services  Tenant-based rental assistance  Homelessness prevent ion services  Access to transportation services (for job seeking, medical visits, etc.)  Life skills training  Substance abuse and opioids counseling Non-Homeless Public Service Needs Housing  Expand housing opportunities in high opportunity areas  Encourage a diversity of housing product in neighborhoods to allow for lifecycle housing  Preserve affordable housing stock  Development of affordable housing units near transit stations  Supportive housing for people with HIV and AIDS Transportation  Access to childca re near transportation hubs and employment centers  Transit passes at low or no cost  Bus stop improvements, especially suited for inclement weather, and focused on transit hubs  Sidewalk improvements and ADA improvements to increase mobility  Partner with UT A and other entities to improve transit access and enhancements in target areas Economic Development  Support employment centers in target areas where connections to transit, transportation corridors, and access to services can minimize transportation costs, influence affordability, improve air quality, and create vibrant, sustainable neighborhoods  Micro loans  Job training  Façade improvements for small business 95 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Health, Elderly and Disabilities  Need for supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities  Improve accessibility of existing housing stock for persons with disabilities  Improved transit opportunities for people in wheelchairs including ADA -accessible wheelchairs  Review signal timing at intersections to ensure adequate time for senio rs or those with disabilities  More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are considerably too high  Opioids, substance abuse assistance  Mental health assistance  Dental and medical assistance  Supportive services for persons with HIV and AIDS  Senior assistance with supportive services, including transportation Parks and Public Lands  Improve pub lic safety in existing parks  Park and green space enhancements Management  Coordination with State programs to not overl ap or fund the same thing  Asset mapping of all existing programs, agencies, funding sources, etc.  Review Good Landlord and other obstacles to obtaining housing (i.e., credit history, felonies, etc.)  Use innovative technologies such as Apps to better align supply and demand for housing HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? Salt Lake City’s homeless needs are determined through evaluation of the annual Point -in-Time Study as well as the recently released State Strategic Plan on Homelessness. In addition, the pub lic participation portion of this process featured a series of three meetings with stakeholder agencies, including Shelter the Homeless, Volunteers of America-Utah, Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity, and Housing Connect formerly known as the Salt Lake County Housing Authority. This process was a critical factor in determining homeless needs. Finally, a survey was prepared which received over 4,000 responses. The survey results indicated that homeless and affordable housing issues should be the top priority for the City. The non-homeless public service needs of Salt Lake City’s low to moderate -income residents and special populations were determined through a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that included representatives from a broad view of public service providers (discuss ed in more detail in the Citizen Participation section of this Plan), as well as a review of local and national data. 96 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS The Market Analysis provides a clear picture of the environment in which Salt Lake City will administer its federal grant programs over the course of the Consolidated Plan. In conjunction with the Needs Assessment, the Market Analysis provides the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered. 97 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 98 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 MA-05 OVERVIEW Salt Lake City has transitioned over the years to become one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative economies in the nation. With unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities, internationally acclaimed technology and research facilities, well -respected and competitive higher education institutions, industry - leading healthcare facilities, a modern light rail and streetcar transit system, an expanding international airport, a growing population, an educated workforce, a multilingual population and d iverse cultural opportunities, the City is attracting nationally -recognized businesses. This provides an opportunity to build strong neighborhoods with vibrant businesses, along with diverse housing opportunities. However, with this strong economy, housi ng prices have increased faster than household incomes, making it more and more difficult for low -income families to find affordable housing. Between 2000 and 2018, rental rates have increased by 81.8%; rental rates have continued to rise to historically h igh rates, with a 32% increase between 2010 and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability, combined with extremely low vacancy rates, have created a very tight rental market, leading to increased difficulty for low -income households to obtain affordable housing. Individuals displaced from housing will have a more difficult time, given market conditions, of finding suitable substitute housing. There is a need for preservation of existing housing stock and strategies to combat displacement in housing for vulnerable populations. Such strategies will benefit low -income populations and stabilize neighborhoods. Some key points of the market analysis include: Housing Market Conditions  Between 2000 and 2018 the cost of housing significantly increased for both rent ers and homeowners. The median rental rates increased by 81.8% and home values increased by 89.8%. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did not keep up with increases in housing costs, it has becom e more difficult for residents to buy a home as evidenced by a declining homeownership rate (from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018).38  An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reasonable range of low -income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance:  US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2000-2018: o The median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200 o The median household income increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370  HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2020, Salt Lake County, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $70,300  US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2014-2018: o The number of households earning $50,000 - $74,999: 13,991 households, 17.9% of total population o The average monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,534  UtahRealEstate.com, May 2020, number of Salt Lake City listings between $100,000 -$299,999: 554  Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all -time high, showing a 51% increase between 2010 and 2018. 38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 99 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  In 2018, the apartment vacancy rate in Salt Lake City was the lowest rate in Salt Lake County at 2.7% and the Downtown area had an even lower rate at 1.6%.39 A tight rental market and rising rents create a barrier for households in need of affordable housing.  An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This is down from a shortage of 8,240 rental units in 2013.  Specifically, shortages occur for affordable rental housing for extremely and very low -income households making less than 50% AMI; affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities; affordable rental housing for large families; and permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations such as individuals who are chronically homeless, mentally disabled, or physically disabled. Barriers to Affordable Housing  Poor housing conditions can also be a barrier to suitable, affordable housing. HUD defines poor housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen facilities. Based on this definition, about 44.8 % of renters and 20.8% of owners live in a unit with at least one condition. 2012-2016 CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied, that lack a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.  Barriers to affordable housing development include both market and regulatory factors. These include land costs, construction costs, financing resources, foreclosures, neighborhood market conditions, economic conditions, land use regulations, development a ssessments, permit processing procedures, a lack of zoning incentives and landlord-tenant policies.  A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake County. The mortgage application denial rate for His panics (20%) in Salt Lake City is significantly higher than that of non-Hispanics (13%).40  Transportation costs can be a barrier to affordable housing, especially if transportation costs are significant due to distances traveled and time spent during the commute. Nearly half of workers living in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for work. Housing Services  The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers an d programs for Veterans, homeless, disabled, and elderly persons. These properties offer over 1,600 units of varying sizes.  A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency shelters, transitional h ousing, safe havens, permanent supportive housing, tenant based rental assistance, outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance abuse, behavioral health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, h ygiene, and other miscellaneous services. These services are provided by government agencies, faith -based organizations, service-oriented groups, housing authorities, health service organizations, and others. 39 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018 40 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 100 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  In addition to supporting housing and homeless services with federal funding, Salt Lake City Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Homelessness Related Services in fiscal year 2018-19. The funding came from General Fund resources and highlights the City’s commitment to providing support for our most vulnerable citizens.  Salt Lake City’s housing and supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing residents through a variety of efforts that are designed to be coordinated a case manager and referral format to link residents to services and support opportunities. MA-10 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS – 91.120(a)&(b)(2) INTRODUCTION The Census Bureau estimates in the 2014-2018 Americ an Community Survey that there are 84,784 housing units in the City with 92.3% reportedly occupied; 48.4% of those units are owner -occupied. The number of housing units has increased by 4,060 units from the 80,724 units reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. Th is is an increase of 5%, which is much higher than the national increase of 3.6% in that same period. Salt Lake City is the most populated city in the County and comprises 21.7% of the County’s housing stock. Table MA-10.1 shows a breakdown of the housing inventory located within the City. 1-unit detached structures are the largest property type, accounting for almost half the housing units in Salt Lake City. However, multi - family housing complexes of 20 or more units saw the largest growth since 2013 in terms of percentage and now represents approximately 22% of the properties by housing type. TABLE MA-10.1 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS Property Type 2018 Units % of Total Units 1-unit Detached Structure 40,112 47.3% 1-unit, Attached Structure 2,741 3.2% 2-4 Units 11,785 13.9% 5-19 Units 10,245 12.1% 20 or More Units 19,052 22.5% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van. Etc. 849 1.0% Total 84,784 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-10.2 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS 2018 Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number Percentage Number Percentage No Bedroom 359 0.9% 3,111 7.7% 1 Bedroom 1,833 4.8% 14,370 35.6% 2 or 3 Bedrooms 21,579 57.0% 20,177 50.0% 4 or More Bedrooms 14,098 37.2% 2,702 6.7% Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00% 101 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TARGETING (INCOME LEVEL/TYPE OF FAMILY SERVED) OF UNITS ASSISTED WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS: Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and community partners utilize federal, state, and local funding to expand housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, as well as vulnerable and at-risk populations. Sources and financing include low -income housing tax credits, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOPWA, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency, the City’s General Fund, Funding Our Future, and Housing Connect. The following funding sources are utilized to target specifi c housing activities: CDBG A portion of Salt Lake City’s CDBG funding is utilized for housing activities, including housing rehabilitation, historic preservation, home repair programs, tenant -based rental assistance, homeownership, and down payment assistance. CDBG funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% of AMI. ESG Salt Lake City utilizes ESG funds to provide homelessness prevention assistance to households who would otherwise become homeless and to rapidly re-house persons who are experiencing homelessness. The funds provide for a variety of assistance, including emergency shelter, homeless prevention, short - or medium -term rental assistance, housing placement, and housing stability case management. ESG funding is targeted to extremely low -income individuals and households that are at or below 30% AMI. HOME Salt Lake City utilizes HOME funds to provide a wide range of activities including building, acquiring, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership, as well as providing direct rental assistance to low-income households. HOME funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% AMI with rental assistance specifically targeted to a lower AMI. HOPWA Salt Lake City administers the HOPWA program for the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties. HOPWA funds are utilized to provide the following housing services to HOPWA eligible persons:  Housing Information Services  Tenant-based Rental Assistance (TBRA)  Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA)  Short-term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU)  Permanent Housing Placement Assistance (PHP)  Housing Supportive Services  Housing Coordination/Resource Identification HOPWA funding targets extremely low - to low-income individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Local Funds The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund provides financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible Activities include ac quisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multi -family rental properties and single-family homeownership. Funding is targeted to households earning up to 80% AMI. 102 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Under Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agencies Act, the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency is able to contribute up to 20% of tax increment from each project area to fund affordable housing projects throughout the City. Available funds vary from year-to-year, depending on the amount of tax increment generated in the Agency’s various project areas. In the past 50 years, the Redevelopment Agency has created nearly 7,000 housing units of which nearly half are affordable. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) The Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) Multifamily Finance Department is committed to partnering with developers and investors to utilize State and Federal Tax Credits and bond financing. These resources facilitate the development of new and rehabilitated apartments to provide housing for low-income families, senior citizens, and more. The program increases the availability of rental housing to households earning 60 % or less of the area median income. During the 2019 fiscal year, UHC allocated $8.7 million in annual 9% federal tax credits and $1.3 million in annual 4% federal tax credits. The UHC helped over 4,200 families purchase a home with its down payment assistance program and helped fund affordable housing development that created nearly 1,000 new rental units across Utah. Much of the development of affordable housing development or preservation that occurs in Salt Lake City requires a funding partnership that includes a combination of LIHTC, State funding via the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, and City resources. State Funds The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund’s (OWHLF) Multi -Family Program provides financial assistance for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental households at or below 50 % of AMI, and the median income of all households served through the OWHLF is 43.8% of AMI. During fiscal year 2019, the fund supported construction or rehabilitation of 1,281 units of multi -family housing, as well as 136 single-family units statewide. PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT OF UNITS EXPECTED TO BE LOST FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY FO R ANY REASON, SUCH AS EXPIRATION OF SECT ION 8 CONTRACTS: TABLE MA-10.3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH AT LEAST ONE AFFORDABILITY CONTRACT EXPIRING WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration Art Space II 53 2025 Aspen View 16 2026 Bradley Apartments 6 2024 Calvary Tower 30 2020 Cedar Crest Apartments 12 2023 Country Oaks I 7 2023 Country Oaks II 17 2024 CW Development-Parker 16 2025 Grace Mary Manor 80 2026 Granite Park Condo 9 2021 Harmony Gardens 96 2026 Hidden Oaks II 24 2022 Hidden Oaks IV 36 2021 103 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration Hidden Oaks VI 28 2025 Hidden Oaks VII 6 2029 Holladay Hills I 70 2023 Holladay Hills II 60 2024 Huntsman 36 2028 Ivanhoe Apartments 19 2021 Liberty Midtown 65 2023 Lowell Apartments 80 2025 Meredith Apartments 22 2019 Millcreek Meadows 56 2024 New Grand Hotel 80 2020 Ouray Duplex 2 2026 Palladio Apartments 36 2025 Parkway Commons 81 2024 Pauline Downs Apartments 112 2024 Rio Grande Hotel 49 2023 Riverside Cove Apartments 28 2023 Riverview Townhomes 61 2025 Riverwood Cove Apartments 110 2022 Robert A Wiley Apartments 7 2026 Safe Haven I 22 2029 Salt Lake County - Cnsrt 11 2029 Sedona 18 2025 South Salt Lake Crown 4 2026 Aspenview 19 2029 Village Apartments 24 2024 Wandamere Place Apartments 10 2019 Wasatch Commons Crown 5 2029 Source: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development DOES THE AVAILABILIT Y OF HOUSING UNITS MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POPULATION? According to an apartment market report completed in the summer of 2018, the Salt Lake City area apartment vacancy rate was at 2.7% with the Downtown area reporting a 1.7% vacancy rate.41 With rental inventory nearly completely occupied, it is difficult for households at all AMI levels to find adequate rental ho using, with increased difficulty for households at lower AMIs. Limitations on housing choice are particularly significant for the low-income elderly, who have the highest levels of disability and tend to live in older housing stock. Housing availability for persons with a disability will become increasingly scarce as the baby -boomer cohort increases in age. 41 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018 104 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R SPECIFIC TYPES OF HOUSING: Salt Lake City has evaluated the need for specific housing types in consideration of current housi ng needs and future population changes. Currently, specific segments of Salt Lake City’s population are not well -served by the housing market, with gaps in the following types of housing:  Affordable rental housing for extremely low -income households  Affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities  Affordable rental housing for large families  Permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations to include individuals who are chronically homeless, mentally disabled, physically disabled and others MA-15 COST OF HOUSING – 91.210(a) INTRODUCTION Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners. As demonstrated in Table MA-15.1, the median contract rent increased from $516 in 2000 to $938 in 2018, an 81.8% increase. Median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370 in 2018. Since incomes have not kept up with increasing h ousing costs, it is more difficult for residents to buy or rent a home. Subsequently, homeownership rates have decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. TABLE MA-15.1 COST OF HOUSING Base Year: 2000 2010 ACS 2018 ACS Percent Change (2000 - 2018) Median Home Value $152,400 $243,200 $289,200 89.8% Median Contract Rent $516 $712 $938 81.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-15.2 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS AND RENT COSTS Gross Rent Number of Units Percentage Less than $500 3,769 9.6% $500-999 18,454 47.1% $1,000-1,499 11,598 29.6% $1,500-1,999 4,234 10.8% $2,000 or More 1,128 2.9% Total 39,183 100.00% No cash rent included in the Less than $500 category Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-15.3 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 105 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Rental Units Units Affordable RHUD: 30% or below 4,775 Affordable VHUD: 50% or below 5,465 Affordable RHUD: 31% - 50% 15,000 Affordable VHUD: 51% - 80% 9,845 Affordable RHUD: 51%-80% 16,700 TOTAL 36,475 TOTAL 15,310 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-15.4 MONTHLY RENT Market Rent Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,518 $1,727 High HOME Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,364 $1,501 Low HOME Rent $708 $775 $931 $1,075 $1,200 Source: HUD FMR and HOME rents FIGURE MA-15.1 2019 MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019 IS THERE SUFFICIENT HOUSING FOR HOUSEHOL DS AT ALL INCOME LEV ELS? 106 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The low supply of affordable housing can be seen when comparing Salt Lake City’s supply of housing at various price points with the number of households who can afford such housing. The lack of affordable housing is particularly prevalent for extremely low -income households. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,00 0 per year. This indicates that the shortage has decreased by 2,063 since 2013 when the reported shortage was 8,240. Some of these renters are university students who will have future earnings increases, but many are low -income families, persons with disabilities,10 and persons who are unemployed. TABLE MA-15.5 SALT LAKE CITY RENTAL MARKET MISMATCH Income Range Maximum Affordable Rent, Including Utilities Renters Rental Units Housing Mismatch Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than $5,000 $125 2,798 6.9% 289 1% (2,509) $5,000 - $9,999 $250 2,523 6.3% 1,235 3% (1,288) $10,000 - $14,999 $375 3,012 7.5% 1,400 3% (1,612) $15,000 - $19,999 $500 2,467 6.1% 1,699 4% (768) $20,000 - $24,999 $625 2,716 6.7% 3,871 9% 1,155 $25,000 - $34,999 $875 5,520 13.7% 13,490 32% 7,970 $35,000 - $49,999 $1,250 6,129 15.2% 11,155 27% 5,026 $50,000 - $74,999 $1,875 7,067 17.5% 6,830 16% (237) $75,000 or more $1,875+ 8,128 20.1% 1,623 4% (6,505) Total/Low-Income Gap 40,360 41,592 100% (6,177) Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates HOW IS AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING LIKELY TO CHANGE CONSIDERING CHANGES TO HOME VALUES AND/OR RENTS? Housing costs have increased during the past few years in both the rental and ownership markets. As Table MA-15.6 demonstrates, Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all -time high, with a 51% increase between 2010 and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability combined with low vacancy rates have created a very tight rental market, particularly for low -income households. TABLE MA-15.6 CHANGE IN AVERAGE RENTAL BY TYPE OF UNIT: SALT LAKE COUNTY Market Rent 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Change: 2010-2018 Studio $480 $515 $538 $586 $603 $638 $705 $745 $827 72.3% One Bedroom $629 $659 $709 $745 $757 $804 $833 $906 $969 54.1% Two Bedroom, One Bath $706 $725 $759 $792 $809 $833 $879 $932 $1,023 44.9% Two Bedroom, Two Bath $816 $862 $943 $969 $983 $1,050 $1,085 $1,158 $1,242 52.2% Three Bedroom, Two Bath $956 $1,025 $1,051 $1,075 $1,085 $1,132 $1,244 $1,275 $1,373 43.6% Overall $720 $754 $814 $850 $865 $907 $949 $1,011 $1,087 51.0% Source: Cushman and Wakefield, 2017 Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area ; CBRE, 2018 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 107 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 As indicated in Table MA-15.7, prices for existing home sales in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area were up between 2018 and 2019 and the number of homes sold saw a small increase. TABLE MA-15.7 NUMBER OF HOMES SOLD AND AVERAGE SALES PRICE: SALT LAKE CITY METROPOLITAN AREA Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD PD&R Regional Reports, 3rd Quarter 2019 HOW DO HOME RENTS/FAIR MARKET RENT COMPARE TO AREA MEDIAN RENT? HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT YOUR STRATEGY TO PRODUCE OR PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? HOME rents and Housing Choice Fair Market Rents are lower than actual rental rates in Salt Lake City. Therefore, it is critic al that the existing stock of subsidized housing is preserved and mechanisms are put in place to help address the gap in HOME/Fair Market Rents and the prevailing rent amounts. Individuals and families displaced from subsidized housing will have a difficul t time finding suitable replacement housing affordable at their income level. In the current housing market, rental subsidies are usually required for populations that fall below 50% AMI. The City should prioritize the rehabilitation of existing housing st ock and anti-displacement strategies to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and stabilize neighborhoods. DISCUSSION Tight market conditions with historically high rents and very low vacancy rates have exacerbated the challenges of low-income households to obtain affordable housing. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This is a decline of 2,063 units from the shortage of 8,240 rent al units in 2013. With rising rents and few units available, this situation is likely to worsen. It is the City’s intent to be proactively involved in preserving existing affordable housing and facilitating the development of additional affordable housing. This is essential in order to prevent an increase in homelessness from the current extremely tight housing market. The Strategic Plan identifies how Salt Lake City intends to use federal funding to preserve and facilitate affordable housing in our communi ty. MA-20 CONDITION OF HOUSING – 91.210(a) INTRODUCTION HUD defines housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen facilities. Based on this definition, about 44.8% of renters and 20.8% of the owners live in a unit with at least one condition. CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied, that lack a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S DEFINITION F OR “SUBSTANDARD COND ITION” AND “SUBSTANDARD CONDITION BUT SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATIO N:” The City defines substandard housing units as those that are not in compliance with the City’s existing housing code. “Substandard condition” is not a term this jurisdiction uses; instead, projects are designed t o address items in residential units that do not meet that code. The City also follows the federal register definitions for substandard housing as defined in 24 CFR § 5.425 Federal preference: Substandard housing. For units to be considered in “substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation,” they must be both economically and structurally viable. All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a business license. Landlords are required to Number of Homes Sold Average Price Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change 18,500 17,750 -4% $357,400 $383,600 7% 108 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 maintain minimum standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Code. The purpose of the Residential Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the City. TABLE MA-20.1 CONDITION OF UNITS Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With one selected condition 7,595 20.1% 16,508 40.9% With two selected conditions 174 0.5% 1,544 3.8% With three selected conditions 19 0.1% 43 0.1% With four selected conditions 42 0.1% - 0.0% No selected conditions 30,039 79.3% 22,265 55.2% Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Tenure by Selected Physical and Financial Conditions TABLE MA-20.2 YEAR UNIT BUILT Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 2,250 6% 3,710 9% 1980-1999 3,820 11% 7,000 18% 1960-1979 5,490 15% 11,815 30% Before 1960 24,800 68% 16,540 42% Total 36,360 100% 39,065 100% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-20.3 RISK OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total number of units built before 1980 30,290 83% 28,355 73% Housing units built before 1980 with children present 4,600 13% 4,225 11% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-20.4 VACANT UNITS Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units 140 0 140 Abandoned Vacant Units 0 0 0 109 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 REO Properties 0 0 0 Abandoned REO Properties 0 0 0 Source: Salt Lake City Civil Enforcement DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R OWNER AND RENTER REHABILITATION BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING: An indicator commonly used to evaluate the condition of housing stock is the age of the unit. Older homes are more likely to have condition problems and are at higher risk of lead -based paint. Approximately 29% of housing units in Salt Lake City were built prior to 1940.42 Many older homes may be in excellent condition due to revitalization efforts in the area; however, condition issues are still more likely to occur in older homes. Many of the block groups with a high percentage of older units tend to be located below 900 South and east of State Street. This can be seen in the figure below: FIGURE MA-20.1 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP HOUSING UNITS B UILT BEFORE 1950 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WIT HIN THE JURISDICTION THAT ARE OCCUPIED BY LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES THAT CONTAIN LEAD -BASED PAINT HAZARDS. 91.205 (e), 91.405 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that approximately three -quarters of the nation’s housing stock built before 1978 contains som e lead-based paint. This means residential units built prior to 1978 42 U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 110 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 are considered to be most at risk for containing lead-based paints (LBP) as the use of LBP was prohibited in residential units after 1978. The 2012-2016 CHAS reports that approximately 83% of owner-occupied units and 73% of renter-occupied units were built prior to 1980. This means that up to 77.7% of Salt Lake City’s total housing stock is at risk of exposure to LBP. DISCUSSION Salt Lake City has many older homes which are more likely to contain LBP. Homes built before 1940 have an 87% chance of containing LBP according to the EPA and 29% of the City’s housing supply was built during 1939 or earlier.43 FIGURE MA-20.2 PROBABILITY OF CONTAINING LEAD-BASED PAINT BY YEAR CONSTRUCTED Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family Lead is highly toxic and can cause many serious health problems, especially in young children who have a greater risk of exposure and also a higher level of susceptibilit y to lead poisoning. Families with children under six may face the risk of the child ingesting paint chips on the walls and floors of these older buildings. These highly toxic paint chips, and even lead dust, can cause lead poisoning. According to the Cent ers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no identified safe level of lead exposure in children. Exposure to lead can lead to:  Damage to the brain and nervous system  Slowed growth and development  Learning and behavior problems  Hearing and speech problems Which can cause:  Lower IQ  Decreased ability to pay attention  Underperforming in school44 43 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family 44 Center for Disease Control and Prevention – Health Effect of Lead Exposure. (2019, July 30). Retrieved Novemb er 12, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health -effects.htm. 87% 69% 24% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Before 1940 1940 - 1959 1960-1977 111 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City has various programs through the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and local nonprofits, such as ASSIST and Community Development Corporation of Utah, to remediate lead hazards in residential units. Additionally, the Lead Safe Housing program created by Salt Lake County provides free inspections, dust sampling analysis, blood testing for children under six, window replacement, pai nt removal on doorjambs and floors, and specialized cleaning.45 The program is aimed at assisting low - or moderate-income households in providing lead-safe homes. MA-25 PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING – 91.210(b) INTRODUCTION Local housing authorities provide long -term rental housing and rental assistance through Low -Income Public Housing (LIPH), Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), and Continuum of Care housing vouchers. In addition, the housing authorities as well as privatel y owned entities provide additional subsidized housing opportunities through affordable housing and supportive housing programs. TABLE MA-25.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* Number of units/vouchers available 99 NA 2,894 380 1,876 161 67 410 Number of accessible units NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN THE JURISDICTION, INCLUD ING THOSE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN AN APPROVED PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN: The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers and programs for Veterans, homeless, disabled, and elderly persons. These properties offer over 1,800 units of varying sizes. The table below lists each property by name, type, and number of units. TABLE MA-25.2 LIST OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTIES BY TYPE AND UNITS Name Type Units Phillips Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 99 Romney Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 70 City Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 150 Rendon Terrace Senior Public 1-2 Bed 70 45 Salt Lake County, Lead Safe Housing Program, from https://slco.org/lead-safe-housing/qualify-for-free-services/services/ 112 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Name Type Units Cedar Crest LIHTC/VSH/Affordable 1-2 Bed 12 Sunrise Metro LIHTC Homeless 1 Bed 100 Valor Apts. Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 14 Valor House Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 72 Freedom Landing Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 109 Jefferson Circle Section 8 Multi-Family 2 Bed 20 Faultline Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 8 Redwood Road Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 22 330 North Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 25 Pacific Ave Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 25 Pacific Heights Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 22 Central City Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17 Palmer Court Single/Family Affordable 1-3 Bed 201 Denver NA 12 771 South Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17 Capitol Homes Low-Income 1-2 Bed 39 Jefferson School I LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84 Jefferson School II LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84 Taylor Springs Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 95 Taylor Gardens Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 112 9th East Lofts LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 68 Fairmont Fourplex Family Affordable 1 Bed 4 West Temple Duplexes Family Affordable 3 Bed 4 Riverside Senior Affordable 1-2 Bed 41 Ben Albert Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 68 Canterbury Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 77 Cambridge Cove Family Affordable 2 Bed 71 TOTAL 1,812 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City DESCRIBE THE RESTORATION AND REVITALIZAT ION NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN THE JURISDICTION: All housing authority units are maintained in excellent condition. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Housing Connect both conduct and complete an annual property needs assessment in order to main tain the properties in a decent and safe manner. The Housing Authority has maintained its Public Housing properties in the past with the use of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Capital Fund Grants. These grants are tied to Public Housing. The Housing A uthority of Salt Lake City has applied for a HUD program, Resident Assistance Demonstration (RAD), which is a voluntary program, seeking to preserve public housing by providing housing agencies with access to more stable funding to make needed improvements to properties. 113 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The RAD program allows PHAs to manage a property using one of two types of HUD funding contracts that are tied to a specific building and replace the operating subsidy and capital funds previously used. Housing Choice project-based voucher (PBV) or Housing Choice project-based rental assistance (PBRA). Both are 15-20 years long and are more stable funding sources. This shift will make it easier for PHAs to borrow money and use low - income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) as well as other forms of financing. These private sources of additional money will enable the Housing Authority to make improvements essential for preserving the Public Housing stock. This funding change does not change the amount of rent paid by residents or the clientele serv ed. HASLC has also developed a 30-year replacement and improvement plan and each property has a schedule for improvements that is broken down to one- and five-year plans. DESCRIBE THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY’S STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES RESIDING IN PUBLIC HOUSING: The following are examples of strategies that have been implemented to improve living conditions at City housing complexes: a strengthened application screening process; strict lease enforcem ent; off-duty Salt Lake City Police Officer conducting security patrols on their properties; improved exterior lighting; added accessibility for those aging in place; implementation of a preventative maintenance program; and upgrades and renovations to properties when possible, as needed. MA-30 HOMELESS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(c) INTRODUCTION A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, safe havens, per manent supportive housing, tenant based rental assistance, outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance abuse, behavioral health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, hygiene, and other miscel laneous services. These services are provided by government agencies, faith -based organizations, service-oriented groups, housing authorities, health service organizations and others. TABLE MA-30.1 FACILITIES AND HOUSING TARGETED TO HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS Population ES: Year-Round Beds ES: Voucher/ Seasonal/ Overflow Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds PSH Beds Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 542 33 143 1,257c 165 Households with Only Adults 814 147 165 1,271d 0 114 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 1,502e 0 Veterans 0 0 67a 597 75 Unaccompanied Youth 34 20 37b 9 0 Source: Utah Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) aAll 67 Veterans are also counted in the Households with Only Adults bAll 37 Unaccompanied Youth beds are also counted in the Households with Only Adults c150 of the Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) are also veteran dedicated beds d447 of the Households with Only Adults are also veteran dedicated beds e775 of the Chronically Homeless beds are also counted in Households with Only Adults, 727 are also counted in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren), and 20 are also veteran dedicated beds. DESCRIBE MAINSTREAM SERVICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH, AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO THE EXTENT THOSE SERVICES ARE USED TO COMPLEMENT SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS. A wide array of mainstream services augments homeless specific services in Salt Lake City. These programs are an important aspect of providing hom eless services in the City. Some of these services are:  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)  Medicare  Medicaid  Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)  Veteran’s Benefits  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)  Unemployment  Worker’s Compensation  Social Security Disability (SSDI)  Supplemental Security Income (SSI)  Social Security  Other miscellaneous benefits The Salt Lake homeless services community has a strong history of effectively leverag ing these mainstream benefits in providing homeless services. LIST AND DESCRIBE SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT MEET THE NEED S OF HOMELESS PERSONS, PARTICULARL Y CHRONICALLY HOMELE SS INDIVIDUALS AND F AMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH. IF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE LISTED ON SCREEN SP-40 INSTITUTIONAL DEL IVERY STRUCTURE OR SCREEN MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES, DESCRIBE HOW THESE FACILITIES AND SERVICES SPECIFICALL Y ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THESE POPULATIONS. Salt Lake City Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Ho meless Related Services in fiscal year 2018-19. The funding came from the General Fund. 115 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE MA-30.2 2019-2020 HOMELESS RELATED SERVICES Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description Family Promise Emergency Shelter 814 W. 800 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves families with children Rescue Mission Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 1165 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves Single Women Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter/Day Center/ 463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves Men South Valley Services Emergency Shelter 8400 S., Redwood Rd., West Jordan, Utah 84088 Serves female and male victims of domestic violence and their children YWCA Shelter Emergency Shelter 322 E. 300 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves female victims of domestic violence and their children Salt Lake County Youth Services Emergency Shelter 377 W. Price Ave., (3610 S.) Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Serves youth Gale Miller Resource Center Emergency Shelter 242 Paramount Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah, 84115 Serves homeless men and women Geraldine E King Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 131 E. 700 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves homeless women Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center Emergency Shelter/Day Center 888 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves homeless and at-risk teens ages 15- 22 Men’s Resource Center Emergency Shelter 3380 S. 1000 W., South Salt Lake, Utah 84119 Serves homeless men Volunteers of America Homeless Outreach Program Donation Disbursement/ Case Management 131 E. 700 S, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves homeless women, men, and youth living on the street Weigand Homeless Resource Center Day Center 437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents VA Homeless Program Veteran’s Assistance 2970 S. Main St., South Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Serves chronically homeless and VA veterans Metro Employment Center Employment/Welfare/ Financial Assistance 720 S. 200 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents Utah Community Action Program Employment/Welfare/ Financial Assistance 764 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Eagle Ranch Ministries Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 500 S. 600 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Serves all homeless residents Good Samaritan Program | The Cathedral of the Madeleine Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 331 E. South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Serves all homeless residents Rescue Mission Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents 116 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Salt Lake City Mission Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 1151 S. Redwood Rd. #106, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves all homeless residents Crossroads Urban Center Food Pantries 347 S. 400 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents Eagle Ranch Distribution Center Food Pantries 1899 S. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves all homeless residents Hildegarde’s Pantry Food Pantries 231 E. 100 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents House of Prayer Food Pantries 839 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Volunteers of America Adult Detox Drug/Alcohol Detoxification 252 W. Brooklyn Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves men suffering from addiction VOA Detox Center for Women and Children Drug/Alcohol Detoxification 697 W. 4170 S., Murray, Utah 84123 Serves adult women and children under the age of 10 Wasatch Homeless Healthcare dba 4th Street Clinic Medical Care for Homeless 409 W. 400 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Source: Salt Lake County MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(d) INTRODUCTION This section provides an overview of the facilities and services that ensure at -risk and special needs populations, including persons returning from physical and mental health facilities, receive appropriate supportive housing. TABLE MA-35.1 HOPWA ASSISTANCE BASELINE Type of HOPWA Assistance Number of People Receiving Services Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) 58 Permanent Housing in Facilities NA Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU) 52 Short Term or Transitional H ousing Facilities NA Permanent H ousing Placement 24 Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet, 2018-2019 INCLUDING THE ELDERL Y, FRAIL ELDERLY, PERSONS WITH DISABILIT IES (MENTAL, PHYSICAL, DEVELOPMENTAL), PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUG ADDICTIONS, PERSONS WITH 117 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HIV/AIDS AND THEIR F AMILIES, PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS AND ANY OTHER CATEGORIES THE JURISDICTION MAY SPECIFY AND DESCRIBE THEIR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS. Salt Lake City’s housing an d supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing residents through the following efforts. Efforts are typically coord inated through a case management and referral format to link services and opportunities.  Physical healthcare programs  Mental healthcare programs  Emergency daycare services  Youth day centers  Homeless day centers  Emergency food pantries  Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) programs  Project-based rental assistance (PBRA) programs  Transitional housing programs  Rapid re-housing programs permanent supportive housing programs  Housing accessibility programs homelessness prevention services  Substance addiction treatment programs  Life skills training programs  Employment training programs  Transportation assistance programs  Fair housing advocacy programs Even with the multitude of diverse services available in Salt Lake City, there are still gaps in services. For example, substance addiction treatment centers that serve homeless and low -income individuals, including First Step House, St. Mary’s Center for Recovery, and The Haven, have considerable waiting lists. Similarly, programs that provide physical healthcare, rental assistance, homelessness prevention, employment services, and life skills training do not have enough funding to meet demand. DESCRIBE PROGRAMS FOR ENSURING THAT PERSONS RETURNING FROM MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH INST ITUTIONS RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. Programs that provide supportive housing opportunities for persons dealing with mental and physical health recovery are available in Salt Lake City. However, supportive housing opportunities for these populations are in high demand with limited resources available. The Valley Behavioral Health’s Safe Haven program provides homeless individuals with severe mental illness housing and personalized assistance programs. It also provides comprehensive mental health support and treatment for temporary and lifelong issues caused by traumatic life events. The program offers treatments for psychiatric conditions, behavioral issues, autism, addiction, and other health conditions. In addition, Salt Lake City partners with the local housing authorities, Utah Community Action Program, the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, local homeless resource centers, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah to determine the housing and supportive services need of non -homeless population who require these services. 118 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE JURISDICTION PLANS TO UNDERTAKE DURING THE NEXT YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS ID ENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH RESPECT TO PE RSONS WHO ARE NOT HO MELESS BUT HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO ONE-YEAR GOALS 91.315(e). Please refer to section AP -20 and AP-35 of the Salt Lake City 2020-21 Annual Action Plan for specific one- year goals to address housing and supportive service needs of non -homeless, special needs populations. FOR ENTITLEMENT/CONSORTIA GRANTEES: SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES TH AT THE JURISDICTION PLANS T O UNDERTAKE DURING T HE NEXT YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS BUT HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO ONE-YEAR GOALS. (91.220(2)) The City will continue to provide tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, housing placement, and supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS and other special populations through the HOPWA, HOME, and ESG programs. MA-40 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.210(e) Various market barriers can limit the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, especially in regard to affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents. Both market and regulatory factors affect the ability to meet current and future housing needs. Barriers have been identified by previous task force groups organized by Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, as well as through extensive interviews with local brokers, developers, housing representatives, planners, etc. Identified barriers to the preservation, improvement and development of housing of affordable to low and moderate-income households include the following: Economic Conditions  While incomes have increased significantly in the Salt Lake Valley since 2010, they have not kept pace with increases in construction costs and housing values. Consequently, the gap between incomes and housing has increased.  Select neighborhoods in Salt Lake City spend significantly more on transportation costs than others. This results in less income available for housing . Land Regulations and Permitting Process  Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (sim ilar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking standards. Some of these regulations can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following: o Density limitations o Lack of multifamily zoning o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility)  The process to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for some developers. 119 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouraging development of higher -margin product (i.e., market-rate units). Land Costs  High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experienced growth and new construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City, furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dispersal of housing options throughout the City.  Land costs restrict the ability to place af fordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services, particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is constructed in areas that result in high percentages of income being spent towards transportation. Ultimately, these developments further exacerbate traffic issues. Construction Costs  Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in the recent past. This has caused upward pressure on rent and limited what type of produ ct developers are able to provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits.  Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or no profit for undertaking such renovation. This limits the desire to undertake such endeavors unless incentives can be provided. Development and Rehabilitation Financing  Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures.  There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund. Neighborhood Market Conditions  Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing development when a zoning approval process is required .  Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options do not have the appeal for large -scale housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates, and limited employment diversity . For a discussion on current and proposed efforts to reduce or barriers to affordable housing, please see section SP -55 Barriers to Affordable Housing in this Plan . MA-45 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT ASSETS – 91.215(f) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City is on the pathway to becoming one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative economies in the nation. The City links together unsurpassed outdoor recreation oppor tunities; internationally acclaimed technology and research facilities; competitive higher education institutions; industry -leading healthcare facilities; a light rail and streetcar transit system; an international airport; and cultural opportunities. Stro ng 120 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 economic activity is enhanced by culturally rich neighborhoods that intermix diverse housing opportunities with locally owned businesses. Although Salt Lake City’s economy is strong, economic inequality is escalating within the community. Between 2000 and 2017, homeowner incomes increased by 52.7% while renter incomes only increased by 40.9%. The individual poverty rate increased between 2000 and 2017 rising from 13.7% to 17.8%. There are high social and economic costs for increasing economic inequality and allowing families to remain in poverty. TABLE MA-45.1 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers Share of Jobs Jobs Less Workers Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 678 687 1% 0% -1% Art, Entertainment, Accommodations 13,079 23,121 12% 11% -1% Construction 5,115 8,507 5% 4% -1% Education and Health Care Services 28,729 38,374 27% 18% -9% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7,492 17,007 7% 8% 1% Information 2,558 6,896 3% 3% 0% Manufacturing 9,295 24,775 9% 12% 3% Other Services 5,637 6,718 5% 3% -2% Professional, Scientific, Management Services 14,898 19,470 14% 9% -5% Public Administration 3,764 17,111 4% 8% 4% Retail Trade 10,702 17,854 10% 9% -1% Transportation & Warehousing 4,448 16,600 4% 8% 4% Wholesale Trade 2,147 12,071 2% 6% 4% TOTAL 108,542 209,191 U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) TABLE MA-45.2 LABOR FORCE Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 113,308 Civilian Employed Population 16+ Years 108,542 Unemployment Rate 4.1% Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 N/A Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 N/A Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics TABLE MA-45.3 121 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 OCCUPATIONS BY SECTOR Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics Tables MA-45.4 and Figure MA-45.1 break down the travel trends and commute distances for Salt Lake City residents. Table MA-45.4 shows that nearly half of the workers living in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for work. The majority of City residents work relatively close to home with four of every five workers experiencing a daily commute under 30 minutes. TABLE MA-45.4 TRAVEL TIME Travel Time Number of People Percentage < 15 Minutes 36,473 35.1% 15-29 Minutes 47,383 45.6% 30-44 Minutes 14,236 13.7% 45-59 Minutes 2,806 2.7% 60 or More Minutes 3,013 2.9% Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 19.1 Minutes Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics Figure MA-45.1 shows how the usage rate of public transportation and carpooling decreases as the level of income increases with those making higher incomes electing to drive to work alone. FIGURE MA-45.1 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY INCOME LEVEL Occupations by Sector Number of People Percentage Management, Business, Science, and Arts Occupations 49,312 45.4% Service Occupations 17,568 16.2% Sales and Office Occupations 21,804 20.1% Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations 6,829 6.3% Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations 13,029 12.0% Total 108,542 100.00% Below the Poverty Level 100% to 149% of the Poverty Level At or Above 150% of the Poverty Level 64% 21% 15% 73% 14% 13% 81% 12% 7% Drove Alone Carpooled Public Transportation (Excludes Taxi) 122 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics TABLE MA-45.5 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Educational Attainment Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less Than High School Graduate 9,112 655 3,605 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 12,712 712 4,165 Some College or Associates Degree 21,771 712 5,117 Bachelor's Degree or Higher 42,345 963 6,738 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 to 64 Years Old TABLE NA-45.6 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+ Less than 9th Grade 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652 Some College, No Degree 3,924 21,070 12,228 16,804 8,962 Associates Degree 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170 Bachelor's Degree 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383 Graduate or Professional Degree 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 18 Years Old TABLE MA-45.7 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than High School Graduate $25,114 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) $27,493 Some College or Associate Degree $31,981 Bachelor's Degree $42,626 Graduate or Professional Degree $67,029 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Earnings in the Past 12 Months (In 2018 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars) 123 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 BASED ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY TABLE ABOVE, WHAT ARE THE MAJ OR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION? Table MA-45.1 shows that the major employment sectors within this ju risdiction are: 1) Education and Health Care Services; 2) Professional, Scientific, Management Services; 3) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations; and 4) Retail Trade. The largest employers in the County are the University Hospital, Salt Lake County, and the University of Utah. DESCRIBE THE WORKFORCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY: Salt Lake City has been known as the “Crossroads of the West” for over 150 years. The term originated when the Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 at Promontory, Utah and is still true as the Salt Lake International Airport is one of the busiest airports in the western United States. It facilitated over 330,000 flights in 2018. These flights connect cargo, passengers, and international business oppor tunities to the area and these factors have played a large role in many businesses choosing to use Salt Lake City as their corporate headquarters. Two major interstates – I-15 and I-80 – intersect in Salt Lake City, thus providing significant distribution accessibility and economic opportunity. The newly -designated Inland Port, located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, will provide further opportunities for industry and job growth. Due to rapid growth, the City needs better east-west connections between residential development and employment centers. DESCRIBE ANY MAJOR CHANGES THAT MAY HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT, SUCH AS PLANNED LOCAL OR REGIONAL PUBLIC OR PRIV ATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS OR INITIATIVES THAT HAVE AFFECTED O R MAY AFFECT JOB AND BUSINESS GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD. DESCRIBE ANY NEEDS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, BUSINESS SUPPORT, OR INFRASTRUCTURE THESE CHANGES MAY CREATE. Salt Lake City International Airport Expansion The expansion of the Salt Lake City International Airport is expected to be completely finished by 2025, but it is anticipated that the first phase will open in September of 2020. The expansion focuses on utilizing new and sustainable practices that will increase space, comfort, and convenience for passen gers. This includes a complete technological and artistic redesign of the current airport which will allow Utah’s natural outdoor beauty to be displayed to millions of airport visitors each year. A recent economic impact analysis conducted by GSBS Consulting projected that the rebuild will inject $5.5 billion into the local economy and create more than 3,300 jobs.46 Between July 2018 and June 2019, the Salt Lake City International Airport served over 26.2 million passengers and had 341,152 Total Aircraft Ops.47 The airport ranks as the 23rd busiest airport in North America and the 85th busiest in the world with over 340 flights departing daily. It is located about 15 minutes from downtown Salt Lake City and is serviced by a direct light rail line to the downto wn area including the Salt Palace Convention Center. The proximity of these create opportunities for training and workforce housing. Inland Port Authority The Inland Port, located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, covers approximately 16,000 ac res, sits at the intersection of two interstate freeways, major national railways and an international airport. This puts the area in high demand for expanding warehouse, distribution and manufacturing facilities. The Inland Port Authority was created to engage with interested organizations and individuals to establish a strategic plan to maximize the economic benefits of the Inland Port. 46 GSBS Consulting, Salt Lake City International Airport Redevelopment Program: Economic Impact Analysis, https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/The-New-SLC/Airport-EIA-Final-Report.pdf 47 Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Elevations, Summer 2019, https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/ Elevations-Newsletter/Elevations-Summer-Edition -August-2019.pdf 124 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Due to these and other large-scale projects and an overwhelming need for more skilled workforce, Salt Lake City Community College created a brand new, cutting edge campus that focuses primarily on building our skilled labor workforce. This effort and many more will work to help support large scale projects as our community evolves. HOW DO THE SKILLS AND EDUCATION OF THE CURRENT WORKFORCE CORRESPOND TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE JURISDICTION? The percentage of residents with at least some higher education is higher than the national average with over 71% of residents reporting they’ve received some college education. T he national average is 60%. As demonstrated in Table MA-45.8, Salt Lake City also has a much higher percentage of residents with bachelor’s degrees and graduate degrees than the rest of the nation. TABLE MA-45.8 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, SALT LAKE CITY AND UNITED STATES Educational Attainment Salt Lake City % of Population United States % of Population Less Than High School Graduate 11.2% 12.4% High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 18.1% 27.6% Some College or Associates Degree 30.2% 31.0% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 23.7% 18.4% Graduate or Professional Degree 19.4% 10.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 Years and Over The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates quarterly underemployment through alternative measures of labor utilization. The measure used for underemployment is U -6 which not only measures unemployment, but also includes those who are willing to work and have recently looked for work, as well as those working part-time but who want to work full-time. This means this categorization includes current employees who feel underutilized in their current employment. The national U -6 rate between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the third quarter of 2019 was 7.3. In Utah, this rate was 5.5%.48 DESCRIBE ANY CURRENT WORKFORCE TRAINING INITIATIVE INCLUDING THOSE SUPPORTED BY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS, COMMUNIT Y COLLEGES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. DESCRIBE HOW THESE EFFORT S WILL SUPPORT THE J URISDICTION’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan emphasizes providing opportunities to help build healthy neighborhoods. This can be supported by efforts and organization with job training initiatives. Salt Lake City already has several community programs that provide job training. These organizations typically assist clients in learning how to search for jobs, write resumes, and interview in addition to key life skills that are necessary to be successful in the workplace. By highlighting these initiatives in the Consolidated Plan, the City can assist these programs in increasing their capacity to provide services. Many of these programs focus on assisting vulnerable populations and a few are listed below: 48 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm 125 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Advantage Services (non -profit that employs homeless people with disabilities)  Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah (refugees and immigrants)  The Columbus Foundation (individuals with disabilities)  English Skills Learning Center (teac hing English as a 2nd language)  Odyssey House (alcohol and drug rehabilitation)  First Step House (substance use disorders and mental health) DOES YOUR JURISDICTION PARTICIPATE IN A COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY? No, Salt Lake City does not participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. IF SO, WHAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ARE YOU UNDERTAKING THAT MAY BE COORDINATED WITH THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. IF NOT, DESCRIBE OTHE R LOCAL/REGIONAL PLANS OR INITIATIVES THAT IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH. Salt Lake City does not currently have a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy; however, the City does have a variety of local plans and initiatives that impact economic growth. In addition to the job training initiatives listed above, here are a few of the City’s plans and projects designed to stimulate economic development: Economic Development Loan Fund The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) is designed to stimulate business development and expansion, create employment opportunities, encourage private investment, promote economic development, and enhance neighborhood vitality and commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City by making loans available to businesses that meet City objectives. Loans are available for:  Startup and existing businesses  Revenue producing non -profit ventures  A business expanding or relocating to Salt Lake City  Energy-efficient (e2) equipment upgrades and building retrofits  Businesses impacted by construction  Construction/tenant improvement and/or real estate acquisi tion  Signage, retail presentation, and display work  Fixtures, furnishings, equipment and inventory  Working capital and marketing The EDLF fills a gap in economic development by lending to high -tech and manufacturing businesses that would not otherwise be eligible for a traditional bank loan yet have strong potential for growth. Loans are considered a bridge loan and not meant to be long -term financing. Salt Lake City Emergency Loan Program During the recent COVID-19 crisis, Salt Lake City launched an Emergency Loan Program to assist business with funding to support them through a short -term community crisis. This Program is designed as a bridge to ensure that business can stay afloat including making rent/mortgage payments, keep staff employed, cover utility and ongoing costs during a time of crisis and significantly decreased revenues. While it is not anticipated that this program will continue in this exact form throughout the entire Consolidated Plan, it is important to note that the City has the ability to react quickly and provide additional resources when necessary. Master Plans 126 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City’s Master Plans provide an outline of community and economic development goals for specific areas of the City. Planning efforts since 2010 include the planning d ocuments:  Central Community o 400 South Livable Communities Project - 2012  Downtown o Downtown Plan – 2016  East Bench o Existing Conditions Report – 2014 o East Bench Master Plan – 2017 o Parley’s Way Corridor – 2017  Northwest Community o North Temple Boulevard Plan - 2010  Northwest Quadrant o Northwest Quadrant Master Plan – 2016  Sugar House o Sugar House Streetcar Update to Master Plan – 2016 o Circulation and Streetcar Amenities for Sugar House Business District – 2014 o 21st and 21st Neighborhood Plan – 2017 o Sugar House Circulation Plan – 2013 o Sugar House Phase 2 Alternative Analysis – 2013  Westside Master Plan o Westside Master Plan – 2014 o 9-Line Corridor Master Plan - 2015 Redevelopment Agency Programs The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize Salt Lake City’s neighborhoods and business districts to improve livability, spark economic growth, and foster authentic communities, serving as a catalyst for strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitalit y, and public spaces. The RDA accomplishes this through the following tools:  Property acquisition, clearance, re-planning, sale, and redevelopment  Planning, financing, and development of public improvements  Providing management support and tax increment reimbursement for projects that will revitalize underutilized areas  Gap financing in the form of loans, grants, and equity participation to encourage private investment  Relocation assistance and business retention assistance to businesses. Improved redevelopment areas contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City by reversing the negative effects of blight, while increasing the tax base from which taxing entities draw their funds. In Salt Lake City, Redevelopment Project Areas’ tax bases have h istorically grown at twice the rate of surrounding areas that are not designated as RDA project areas. National Development Corporation Since 1969, the NDC has carried out its mission to create jobs and promote community development opportunities in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods. NDC raises equity through its Corporate Equity Fund and invests in affordable housing. NDC also creates jobs in underserved areas through its New Markets Tax Credit Program and through its Small Business Lending Progra m, NDC Grow America Fund. The City uses the expertise and knowledge of NDC to continue to develop, finance, and market community development and affordable housing. 127 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Façade Grant Program The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division utilizes federal funding to support local businesses by offering up to $25,000 in grants to improve their façades. These improvements could include items such as door upgrades, window improvements, paint or stucco updating, installing of garages, security lighting, fascia/soffit work, etc. Increasing the street appeal of small businesses located within the City positively affects the surrounding neighborhoods through increasing the visual appeal of neighboring commercial areas and boosting the economy on a local level. City Transportation Plans In 2020, the City will update its Transportation Plan which was prepared in 1996. As the Plan unfolds, efforts will continue to be made to coordinate and leverage resources in low -income neighborhoods. At the current time, the City’s Transit Master Plan (2017) and the Pedestrian/Bike Master Plan (2015) are the most recent and relevant. The City is currently committing $5.3m to improved bus service, $1.1m for capital investments related to bus service (bus stops, transit hubs, first/last mile improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes), and $800,000 for a pilot on-demand ride hailing service. This provides an opportunity to leverage CDBG funds in disadvantaged neighborhoods to improve access to transportation and facilitate multimo dal transportation options. At the time the Transit Master Plan was completed, 83% of bus stops did not have shelters or benches, effectively discouraging potential riders. The study further found that access to transit in Salt Lake City is challenging because of the large blocks and wide streets, as well as lack of ADA improvements and access to stations. Finally, the Transit Master Plan found that the “cost of transit is particularly burdensome on large families, youth, and transit-dependent populations – low -income, older adults, persons with disabilities, and zero car households.”49 The City’s anticipates spending $1-2m per year in capital improvement projects such as traffic signal upgrades, safety projects, and bike/pedestrian enhancements. Again, th ere is the opportunity to provide better access to transportation and leverage funds from several sources. New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) Capital is attracted to eligible communities (where the poverty rate is at least 20% or where the median family income does not exceed 80% of the area’s median income) by providing private investors with a credit on their federal taxes for investments in qualifying areas. NMTC investors receive a tax credit equal to 39% of the Qualified Equity Investment (QEI) made in a C ommunity Development Entity (CDE) over a 7-year period. MA-50 NEEDS AND MARKET ANALYSIS DISCUSSION ARE THERE AREAS WHERE HOUSEHOLDS WITH MULTIPLE HOUSING PROBL EMS ARE CONCENTRATED? Salt Lake City has neighborhoods that are more likely to have housing units with multiple housing problems. These neighborhoods generally contain an older housing stock occupied by low -income households. Many of these neighborhoods are located in the Central City, Ballpark, Rose Park, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale. ARE THERE ANY AREAS IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE RACIAL OR ETHNIC MINORITIES OR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES ARE CONCENTRATED? 49 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 2017 Executive Summary 128 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan there were three racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RCAP/ECAP) in Salt Lake County, two of which were in Salt Lake City. The number of racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in the County has dropped to only one, and this area is located just south of the City’s boundaries. An RCAP/ECAP is defined as a census tract with a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 40%, or a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 300% of the metro tract average, and a majority non - white population, measured at greater than 50%. The absence of RCAP/ECAPs does not mean that there aren’t areas where there is a substantial concentration of minorities with reportedly low incomes. Most census block groups to the west of I -15 reported a population composed of more than 50% minorities. These block groups also report some of the lowest incomes in the City as well. Most of these areas are located in the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. WHAT ARE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF THE MARKET IN THESE AREAS/NE IGHBORHOODS? The City has been experiencing increasing housing costs and wages have failed to increase at the same rate which can influence the ability for income mobility. Salt Lake City is focusing efforts to mitigate the negative externalities of poverty by increasing economic opport unities, improving neighborhood infrastructure, expanding services in distressed neighborhoods, improving the housing stock, and increasing access to public transit and multi-modal transportation options. The City is also making steps to incentivize afford able housing development in opportunity areas in order to expand housing choices through the City. In general, median sales prices and rents are significantly lower in areas of concentrated poverty than in the rest of the C ity. Households located in neighborhoods on the west side of I-15, such as Poplar Grove and Glendale have higher homeownership rates than the C ity average. The Ballpark and Central City neighborhoods have a much higher rental rate than the City average. Other housing market and demo graphic data points can be found in Table MA-50.1. TABLE MA-50.1 AREAS WITH HIGHER POVERTY LEVELS Ne i g h b o r h o o d Ce n s u s T r a c t Po p u l a t i o n Mi n o r i t y Poverty Rate Av e r a g e Ho u s e h o l d S i z e Me d i a n Ho u s e h o l d In c o m e Me d i a n H o m e Va l u e Tenure Co s t -Bu r d e n e d Re n t e r s Al l P e o p l e Fa m i l i e s Un d e r 1 8 Ow n e r Re n t e r Central City 1019 2,470 23% 34% 24% 50% 1.51 $31,852 $172,500 10% 90% 43% 1020 2,382 22% 21% 23% 16% 1.91 $40,395 $208,500 26% 74% 46% 1023 2,931 33% 24% 8% 17% 1.82 $22,568 $186,100 17% 83% 43% 1021 1,460 21% 27% 14% 31% 1.29 $24,815 $173,100 12% 88% 46% Ballpark 1029 4,514 22% 42% 47% 81% 2.01 $22,203 $147,100 23% 77% 54% Glendale 1028.01 5,319 57% 35% 28% 49% 4 $43,750 $164,700 43% 57% 67% 1028.02 6,704 54% 35% 28% 53% 3.73 $42,891 $142,100 70% 30% 66% Poplar Grove 1026 3,658 51% 28% 26% 44% 2.92 $40,133 $145,900 57% 43% 64% 1027.01 5,209 62% 29% 25% 46% 3.13 $35,465 $133,700 49% 51% 75% 1027.02 4,128 76% 29% 29% 32% 3.56 $33,359 $129,400 31% 69% 51% Salt Lake City All 194,188 26% 18% 11% 22% 2.45 $54,009 $266,800 48% 52% 46% Note: Cost-Burdened Renters spend 30% or more of monthly income on housing costs. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 129 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 These 10 Census tracts identified above as having some of the highest poverty levels in the City are generally located within RDA project areas. ARE THERE ANY COMMUNITY ASSETS IN THESE AREAS/NEIGHBORHOODS?  Education Numerous schools are located in the target area, including the Dual Immersion Academy, the City Academy and Salt Lake Arts Academy. The Pete Suazo Business Center is also located in the area.  Health Services There are 23 clinical services/programs offered in Glendale/Poplar Grove, provided by a host of clinics including Donated Dental, Friends for Sight, Concentra Urgent Care, the University of Utah Clinic, First Med and the Glendale/Mountain View Community Learning Center, among others. Eight programs providing health education were found in the neighborhood. These programs are offered through Communidades Unidas, Sunday Anderson Senior Center, Mexican Consulate, Glendale Senior Housing, and the Boys and Girls Club . A total of six mental health services w ere identified in West Salt Lake. Four of the six programs are family and school -based mental health counseling offered through Valley Behavioral Health.  Cultural Arts The Sorenson Unity Center has a theatre and hosts performances within the community. Th e Utah Cultural Celebration Center has three different opportunities for youth specifically to enjoy ethnic performances as well as Shakespeare performances. Both venues also have art galleries that are open to the public.  Community Centers and Gardens The Hartland Partnership Center is located in the Glendale Neighborhood. This center offers resources such as English language instruction, mental health support, citizenship classes, and employment workshops. There are several community gardens in the target area. These gardens provide an opportunity for community interaction and allow for households to grow their own produce. Of special note are the International Peace Gardens which presents gardens and festivals from around the world, as well as a Farmer’s Market and Seed Swap event.  Parks, Recreation and Open Space One of West Salt Lake’s greatest assets is the abundance of parks and open space. Of Glendale and Poplar Grove residents, 83% live within a quarter mile of some form of green space. This is the highest percentage in the City. There are 14 parks, including the notable International Peace Garden, located in these neighborhoods and comprising over 100 acres. All green spaces are managed by Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands. The Jordan River Parkway offers outdoor boating opportunities. The Jordan River Parkway and 9 Line trails provide recreational opportunities and connectivity to natural environments. They also provide additional community connectivity and transportation options.  Fitness 130 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Glendale/Poplar Grove neighborhoods, located within the target area, offer 77 total health and fitness programs. The largest facility is the Sorenson Multicultural Center which offers a wide variety of youth programs including aquatics. Two fitness centers are targeted for seniors – the Sunday Andersen Senior Center and the Westside Center.  Public Transit The TRAX light rail line runs through the Ballpark and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The light rail also runs within one block of the Central City neighborhood. These transit lines connect these neighborhoods to the rest of the Salt Lake Valley and allow for greater employment opportunities.  Redevelopment Project Areas Redevelopment project areas cover the entire target area. This means that increment al tax revenues can be used to improve their respective project areas through a wide variety of projects including but not limited to infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, transportation, etc.), beautification, economic development incentives, façade renovation, grant funds, parks development, signage and wayfinding, etc. Specific objectives identified by the RDA for uses of funds within its existing project areas include: o Emphasize transit and connections to multi -modal transportation means o Create high-quality pedestrian environments o Promote infill development o Support high quality, diverse and affordable housing o Support public art in public places o Encourage innovative sustainability practices and limit carbon emissions o Promote transit-oriented development at key sites located at TRAX stations o Foster growth of small and new businesses o Participate in streetscape enhancements  Opportunity Zones As shown in the map below, a large percentage of the target area is also located in an opportunity zone. Opportunity zones were established under the Investing in Opportunity Act as a way to revitalize economically-distressed communities using private investment. Tax benefits to investors include the deferral and reduction of tax gains, thereby making these zones more attractive to investors and increasing the potential of leveraging private funds with public investment. FIGURE MA-50.1 131 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SLC RDA PROJECT AREAS AND OPPORTUNITY ZONES MA-60 BROADBAND NEEDS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY LOW- AND MODERATE - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS – 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R BRAODBAND WIRING AND CONNECTIONS FOR HOUSHOLDS, INCLUDING LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. A dependable broadband network provides many benefits. These networks attract businesses, provide social connections, increase educational opportunities, and improve the quality of life for citizens. According to Broadbandnow.com/Utah, 11.6% of Utah residents are underserved by broadband service providers. However, most of these underserved communities are in rural areas of the state and only 0.6% Salt Lake County is reportedly underserved. While service is provided to most h ouseholds in Salt Lake County, that doesn’t mean all households can afford access to the internet. The 2018 ACS 5-year Estimate reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake City without an internet connection. This represents almost 12% of the Ci ty’s households. A household which doesn’t have access to internet services through a broadband connection is at a significant disadvantage economically when seeking new employment and educationally if children or adults in the household are attending school. If these households are also low - or moderate-income households then a lack of internet connection could prove to be one of the largest barriers to economic growth for the household. 132 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R INCREASED COMPETIT ION BY HAVING MORE T HAN ONE BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER SERV E THE JURISDICTION. Competition is a basic economic principal that states that when there are multiple providers of a service then the prices of that service will be lower as the providers attempt to gain more market share through a more favorable price offered to the consumer. By providing more options, if a consumer feels they are being charged too much for a service then the consumer can look to an alternative provider. This movement in the market encourages providers to produce services at a competitive rate and protects consumers from unfair prices. MA-65 HAZARD MITIGATION – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2) DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S INCREASED NATURAL HAZARD RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. According to the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan the main natural hazards identified and investigated for Salt Lake County include:  Earthquake  Flood  Wildland Fire  Slope Failure  Severe Weather  Dam Failure  Avalanche  Pandemic  Drought  Infestation  Radon  Problem Soils Of these natural hazards, Salt Lake County identified Salt Lake City as being high risk for only earthquakes, floods, and wildfires while being at moderate risk for severe weather. DESCRIBE THE VULNERABILITY TO THESE RISKS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF DATA, FINDINGS, AND METHODS. Many low- and moderate-income households would suffer a greater financial impact from these risks than other households as repairs from earthquake, severe weather, flooding, or wildfires could cause serious financial stress. This negative effect could be compounded if these households could not afford additional insurance coverage. The Salt Lake County Multi -Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan iden tifies areas west of I-15 as a potential flood risk due to the Jordan River. In the plan, the area directly surrounding the Jordan River State Parkway is listed as a low - to moderate-risk with flood risk increasing at nearer proximity to the river. There i s also low-risk of flooding on the west side of the Rose Park neighborhood. These two flood areas are significant because they are areas with low - and moderate-income households. 133 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 134 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan identifies Salt Lake City’s priority needs and describes strategies that the City will undertak e to serve priority needs over a five-year period. The plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. SP-05 OVERVIEW The 2020-2024 Strategic Plan is based on an assessment of community needs as identified in this Consolidated Plan, in City planning documents, and on the ability of federal funds to meet the identified needs. Within this context, the 2020-2024 Strategic Plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. The five -year plan 135 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 provides a strategy for maximizing and leveraging the City’s block grant allocatio ns with other funding sources, including the City’s Redevelopment Agency, to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect and expand opportunities for housing, education, transportation, behavioral health services and economic development. Strategic plan goals call for Consolidated Plan funds to focus on the following: Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods  Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents  Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to su pporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation  Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multim odal transportation options.  Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas  Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations  Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas Build Community Resiliency Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability.  Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities  Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring.  Expand support for medical and dental care options for th ose experiencing homelessness 136 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations  Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis The City intends to leverage all potential funding resources to achieve its goals, recognizing the need to maximize participation from a variety of resources. The City has also established specific measurement criteria by which to measure its progress in meeting its goals. SP-10: GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES 91.215(a)(1) GEOGRAPHIC AREAS For the 2020-2024 program years, Salt Lake City has designated one local CDBG target area to concentrate and leverage funding to stimulate comprehensive neighborhood revitalization that expands housing opportunities, economic opportunities and neighborho od livability. Our selected target area corresponds with the City’s existing RDA project areas. If the RDA project areas change, the target area will adjust to continue to correspond to the RDA project areas. Throughout the duration of this Plan, the CDBG target area will represent any RDA project area. The combined RDA project areas were chosen as the target area for the following reasons:  The RDA areas generally overlap the lower-income areas of the City and areas that scored lower on the Opportunity Index. The Opportunity Index measures 16 factors including education, health, environment, social, and economic that indicate the relative opportunity in various geographic locations.  Tax increment funds are already being generated in RDA areas. While some fu nds are currently committed, there is the potential for additional tax increment revenues as new development occurs in these areas. These funds can then be spent within their respective RDA areas for a wide variety of purposes, including housing, beautific ation, revolving loan funds, public infrastructure, etc.  Most of the RDA areas were established with a required, designated set -aside (usually 10-20%) for housing. This provides an opportunity to leverage other funds with RDA funding.  Some of the redevelopment areas also included a finding of blight which indicates rundown conditions, with poor visual appearance. This is a deterrent to economic development and funding is needed to mitigate these conditions.  The RDA areas overlap with designated Opportunity Zones and by design will see an increase in private market investments. FIGURE SP-10.1 WEST SIDE TARGET AREA 137 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE SP-10.1 LOCAL TARGET AREAS 1 Area Name CDBG Target Area Area Type West Side Target Area Revital Type Comprehensive Identify the neighborhood boundaries for this target area. Beginning at 2100 South and State Street, the Target Area follows the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s State Street Project Area’s eastern boundary going north until 900 South. It then continues north alon g State Street to 600 South. The boundary then continues west on 600 South to 500 West. It then goes north on 500 West to 300 North. The boundary continues west on 300 North to Redwood Road. It then continues south on Redwood Road until 2100 South. The boundary then continues east on 2100 South until it reaches State Street where it ends at the intersection of 2100 South and State Street. Include specific housing and commercial characteristics of this area 44% owner occupied The neighborhood poverty rate as determined by the ACS information within Census Block Groups within the area ranges from 4 to 38%. The block groups average a poverty level of 27% compared to 17.8% in Salt Lake City. 138 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Area Name CDBG Target Area The average household size is 3.02, compared to 2.47 citywide. 36% of the area’s residents identify as Hispanic, compared to 22.3% of Salt Lake City. How did your consultation and citizen participation process help you to identify this neighborhood as a target area? Our Citizen Participation Plan included an online survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses. Neighborhoods in the RDA areas consistently ranked high in the survey results. As such, Council prioritized the RDA areas in the most vulnerable sections of the City, resulting in the current West Side Target Area. Identify the needs in this target area. Many of the existing housing units are old and rundown. Therefore, rehabilitation of existing housing stock is key for this area. Poverty levels are higher in this area than in other areas of the City. A reduction in poverty levels could be accomplished through the encouragement of mixed - income housing. Improving streetscapes and the visual appearance of the area could also attract more mixed - income development. There is a lack of bus and rail lines i n large portions of the target area resulting in higher transportation costs for much of the target area. What are the opportunities for improvement in this target area? Opportunities exist to enhance business districts and neighborhood nodes to promote ec onomic development, job creation, and overall community revitalization. Several arterials cross through the target area with high traffic counts suitable for economic development that could bring jobs to these lower-income areas. Housing rehabilitation and the development of strategic mixed-income housing will promote housing stability and economic diversity within the target area. Are there barriers to improvement in this target area? Many residents do not speak English as their first language. High renter levels often make for a more transitory population with less investment in the community. GENERAL ALLOCATION P RIORITIES Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighborhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designated to allow for a lo cally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the 2020-2024 program years has been identified in Figure SP-10.1. CDBG and other federal funding will be concentrated (not limited) to the target area. Neighb orhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximize community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. On an annual basis, internal city divisions/departments including the Redevelopment Agency, Salt Lake City Transportation, and Economic Development will strategize if specific areas of the CDBG target area are in need of additional focus/resources as it relates to CDBG eligible projects. This type of flexibility will ensure that the focus within the target area can move around as per the needs of the community. Activities will be coordinated 139 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 and leveraged, and can include an increase of marketing and outreach for housing programs, transportation improvements, and commercial façade improvements. FIGURE SP-10.2 TARGET AREA AND SLC NEIGHBORHOODS Source: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Target Areas The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low - and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and availab le resources. A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existing “for sale” homes fallin g short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact, households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes above the median have a 1 i n 130 chance.50 50 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affordability, May 2018. 140 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Targeting area resources are necessary to expand opportunity for the West Side Target Area as well as the impacted RDA Project Areas. The following area ways that investments will be realized:  Concentrating resources geographically will provide a way to help stabilize and improve distressed areas in these neighborhoods.  Connectivity between the target area and other areas of the Salt Lake Valley will reduce transportation costs and reduce financial burdens on households.  Neighborhood and/or community nodes will be targeted for commercial façade improvements, public transit enhancements and amenities that support non -motorized modes of transit.  Economic development and transportation projects can be located throughout the target area.  Housing rehabilitation projects can be located throughout the City, with a focus on the target area.  Support to microenterprises and for-profit businesses can be offered to qualified business across the City, however, additional focus and marketing efforts will o ccur within the target area. In an effort to expand community engagement in the local target area, HAND will reach out to residents, business owners, property owners, community councils, non -profit organizations, and other stakeholders to gather input on housing and community development needs. City departments and divisions will collaborate to leverage resources and efforts within the target area. HAND and the Department of Economic Development will create an inventory of eligible commercial buildings to target for façade improvements and/or interior code deficiencies and will engage property owners and entrepreneurs in outreach efforts. RATIONAL E FOR THE PRIORITIES F OR ALLOCATING INVEST MENTS GEOGRAPHICALLY Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, along with internal and community stakeholders, identified the target area through an extensive process that included data analysis, identification of opportunities/barriers, a citizen survey, and an evaluation of potential resources. Through this process, the RDA neighborhoods were identified as areas where a concentration of resources would make significant impacts within the community. This approach would also allow for ongoing leveraging of resources and efforts in these areas. Of particular importance is to direct resources to expand opportunity within areas where poverty levels are higher. According to HUD, neighborhoods of concentrated poverty isolate residents from the resources and networks needed to reach their potential and deprive the larger community of the neighborhood’s human capital. In another study, it was found that there were significant physical health improvements from reducing concentrated areas of poverty.51 Opportunity zones are also located within the target ar ea. This affords an opportunity to further leverage private investment within these economically -distressed areas. Opportunity zones attract private capital because of the ability to defer and reduce taxes associated with capital gains. The tax savings tha t can be realized are significant. Only 46 geographic areas in Utah have been designated as opportunity zones by the federal government, making these highly attractive sites. Further, other funding resources, such as low -income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and tax increment can also be realized in these zones, making for extremely competitive investment opportunities in areas that were previously overlooked. Salt Lake City intends to expand opportunity within the target areas to limit intergenerational pove rty, increase access to community assets, facilitate upward mobility, and provide safe, affordable housing. 51 Third Way, Moving to Opportunity: The Effects of Concentrated Poverty on the Poor, August 2014. 141 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-25 PRIORITY NEEDS 90.215(a)(2) Salt Lake City has determined the following priority needs after broad stakeholder outreach and analysis of community needs: TABLE SP-25.1 PRIORITY NEEDS 1 Priority Need: Homeless Services Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with disabilities Survivors of domestic violence Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Focus Areas:  Expand medical and dental care programs  Increase outreach programs  Support homeless resource centers & emergency overflow operations  Provide essential supportive services including case management for homeless Description Support the operating cost of homeless resource centers, day centers, emergency sheltering systems, and supportive services for the homeless. Increase access to critical health systems such as medical and dental care. Increase case management support for those working directly with homeless populations. Basis for Relative Priority According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844 homeless individuals, 193 of whom are unsheltered. Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses listed this as the top priority . PRIORITY NEEDS 142 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Low-income Moderate-income Large families Families with children Elderly Public housing residents Released jail inmates Refugees Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Provide Expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying housing stock within neighborhoods. Focus Areas:  Preserve and rehabilitate existing, aging affordable housing stock through improving the condition of housing throughout the City  Support anti-displacement strategies, prioritizing the target area identified in the plan. This may include strategies such as supporting Community Land Trust programmi ng, historic preservation and others.  Improve and expand the affordable housing stock including lifecycle housing, including special needs housing, elderly, and ADA accessible housing. As applicable, this should explore the ability to place housing in high opportunity areas and/or within walking distance of transit stations  Increase homeownership opportunities  Provide rent assistance to emphasize stable housing  Provide housing and essential supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS Description Provide loans, grants, and other financial assistance for the acquisition, preservation and development of affordable rental and homeownership opportunities. Provide financial assistance to stabilize low -income renters and homeowners. Explore and support strategies that ensure long-term affordability. Evaluate the relationship of housing and transit as a way of reducing overall housing costs. Basis for Relative Priority  According to the 2017 ACS data, 45.6% of Salt Lake City renter households and 25.5% of households with a mortgage are cost- burdened, spending over 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. 22.3% of renter households spend over 50% of their monthly income on housing.52 Families who are cost- 52 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates 143 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing burdened have limited resources for food, childc are, healthcare, transportation, education, and other basic needs.  The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers for 3,000 households, with 5,188 households on the waiting list. Countywide there are 15,981 households on a Housing Choice waiting list. A family on the waiting list can expect to wait 6 years before receiving a Housing Choice voucher. Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing increased significantly for both renters and homeowners. The median contract rent increased by 81.8% and home values increased 89.8%. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did not keep up with increases in housing costs, it has become more difficult for residents to buy or rent a home. The homeownership rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses listed this as the top priority PRIORITY NEEDS 3 Priority Need: Transportation Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Low-income Moderate-income Large families Families with children Elderly Persons with disabilities Geographic Areas Affected Citywide (Public Service) & CDBG Target Area (Infrastructure) Associated Goals Goal Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options Focus Areas:  Provide increased access to and cost assistance for public transportation services for vulnerable populations  Install bus stop improvements, including coordination with multi - modal transit needs – limited to CDBG Target Area  Improve bus stop shelters and sidewalk access to transit to increase mobility, especially for persons in wheelchairs or with disabilities – limited to CDBG Target Area  Install bike racks and stations in key areas to encourage alternative modes of transportation – limited to CDBG Target Area 144 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 3 Priority Need: Transportation Description Support improvements to transit that will improve affordability and increase access and safety Basis for Relative Priority Transportation services ranked high on the citizen participation survey and public outreach that received more than 4,000 responses. Annual household transportation costs are high in much of the target area. PRIORITY NEEDS 4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Survivors of domestic violenc e Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goals: Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability Focus Areas:  Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility  Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Description Expand opportunities for individuals and households living in poverty or in the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Activities include servic es to expand accessibility to employment opportunities, improve and enhance small businesses, promote access to early childhood education, expand the availability of digital technologies, and reduce food insecurities. 145 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency Basis for Relative Priority As our community faces challenges that hinder economic mobility, education, access to technology and increase food insecurity. Service providers, industry experts, data analysis, community members, and elected officials all agree that providing support for these efforts will enhance community resiliency as we look to improve access to critical services, rebuild from national, state or local emergencies. PRIORITY NEEDS 5 Priority Need: Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity and Self - Sufficiency Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of domestic violence Refugees Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Focus area:  Provide supportive services such as treatment, case management and counseling to expand opportunity and self -sufficiency for vulnerable populations  Support programs that provide connections to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs Description Expand opportunities and counseling services for individuals with behavioral health issues. Activities include counseling and treatment services for opioid and other substance abuse and mental health issues. Basis for Relative Priority Stakeholder meetings, City departments and public feedback from an online survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses prioritized behavioral health issues as there is an apparent link between behavioral health issues, homelessness, and the ability to maintain housing and sustain employment. 146 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-30 INFLUENCES OF MARKET CONDITIONS 91.215 (a)(2) Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type : As the needs assessment and market analysis have demonstrated, just over 22,500 Salt Lake City households are cost-burdened, spending 30% or more of their monthly income on housing (including ut ility costs) and are in need of housing that is affordable. Of these households, just over 10,000 households are severely cost - burdened, spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing. These households are at risk of homelessness. Market conditions influencing the production, rehabilitation, and assistance of affordable housing are as follows: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Incomes are not keeping up with rising rental costs. The median income rose 52.6% between 2000 and 2018 while rent rates increased by 81.8% over the same time period. Based on CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, vacancy rates are low (4.0%) placing upward pressure on rents. Strong population growth is also projected to continue, placing additional pressure on rents. Salt Lake County average monthly rents have increased from an average of $1,087 per month in 2017 to $1,153 in 2018. Market conditions have increased demand for Housing Choice vouchers, which currently have a gap of approximately 6,177 units for low -income households. Research also indicates that there is a lack of affordable units in close proximity to service providers to assist at - risk populations with housing and other needs. In addition, there is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing landlords, property, and social services organizations. TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs Low rental vacancy rates and incomes not keeping up with rising rental costs lead to increasing housing cost - burden rates and very high demand for Housing Choice vouchers. There is a gap of approximately 10,000 units for severely cost-burdened households. Funds are also needed for transitioning participants with HOPWA - funded housing to other housing subsidies and affordable housing units in closer proximity to transportation and essential services. There is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing landlords, property managers, and social service organizations. New Unit Production According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, “the market continues to expand at an above-average rate, adding a record 7,467 units along the Wasatch Front during 2018 (a growth rate of 4.6%). Approximately 6,244 units were slated for 2019. As rental rates rise, the question of rental affordability is of top concern. Renters coming from more expensive Tier 1 markets will continue to absorb many of these new units, and many locals will not be accustomed to paying higher rates. Rental rates are pushing upward due to a variety of factors including a construction industry stretched thin due to labor supply issues and rising costs. In addition to increasing construction costs, land costs are also rising, thereby driving up rents even further. This results in increasing cost-burden rates, very high demand for Ho using Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and a gap of approximately 10,000 units for severely cost -burdened households. There is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing developers/providers, property managers and social service organizations. Additional affordable units are needed in high -opportunity neighborhoods as well as units in close proximity to transportation and essential services. Rehabilitation Lower interest rates have somewhat improved the cost of construction and home ownershi p. However, many low-income households are still unable to qualify for loans for home ownership or home improvement 147 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 financing. The share of elderly homeowners is projected to increase as the median age increases in the Salt Lake Valley. Salt Lake City has an older housing stock, with about 30.1% of units built prior to 1940. Older housing stock located in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project areas are at risk for deterioration. Incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Affordable units are at r isk of being replaced with newer housing stock or that with revitalization the rents will convert to market rate. Stabilization of existing housing in the target area is imperative. Acquisition, Including Preservation According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, a robust market performance resulted in a historic $1.4 billion in multifamily sales across the Wasatch Front. Salt Lake City is increasingly viewed as a preferred, Tier 2 market. CAP rates have stayed low, suggesting confidence in the mul tifamily market outlook. The strong rental market-rate rental market shows the increasing need to preserve affordable rentals, as converting substandard rental housing to market-rate can be very desirable for property owners. SP-35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCE S 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s funding year 2020-2024 CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA allocations are estimated to be a total of $25,000,000 estimating an average of $5,000,000 per year. In addition, Salt Lake City anticipates recei ving program income of $7.5 million during the same time period, with an estimated average of $1.5 million of program income available to spend each year. HUD allocations will be utilized to address the growing housing and community development needs with in Salt Lake City. However, funding has declined over the past decade, making it more difficult to address needs and overcome barriers. Over the course of the 2020 -2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City will coordinate and leverage HUD allocations to assis t the City’s most vulnerable populations, increase self -sufficiency and address needs in the geographic target area. TABLE SP-35.1 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,400,000 $0 $35,000 $3,435,000 $13,600,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily 148 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $850,000 $300,000 $0 $1,150,000 $4,600,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation, program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA E S G Administration $290,000 $0 $2,500 $292,500 $1,160,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $430,000 $0 $15,000 $445,000 $1,720,000 Amount for remainder of 149 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Permanent Housing in Facilities Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules 150 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. EXPLAIN HOW FEDERAL FUNDS WILL LEVERAGE THOSE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES (PRIVATE, STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDS), INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF HOW MATCHING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SATISFIED: Match Requirements HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes.  HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that HOME match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subrecipients. Funding sources used to meet the HOME match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way ; local financial institutions; City General Fund; and unrestricted donations.  Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subgrantees. Fundin g sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General Fund; in -kind match and unrestricted donations. Fund Leveraging Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following:  Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers 151 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Housing Connect currently administer Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers. The City projects the local housing authorities will receive approximately $173.6 million in funding during the plan p eriod to support public housing units.  Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives State and local LIHTC -allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower -income households. Federal 4% and 9% tax credits are a major funding source of capital for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental homes. In 2019, the Agency allocated $10,900,317 in Federal and State Housing Credits.53 At the current funding level, approximately $55 million will be available for low-income homebuyer programs to dev elopers to build or renovate affordable apartment housing products over the course of this Plan.  New Market Tax Credits New Market Tax Credits are an additional tool utilized to attract private capital investment in areas in need of job growth and economi c development.  RDA Development Funding The RDA has 12 project areas, nine of which are currently collecting tax increment. Tax increment funds are required to be reinvested back into the same “project area” from which funds are generated and to contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City. The purpose of an RDA is to reverse the negative effects of blight, while increasing the tax base from which the taxing entities draw their funds. The RDA generated $33,833,404 in tax increment receipts in 2018. The RDA generally uses a 2% annual growth rate for existing project areas. State legislation governing RDAs require that 20% of tax increment receipts is set aside for the creation or preservation of affordable housing. A portion of those funds can be used in the CDBG Target Area. In addition, in 2019 the following two additional project areas will commence generating tax increment for the RDA: o Stadler Rail CRA: $180,750 o Northwest Quadrant: $18,873  Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Salt Lake City’s Housing Trust Fund strives to address the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s citizens by providing assistance for affordable and special needs housing within the City. The Trust Fund has a 2019 budget of $7,400,023.  Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) The City administers the Economic Development Loan Fund which makes loans to small businesses located in the City for the purpose of stimulating economic development and commercial and industrial diversity by enhancin g business opportunities, providing employment and promoting neighborhood revitalization. This fund currently has a cash balance of approximately $4.0m and loans outstanding of $5.6m.  Salt Lake City General Fund 53 https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/utah_2019_lihtc_awards_2019.pdf 152 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City uses excess general funds for homeless services when such funds are available, and opportunities present themselves. The City has allocated $2.5M of resources for homeless services in fiscal year 2020.  Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Utah State’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund is one of th e largest affordable housing loan funding tools for affordable housing developers working in Salt Lake City. The loan fund had about $14 million available in fiscal year 2020.  Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding Although it is not possible to estimate how much Community Reinvestment Act funding will be made available locally, there are a large number of industrial and commercial banks that reside in Salt Lake City and that have requirements to invest in low -income areas.  Continuum of Care Funding The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Continuum of Care) provides approximately $7.8 million of annual funding for local homeless housing and service programs.  Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners Charitable establishments and philanthropic p artners make up a critical part of the funding stream used in the State of Utah. It is estimated that during the Consolidated Plan period, over $100m will be used to support low - and moderate-income residents, with a considerable amount of the funding being used in Salt Lake City. IF APPROPRIATE, DESCRIBE PUBLICLY-OWNED LAND OR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THAT MAY BE USED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN: Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development o pportunities through the redevelopment of City -owned land, strategic land acquisitions, parcel assembly, and disposition. As per City ordinance, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division will work collaboratively with other City divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state, and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. The City has already shown its commitment to leveraging funding through the selection of the target area which matches the current RDA areas. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic ini tiatives, policies, and programs. SP-40: INSTITUTIONAL DE LIVERY STRUCTURE 91-215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its Consolidated Plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. TABLE SP-40.1 INSTITUTIONAL DELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS 153 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Advantage Services, Inc. Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs, Homeless services Region Alliance House Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region Asian Association of Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region ASSIST, Inc. Non -profit organization Affordable housing: ownership Region Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Boys and Girls Club of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Catholic Community Services Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Community Development Corp of Utah Non -profit organization Affordable housing: ownership State Community Health Centers Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Crossroads Urban Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Disability Law Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region English Skills Learning Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Family Promise of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Homelessness Region Family Support Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region First Step House Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Guadalupe School Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Helping Hands Association dba The Haven Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region House of Hope Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Housing Authority of Salt Lake City PHA Public housing, affordable housing: rental Jurisdiction Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake PHA Public housing, affordable housing: rental Region Utah Law Related Education Project Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Literacy Action Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Neighborhood House Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction 154 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served NeighborWorks Salt Lake CHDO Affordable housing: ownership, economic development Region Odyssey House Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region People Helping People Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Rape Recovery Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Road Home Non -profit organization Homelessness Region Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development Departments and agencies Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Department of Public Services Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Planning Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Engineering Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Departments and agencies Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Parks and Public Lands Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Streets Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Government Affordable housing: homeownership, rental Jurisdiction Salt Lake City RDA Redevelopment authority Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City School District Other Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction Salt Lake Community Action Program Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Salt Lake and Tooele Continuum of Care Continuum of Care Homelessness Region Salt Lake Donated Dental Services Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Sarah Draft Home Non -profit organization Affordable housing; home ownership Region Sorenson Unity Center Government Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction Utah AIDS Foundation Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region 155 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Utah Food Bank Non-profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs State Utah Health and Human Rights Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Utah Homeless Management Information System Government Homelessness, non - homeless special needs State Utah Housing Corporation Other Affordable housing homeownership, rental State Utah Non -Profit Housing Corporation Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region Utahns Against Hunger Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Valley Behavioral Health Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Volunteers of America (VOA) Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Wasatch Community Gardens Non -profit organization Neighborhood improvements Region Wasatch Homeless Healthcare – 4th Street Clinic Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Welcome Home Salt Lake City Government Home ownership City YMCA Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region YMCA Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region ASSESS STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN THE INSTITUT IONAL DELIVERY SYSTEM Community needs are efficiently and effectively addressed through the knowledge, commitment, and resources of a broad range of partners. By working closely with governmental partners and private organizations, Salt Lake City is able to carry out an institutional delivery structure that emphasizes collaboration and resource leveraging. Public services for Salt Lake City’s homeless and extremely low -income population are delivered through a network of integrated public -private partnerships. Coordination meetings are regularly held to manage service delivery for individuals and families that have multiple and complex problems that require comprehensive services form more than one organization. Coordination meetings are also utilized to streamline services and prevent the duplication of efforts. A significant institutional delivery barrier is that financial resources limit the amount of services provided in the community. Many service providers have long wait lists. Salt Lake City is working with community partners to prioritize and restructure services to utilize funding resources more eff ectively. TABLE SP-40.2 AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH HIV 156 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance X X Rental Assistance X X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care X X Education X X Employment/Employment Training X X Healthcare X X X HIV/AIDS X X X Life Skills X X X Mental Health Counseling X X X Transportation X DESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH HIV AND MAINSTREAM SERVICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENT AL HEALTH AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ARE MADE AVAILABLE T O AND USED BY HOMELESS PERSONS (PARTICULARLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIV IDUALS AND FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) AND PERSONS WITH HIV WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. Fourth Street Clinic, dba Wasatch Homeless Healthcare, is an AAAHC Patient Centered Medical Home that provides coordinated medical, mental health, substance abuse, case management, dental, and pharmacy services. It provides the primary medical services to the homeless community. Other organizations such as Donated Dental provide complimentary services. In 1985, the Utah Department of Health reported a total of 17 persons living with AIDS in Utah. At that time, the state and most citizens were unprepared to address the HIV/AIDS issue. The need for public information and for assistance for persons living with HIV/AIDS forced a community -based response, which ultimately became the Utah AIDS Foundation (UAF). Today, a two -fold approach of direct client services and targeted prevention education still comprises the basis for all UAF programming. UAF works with Clinic 1A to ensure that those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are connected to medical case management, housing case management, employment opportunities, and other services. Valley Behavioral Health, formerly known as Valley Mental Health, provides services to all residents in Salt Lake County (including those who are experiencing homelessness) that experience serious mental illnesses, substance use disorders and behavioral problems. Valley Behavioral Health operates Safe Haven and Salt Lake Valley Storefront. Located at 550 W 700 S Salt Lake City, Safe Haven is a permanent supportive housing program for those that meet Valley Behavioral Health’s client criteria. Salt Lake Valley Storefront is a day center at Safe Haven and is solely for those experiencing serious mental illnesses. 157 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The State of Utah’s Department of Workforce Services has an employment center co -located at the Weigand Day Center. This offers those using services on Rio Grande or meals at St. Vincent DePaul’s Dining Hall, a chance to connect with employment without traveling. Founded in 1958, First Step House is a co -occurring capable, behavioral health treatment and housing provider. First Step is a Joint Commission-accredited organization and is a consistent leader in the Salt Lake metro area delivering evidence-based interventions and achieving positive outcomes for individuals, Veterans, and families experiencing substance use disorders, homelessness, mental health conditions, justice system involvement, and primary health concerns. First Step operates two residential treatm ent facilities, two outpatient treatment centers, and six transitional housing facilities in Salt Lake County. The scope of services includes substance use disorder, criminogenic, and mental health assessment and referral, residential and outpatient treatm ent, recovery residence services, transitional housing, case management, employment support, primary health care, peer support services, and long-term recovery management. Odyssey House of Utah focuses on addiction recovery services through both in -patient and out-patient programs. Programs are available for both adults and teens. Other programs serving our community include Volunteers of America Cornerstone, which provides substance use treatment for low -income and homeless individuals. In addition, Volu nteers of America has two detox programs including Adult Detox and Center for Women and Children. Both serve low -income, homeless individuals or families. DESCRIBE THE STRENGT HS AND GAPS OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYST EM FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION AND PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SERV ICES LISTED ABOVE. Homeless services organizations within the Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care work diligently to coordinate services and place people in housing. Local or ganizations participate in HMIS, managed by the State of Utah. Through HMIS, service providers are able to view other services their clients access and coordinate on a client-by-client basis. The local CoC also uses the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) form in the annual Point -in-Time count. By using the VI-SPDAT at first contact, the clients can be connected to services quicker and receive help sooner. However, there are always improvements that can be made in coordinating activities. Meetings with stakeholders revealed concerns that case management loads were too large and that reductions were necessary for better coordination and provision of services. So, while coordination occurs, there is often a high lev el of demand for services in comparison to the availability of needed treatment and services. PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE STRATEGY FOR OVE RCOMING GAPS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM FO R CARRYING OUT A STRATEGY TO ADDRESS PRIORITY NEEDS. The Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care continues to implement coordinated access based on the VI-SPADT form. Salt Lake County is leading efforts to coordinate services for the homeless with the end goal of providing homeless services as seamlessly as possible. 158 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-45: GOALS In consideration of priority needs and anticipated resources, Salt Lake City has defined the following five -year goals: TABLE SP-45.1 G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geograp hic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $ 6,000,000 ESG $343,750 HOME $2,500,000 HOPWA $1,940,000 5075 Households assisted 2 – Transportation Improve access to transportation 2020 2024 Transportation Target Areas/Cit y Wide Transportation CDBG $4,000,000 100,300 Households assisted 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economic and/or housing stability 2020 2024 Economic Development/Pu blic Services Target Areas/Cit y Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $1,250,000 325 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homelessness is brief, rare, and non-recurring 2020 2024 Public Services/Homele ss Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $1,000,000 ESG $825,000 2050 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerable populations experiencing substance abuse and mental health challenges 2020 2024 Public Services/Behavio ral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $500,000 400 households assisted 6 – Administration Administration 2020 2024 Administration Citywide Administration CDBG $3,200,000 ESG $103,125 HOME HOPWA $60,000 N/A TABLE SP-45.2 G OAL DESCRIPTIONS Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents  Support programs that pr ovide access to home ownership  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness 159 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Goal Name Goal Description  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs  Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.  Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit  Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation  Support a ccess to transportation, prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability  Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility  Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses  Expand access to early chil dhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring  Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness  Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations  Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration To support the administration, coordination and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs. ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME, LOW-INCOME, AND MODERATE - INCOME FAMILIES TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED BY HOME 91.315(B)(2): 160 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Over the course of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City anticipates that CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA funds will provide affordable housing and housing subsidy assistance as follows:  Housing Rehabilitation: 1,000 Households  Direct Financial Assistance to Home Buyers: 100 Households  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance/Rapid Re-housing: 2,800 Households  Homeless Prevention: 500 Persons SP-50: PUBLIC HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY AND INVOLVEMENT 91.215(c) NEED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE UNITS (IF REQUIRED BY A SECTION 504 VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT) The local housing authorities are in compliance with the Section 504 Voluntary Compliance agreement. Activities to Increase Resident Involvement:  Monthly tenant meetings  Tenant association meetings with both City and County tenants  Salt Lake County Aging Services has a center located on site at high rise  HACSL has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing (including the high - rise), Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appo inted to the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners. IS THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY DESIGNATED AS TROUBLED UNDER 24 CFR PART 902? No. The Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City are both designated as high performers. SP-55: STRATEGIC PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 91.215(h) As discussed in detail in section MA -40, the most critical public policy barriers (direct and indirect) to the production and preservation of affordable housing include the foll owing: Economic Conditions  Housing costs have risen more quickly than incomes over the past 10 years  Transportation costs are significantly higher in some neighborhoods than others due to a disparity in the availability of transit and distance from employ ment centers Land Regulations and Permitting Process  Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (similar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking standards. Some of these regulations can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following: o Density limitations o Lack of multifamily zoning o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility) 161 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  The process to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for some developers  Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouraging development of higher -margin product (i.e., market-rate units) Land Costs  High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experienced growth and new construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City, furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dis persal of housing options throughout the city  Land costs restrict the ability to place affordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services, particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is constructed in areas that result in high percentages of income being spent towards transportation. Ultimately, these developments further increase traffic issues Construction Costs  Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in t he recent past. This has caused upward pressure on rents, and limited what type of product developers are able to provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits  Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or no profit for undertaking such renovation. This limits the desire to undertake such endeavors unless incentives can be provided Development and Rehabilitation Financing  Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures  There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Neighborhood Market Conditions  Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing development when a zoning approval process is required  Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options d o not have the appeal for large-scale housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates, and limited employment diversity The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market  Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households 162 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city  Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Other strategies employed by the City include the following: Homeless Strategies Coordinating with local service providers, municipalities, State of Utah, Continuum of Care, and others through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness in an effort to create a system by which resources, services, data collection, and analysis results in coordination among all stakeholders. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan The City has formally adopted a new housing plan that will begin to address many of the barriers listed above and catalyze partners in the city and region to focus on the current housing crisis. Th e plan provides an assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on the availability and affordability of housing, housing needs for changing demographics, and neighborhood -specific needs. The updated plan will serve as a five -year policy guide to address housing needs across the economic and demographic spectrum of Salt Lake City’s current and future residents. Affordable Housing Initiative The City is committed to providing a comprehensive housing initiative to address Salt Lake City’s lack of housing options affordable to low -wage workers and moderate-income families, persons with disabilities and those on fixed incomes. By utilizing the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund and other community resources, the City will support the preservation, develop ment, and rental assistance of housing units over the time period of the Consolidated Plan. The initiative will target these forms of assistance to extremely low -income renter households as well as expanding homeownership and housing opportunities for low - to middle-income families and individuals. Community Land Trust Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust (CLT) that will allow donated and trusted land to maintain perpetual affordability while ensuring the structure on the land, the home, is p urchased, owned, and sold over time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home would be. By holding the land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the home is sold, insulating the property for growing land c osts but still allowing equity to be built by the homeowner. Blue Ribbon Commission This commission was tasked with identifying how the City can fund and produce 1,000 units of affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. This commission has since been s un-setted, but the efforts of creating affordable housing through the mechanisms identified continue to move forward. Welcome Home Salt Lake City Salt Lake City initiated a new homeownership program, Welcome Home SLC, which is aimed at increasing housing options for low- and moderate-income households. It will help stabilize communities, provide incentive for neighborhood investments, and allow families to build wealth. Leverage Public Land Promote affordable housing development by leveraging public reso urces with private investments. Potential tools include the following: 163 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Development of affordable housing on publicly -owned land  Utilize proceeds form development of publicly -owned land to fund affordable housing  Create a policy for prioritizing affordable housing uses when disposing of public land. Impact Fee Exemption The City’s recently completed Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022 recommends that impact fees could be reduced by a decision-making body that reviews project transactions and th at could only be accessed by developers who commit to a percentage of units at a specific level of affordability. Funding Our Future In 2018, the City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase to address several important issues within the City including transportation, housing, infrastructure, and public safety. This is estimated to provide an estimated $5 million additional sales tax revenues to support housing needs each year. Revenues may be shared between development efforts and supporting affordabl e housing program efforts. Redevelopment Agency Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency committed $17 million to address affordable housing efforts, with a third of that targeted to areas where the City has experienced high land costs. SLC Housing Trust Fund The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single -family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant-based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical as sistance. Applications for funding can be accepted year-round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council. Funding Targeting The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division continually evaluates ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, including:  Coordinate local funding sources – Olene Walker, SLC Housing Trust Fund, County partnerships  Target soft money to housing units affordable to households with lower AMIs  Target soft money with low or no interest loans. Policies Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing through the following efforts:  Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following:  Refine the Impact Fee Exemption Ordinance to improve user friendliness and refine the range of application.  Evaluate the accessory dwelling unit ordinance for a broader range of application.  Evaluate the transit station area zoning district regulations for a broader range of affordability requirements and potentially expand the use of that zone.  Evaluate the feasibility of density bonuses and other development incentives for affordable housing development and preservation, specifically in Historic Landmark Districts where it is particularly difficult to add housing.  Review the City’s Fee Schedule to eliminate added fees for developers of affordable housing.  Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. 164 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including C ity- owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development. · Funding Targeting: The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc).  Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund: Funding is focused on acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The City has been very successful in spending down the Trust’s funds over FY17-18 and is resulting in an increased number of affordable units being built in the city. Applications for funding can be accepted year-round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council.  Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s 2015- 2019 Fair Housing Action Plan.  Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportu nity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project- based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing. In addition to the Action Items listed above, the City aims to tackle some of the larger problems behind the lack of affordable housing – mainly the lack of a living wage. One way the City is addressing this issue is through strategic targeting of its CDBG funds to programs that provide job training for vulnerable populations or to organizations that create economic development opportunities. SP-60: HOMELESS STRATEGY 91.215(h) REACHING OUT TO HOME LESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY UNSHELTERED PERSONS) AND ASSESSING THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street and eventually into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Salt Lake City rec ognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits all solution. There are groups of chronic homeless individuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth, and homeless-by-choice in the greater communi ty. Each of these groups has different needs and each stage of homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (keeping people from dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping wit h daily needs – lockers, showers, etc.), transcending homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence (offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will eventually be unsuccessful . Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City works regularly wi th various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services; Volunteers of America, Utah; the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop - in center and employs social workers that assess individuals’ needs and help connect people with available 165 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 housing and supportive services. The CCC has been successful in filling the need for additional homeless outreach and case management services in the City. The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) is also beginning a new pilot program. When available, while respon ding on a call with a person experiencing homelessness, SLCPD will bring with them a social worker to engage with the client and help assess their service needs and connect them to services. ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING NEEDS OF HOMELESS PERSONS. Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten -Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First model. Although the ten - year plan has sunset, the programs and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First model has been effective in Sa lt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new solutions in these areas as outlined in the City’s newly - adopted housing plan, Growing SLC. There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Needed daytim e services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and an indoor area to “hang out.” Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and providing a free storage program. Furthermore, Salt Lake City has constructed two new homeless resource centers that will provide emergency shelter and housing -focused supportive services. This shift in how homeless services are provided will help the community realize our goal that homelessness is rar e, brief, and non-recurring. Moving forward, Salt Lake City will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts un dertaken by other stakeholders and, at times, filling in gaps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues. Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing options along the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing. Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committee, and the Salt Lake City Continuum of Care voted in support of merging these two entities into a new homel ess system structure called the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. HELPING HOMELESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND 166 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) MAKE THE TRANSITION TO PERMANENT HOUSING AND INDEPENDENT LIVING, INCLUDING SHORTENING THE PERIOD OF TIME T HAT INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES EXPERIE NCE HOMELESSNESS, FACILITATING ACCESS FO R HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES TO AFFORD ABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND PREVENTING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO WERE RECENT LY HOMELESS FROM BEC OMING HOMELESS AGAIN. Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collectio n, analysis, and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market  Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households  Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city  Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5% in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is anticipated that over $2m of fun ding will be available each year to support low -income individuals and families access to affordable housing. Among other housing needs, funds will be used to support access of permanent housing opportunities for those that are exiting homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. HELPING LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AVOID BE COMING HOMELESS, ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND THOSE WHO ARE: BEING DISCHARGED FROM PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTE MS OF CARE (SUCH AS HEAL TH CARE FACILITIES, MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES, FOSTER CARE AND OTHER YOUTH FACILITIES, AND CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS); OR, RECEIVING ASSISTANCE FROM PUBL IC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES THAT ADDRESS HOUSING, HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR YOUTH NEEDS The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market 167 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households  Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city  Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5% in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is antic ipated that over $2m of funding through Funding Our Future will be available each year to support low -income individuals and families access affordable housing. Among other needs, funds will be used to identify and support households that are at risk of lo sing housing due to a variety of reason, including but not limited to eviction for non -payment, those that are precariously housed, those that are in fact at risk of becoming homeless, but do not meet HUD’s definition of homeless, or that are in a judicial process in which mitigation and resolution is possible. Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Count y and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short -term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and famil ies experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. SP-65: LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS 91.215(i) Because a high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts about lead-based paint must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. During the 2018 -2019 program year, Salt Lake City worked in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, including the following:  Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils.  Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead -based paint hazard awareness in minority communities.  Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as hav ing elevated blood levels.  Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation. 168 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE RELATED TO THE EXTENT OF LEAD POISO NING AND HAZARDS? Our efforts over the last five years have resulted in a significant increase in the number of children being tested for elevated blood-lead levels. This has been made possible th rough improvements in testing technology which has allowed the City to better detect and protect children and their family members who might be living in a hazardous environment. The percentage of children testing positive has continued to remain below 1% despite the action level for blood-lead levels has been reduced from 10 mcg/dl to 5 mcg/dl. Through our rehabilitation and outreach efforts, we hope to continue to maintain these low testing levels and continue to protect our children from dangerous living conditions. HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE INTEGRATED INTO HOUSING POL ICIES AND PROCEDURES? The abatement of lead in Salt Lake City’s existing housing stock is an important component of addressing fair housing impediments for low -income families with c hildren. It is a policy of Salt Lake City’s Housing Rehabilitation program, as well as other housing programs funded through the City’s federal entitlement block grants, to employ safe work practices when working to identify and abate lead -based paint in households. SP-70: ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY 91.215(j) JURISDICTION GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF POVERTY-LEVEL FAMILIES Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality and must address poverty in our community. The limited incomes of many Salt Lake City residents have left them with insufficient means to meet an adequate standard of living – especially in light of the massive increase in housing, transportation, health care, and many other critical need costs. In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households from falling into povert y, Salt Lake City is focusing on a multi-pronged approach: 1. Identify strategic opportunities to build capacity, prevent displacement, and expand resources within the target area that align with other large-scale community investment. 2. Support the City’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless individuals and families, those facing behavioral health concerns, persons living with HIV/AIDS, disabled, and the low -income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, stabilizing households that may be at risk of losing their housing, deploy anti - displacement strategies, increase employment skills of at -risk adults, access to transportation for low -income households, and support behavioral health programs. Efforts will focus on the following objectives: 169 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024  Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes.  Expand housing opportunities.  Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services.  Evaluate the use of anti -displacement strategies and access to high opportunity areas.  Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable populations. Federal entitlement funds allocated through this Consolidated Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty strategy through the following:  Provide job/vocational training for vulnerable populations.  Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations.  Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners.  Expand affordable housing opportunities.  Improve neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in target areas.  Provide transportation amenities that support multi -modal transportation.  Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable popu lations. HOW ARE THE JURISDICTION’S POVERTY REDUCING GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES COORDINATED WITH THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN: Anti-poverty efforts outlined in this plan will be leveraged with other City plans, programs, initiatives and resources to undertake a comprehensive approach to reduce the occurrence of poverty within Salt Lake City. City programs and initiatives that support anti -poverty efforts include, but are not limited to, the following:  Growing SLC : A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022  Affordable Housing Rehabilitation and Development  Rental Assistance Programs  Direct Financial Assistance Programs  Economic Development Loan Fund SP-80: MONITORING 91.230 DESCRIBE THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TH AT THE JURISDICTION WILL USE TO MONITOR ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN AND WILL USE TO ENSURE LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAMS INVOLVED, INCLUDING MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PL ANNING REQUIREMENTS. To ensure compliance from the start of a project or program, the Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Division uses the application process to start the monitoring process of all agencies. Each application must go through an extensive review process that includes a risk analysis of pr oposed activities and ensures that each applicant meets a national objective and that the organizational goals are aligned with the goals identified in the City’s Consolidated Plan. Once the applications pass the initial review, each application is taken through an extensive public process, with the final funding decisions being made by our City Council. At that time, contracts are drawn up that identify governing regulations, scope of work, budgets and any other Federal requirements and local requirement s of the grant. Once fully executed contracts are in place, HAND’s Capital Planning staff are responsible for 170 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 monitoring the agencies through the life of the contract. The agencies are monitored for compliance with the program regulations as well as the content found in the City contracts. To ensure sub-grantees are aware of program requirements, each agency that was awarded funds received an invitation to attend a mandatory grant training seminar. This seminar allows HAND staff to reiterate Federal regulations, provide guidance on changes for the upcoming grant year, identify Federal funding concerns, and review expectations of the agencies. The City requires that at least one attendee from each agency come to the training. Each person attending the train ing seminar receives a handbook that contains important information including contacts, website links, timelines, and a list of documents that are required to be submitted to the City annually. Agencies that were unable to attend do have the ability to rec eive training documents if they contact the City. The City operates all CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grants on a reimbursement basis. This ensures that desk reviews, an important part of monitoring, can be completed before federal funds are utilized for any program or project. A desk review was completed for every reimbursement request. This allowed HAND staff to ensure that all requirements of the contract and federal regulations were actively being met prior to disbursing any funds or drawing funds from HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The IDIS system also helps to assist with program/project eligibility requirements, track spending rates and report performance measurements. During the program year, the HAND staff works together with sub-grantees to ensure Federal regulations are followed. This ensures consistent communication between staff and agencies and reduces confusion. Through the use of a Risk Analysis, coupled with reporting mechanisms, the Division Director and HAND st aff are able to determine which agencies would benefit from a technical training session, and which agencies need to have an on-site monitoring visit. The agencies that score highest typically have a monitoring visit during the following program year. As per Federal regulations, select agencies from each program (CDBG, ESG, HOME & HOPWA) are monitored on an annual basis. Because it is a HAND policy that each reimbursement request receives a desk review prior to funds being disbursed, it is a straightforward process to monitor compliance throughout the term of the contract. In addition to desk reviews, tailored guidance is given throughout the year via telephone and email conversations. Many of the agencies receiving funding were for programs that have recei ved grant funds over a long period of time and had no substantial changes to their programs. As such, the City focused its efforts on new agencies needing technical assistance, and on working with veteran agencies and their performance measurements to ensure better data quality for outcomes. Agencies receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance funding are highly encouraged to place clients in multifamily units that meet the City Housing standards. It is the City’s requirement that all residential rental units must have a current City business lic ense. These units are regularly inspected as per City Ordinance. However, it is also our understanding that some clients may not be housed in multifamily units for one reason or another. In an effort to ensure safe, decent housing, a process exists whereby a Landlord may self-certify that the unit meets City Housing Code. Outside of the City’s incorporated boundaries, agencies must follow local housing ordinances. In these instances, a Housing Quality Standard Inspection form must be in the client’s file. All inspections and housing standards must be met prior to the clients moving into their units. HAND staff provides year-round technical assistance via phone, email and when needed, in person. This technical assistance provides the agencies with an opport unity to evaluate programs, policies and practices in a low stress environment. Continued technical assistance ensures compliance with federal regulations. 171 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Technical assistance and monitoring visits reveal that, in general, our agencies have well documen ted processes and are quick to contact the City when questions arise. If deficiencies are identified and agencies will work quickly to adjust processes as necessary and move forward with stronger programs. The City encourages citizens to become active in their communities, providing feedback to the City about how their neighborhoods could be improved, how funding should be prioritized, and address safety concerns. 174 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX A: 2020-2024 FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN Salt Lake City is dedicated to affirmatively furthering the purposes of the Fair Housing Act to ensure equal access to rental and homeownership opportunities for all residents. Through the efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan, Salt Lake City will continue to collaborate with our partners to enforce federal, state, and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, age, parental status, or marital status. In addition, the City will address practices and policies that have the effect of limiting housing choice for protected classes. As part of a larger network of fair housing stakeholders, Salt Lake City will work toward a future where everyone has an equitable and affordable place to call home. ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS In 2014, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Utah completed a comprehensive analysis of fair housing on both a regional and city level with a grant from HUD. Salt Lake City continues to use the 2014 data due to the fact that there are no significant changes to the data, nor significant changes to the methods to address the impediments identified. However, the City will continue to work collaboratively with community members, data experts, and local municipalities if additional data comes forward. The Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity Assessment provide an analysis of the following: • Patterns of segregation • Racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty • Disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability in access to housing and community assets, including education, transit, and employment This Analysis of Impediments builds on that prior study and focuses on current areas of impediments. Between 2013 and 2018, The Fair Housing Program of the Disability Law Center (DLC) of Utah conducted fair housing testing for the purpose of uncovering rental housing discrimination directed towards protected classes. This program serves Salt Lake City and all areas of Utah to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld and that micro or systematic discrimination is not present. ACTION PLAN Salt Lake City has utilized the regional analysis of impediments, fair housing equity assessment, and data gathered through the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process to identify impediments to fair housing choice that disproportionately affect members of protected classes. The following Action Plan provides an overview of fair housing impediments and provides action items to remove or ameliorate each impediment. Impediments can be direct or indirect, created by both public sector and private sector actions, and have been divided into the following categories: 1. Discrimination in Housing 2. Mobility and Access to Opportunity 3. Availability of Affordable and Suitable Housing 4. Zoning, Land Use Regulations and Redevelopment Policies 5. Fair Housing Coordination and Knowledge 175 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1. Discrimination in Housing As a HUD-funded recipient Salt Lake City does not discriminate in housing or services on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex, as well as protected classes covered under state and local regulations. The City works to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensure equal housing opportunities for all. Even with the City’s efforts to eliminate discriminatory practices, fair housing equity assessments have, on occasion, found discriminatory practices. Impediment: Unfair Lending Practices A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake County. The mortgage application denial rate for Hispanics (20%) in Salt Lake City is higher than that of non-Hispanics (13%).1 Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand homeownership opportunities by continuing to target the City’s Low and Moderate-Income Homebuyer program, as well as other direct financial assistance programs funded through CDBG and HOME, to racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, single-parent households, and large families. II. Collaborate with community partners, including community development organizations, religious institutions, employment centers, and housing counseling agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and Spanish, as well as other languages as needed. III. Work with local lenders, financial institutions, and real estate institutions to build awareness on fair housing laws and practices. IV. Support the Disability Law Center’s fair housing testing efforts directed at private market real estate practices Impediment: Rental Discrimination The Fair Housing Program at Utah’s Disability Law Center serves people from all protected classes (race, color, ethnicity, sex/gender, religion, disability, familial status) and not just people with disabilities. Utah law also protects against discrimination based on source of income, sexual orientation and gender identity. The program serves Salt Lake City and is intended to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld and that micro or systematic discrimination is not present. The Disability Law Center helps ensure that people who belong to protected classes have equal access and opportunity to rent or own homes and apartments in their communities. This work includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Ensuring that landlords and property owners do not discriminate in renting or selling property • Making sure that housing is accessible to people with disabilities to the extent required by law • Advocating to increase the amount of accessible, affordable, and integrated housing • Providing fair housing trainings for providers, landlords, and consumers of housing • Conducting fair housing testing to ensure that landlords are complying with fair housing laws • Enforcing fair housing laws through administrative and judicial complaint processes 1 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 176 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Disability Law Center has uncovered rental housing discrimination directed toward protected classes. The Center conducts tests with matched pairs of individuals, couples, or families. Testers are matched on rental eligibility characteristics so that the only significant difference between them is the factor being tested. • On average, approximately 300 calls a year to the Disability Law Center originate from Salt Lake City residents. • Data on fair housing testing from the Disability Law Center, the most common rental housing discrimination in Salt Lake City are primarily based on disability status, national origin, and race. • Data collected from 2013 to 2018 showed 97 cases of confirmed disparate treatment and signs of disparate treatment, regarding housing discrimination in Salt Lake City. During this period there were a total of 1,078 reports of people who felt they had been discriminated against. Of those, 456 total required short-term assistance and instructions on how to advocate for what they need on their own or required referrals to other legal agencies. • In 2019 Approximately 40 of the total calls were elevated to case level. Of those, the Disability Law Center successfully mediated directly with landlords on behalf of tenants. • Approximately 150 fair housing tests per year are completed by the Disability Law Center, with about 25% of the total having some sort of housing discrimination red flag. Examples of the incidents around rental housing discrimination, all of which are illegal, verified by the Disability Law Center testing are: • Landlords requesting tenants to waive HIPAA rights to verify their disabilities. • Requiring extra deposit fees for service animals. • Landlords wanting to visibly identify a person’s severity of disability to determine if they should rent to them. • When an Arabic sounding name was given to a landlord, the landlord wanted to see the potential tenant before deciding to rent to them. • Potential tenants of color being told to pay higher deposits and higher monthly rents compared to white potential tenants. • Potential renters of color being told there are no apartments available when white potential renters are told there are several available to them that day. • Different move in specials given to white applicants over applicants of color. Such as free parking spaces, or being offered apartments closer to amenities. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Utilize the Good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on fair housing laws and requirements; II. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center, the Apartment Association, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and Human rights to provide educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing; III. Refer victims of housing discrimination to the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center to process fair housing complaints. 2. MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Fair housing choice provides that members of protected classes are able to choose a residence that offers access to opportunity including essential services, transit, quality schools, job opportunities, and healthy 177 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 communities. As the map below demonstrates, there are differences in access to transit based on neighborhood. The Center for Neighborhood Technology tracks an overall transit score for municipalities based on trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. The central parts of the City score highly by this standard but, as shown in Figure 1, some areas with lower incomes, such as the Glendale, Poplar Grove, and Rose Park neighborhoods, score lower in the transit scores as transit lines are not as accessible in these neighborhoods. FIGURE 1 Source: The Center for Neighborhood Technology, AllTransit, 2019 It is Salt Lake city’s goal to expand housing opportunity within neighborhoods by increasing economic diversity and addressing spatial disparities and impediments. Mobility and opportunity impediments are as follows: Impediment: Racial and Ethnic Segregation Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the City’s census tracts by their reported poverty level as it pertains to the reported minority population within the tracts. It shows that the tracts directly west of I-15 have some of the highest concentrations of minorities who are also living below the poverty level. 178 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE 2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Racial and ethnic segregation in Salt Lake City developed due to a multitude of factors, including the housing market, neighborhood preferences, land use policies including zoning, demographics, and economic conditions. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand affordable housing opportunities throughout the City to increase housing choice for protected classes. Housing opportunities should include rental and homeownership, with a focus on housing to accommodate large families. Salt Lake City will support mixed-income opportunities through the following efforts: a. Utilize funding resources, including HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Housing Trust Fund, and other funding sources to provide financial assistance for the development of housing that economically diversifies neighborhoods. b. Support zoning and land use policies that allow and/or incentivize affordable housing development in areas with high opportunity. 179 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 c. Build public-private partnerships to leverage public resources with private capital to support housing development in areas with high opportunity. Impediment: Access to Opportunity As Figure 3 demonstrates, the opportunity index is considerably higher on the east side of Salt Lake City as compared to the west side of the City and the area surrounding I-15. FIGURE 3 High opportunity areas are geographical locations within the city that provide conditions that expand a person’s likelihood for social mobility. These areas have been identified through an analysis of quality-of life indicators, homeownership rate, poverty, cost-burdened households, educational proficiency, unemployment rate, and labor force participation. With these multiple indicators, a single composite, or standardized, score is calculated for each census tract. Scores may range from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating 180 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 low opportunity and 10 indicating high opportunity. A census tract with a standardized score above that of the citywide average shall be designated as an Area of Opportunity. Salt Lake City contracted with the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute to develop and annually update the city’s Areas of Opportunity data. FIGURE 4 Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand access to opportunity in RDA project areas by demographically and geographically targeting CDBG funding to support economic development, transportation improvements, anti-displacement strategies, and other anti- poverty programs. 181 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 II. Improve housing stability in RDA Project Areas by increasing outreach and education regarding the availability and use of CDBG and HOME funding for housing rehabilitation. III. Utilize federal and local funding in distressed and at-risk neighborhoods for strategic housing development to catalyze private investment, improve housing quality, and promote occupancy at a range of household incomes. 3. AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE AND SUITABLE HOUSING A regional lack of affordable housing disproportionately impacts protected classes. Prot ected classes are especially impacted by a lack of rental housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below, large family households, and disabled person households. Housing stock impediments are as follows: Impediment: Rental housing affordable to households at 50% of AMI and below A housing gap analysis found a citywide shortage of 6,177 affordable rental units for households earning less than $20,000 per year. About 37 percent of the City’s renter households earned less than $20,000 in 2018, with only 11 percent of the rentals in the city in their affordability range. The limited availability of housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below have disproportionally impacted racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and large families. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Promote development of housing units, including permanent supportive housing units, affordable to households earning 50% AMI and below by leveraging public and private investments. City-owned land can be used to leverage private investment for affordable and supportive housing development. II. Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund/Housing Trust Development Fund, and HOME Development Fund to develop housing affordable to households targeted to households at 50% AMI or below. The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created by the Mayor and City Council in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multi-family rental properties and single- family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households may include project or tenant-based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The HOME Development Fund was created as a reaction to the increasing housing costs and difficulty in deploying HOME funds. It’s uses align with federal regulations and are targeted to acquisition, new construction, rehabilitation, and homeownership opportunities. The funds may be used for single family units as well as multi-family units. III. Strengthen incentives for the development of affordable housing. Incentives might include inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, fee reductions, fee waivers, land subsidies, and limited property tax exemptions. Strategies may also include disposition of city-owned land for the use of affordable housing development, interest rate discounts, and below market sales. 182 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 IV. Salt Lake City has several affordable housing projects currently planned which are expected to add 476 affordable units in the near future. These projects are listed in the table below. TABLE 1: FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS Impediment: Rental housing for large families With an increasing share of minorities, particularly Hispanic and refugee/New American families who on average have larger household sizes, there is a higher demand for the low supply of rental options with enough bedrooms to accommodate large families. However, the supply of rental units with 4 or more bedrooms has been diminishing, while the supply of units with 2-3 bedrooms has been increasing. TABLE 2: PERCENT OF RENTAL UNITS BY SIZE Unit Size 2013 2018 No Bedroom 5% 8% 1 Bedroom 38% 36% 2 or 3 Bedrooms 36% 50% 4 or More Bedrooms 21% 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Utilize Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Housing Trust Development Fund, CDBG, and HOME funding to prioritize the development and preservation of affordable large units (three or more bedrooms). II. Encourage the geographical dispersal of affordable large bedroom units throughout the City to expand housing choice. Prioritize affordable housing development for families in neighborhoods that provide access to opportunities, including jobs, public transportation, education, and public amenities. Impediment: Housing for Disabled Persons More long-term, stable housing is necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. Disabled populations can experience several barriers in accessing housing and supportive services, includin g housing discrimination, cognitive abilities, lack of documentation, coordination of resources, substance abuse, and instability. As such, accessibility modifications, behavioral and medical services, and other supportive services are necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. In addition, more Project Address Affordable Units AMI Expected Completion Exchange A 340 East 400 South 104 50% 2020 Centro Civico, Casa Milagro 145 South 600 West 49 50% 2020 Bookcliffs Lodge 1159 South West Temple 43 50% TBD First Step House, Phase II / 5th East Apts. 434 South 500 East 75 30% 2020 Pamela’s Place / Ribbon Properties 525 South 500 West 100 30% 2020 First Step House, Phase III / 426 Apts. 426 South 500 East 40 30% 2021 Magnolia 175 South 300 East 65 30% TBD Total 476 183 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 residential and transitional housing opportunities are required to address the needs of extremely low- income persons with chronic alcohol and substance addictions. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Prioritize CDBG funding for housing programs that provide accessibility modifications to low-income homeowners. II. Prioritize the development and preservation of affordable housing units that meet fair housing accessibility guidelines, with focus on rental housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below. II. Prioritize CDBG funding for supportive housing programs targeted to disabled populations. 4. ZONING, LAND USE REGULATIONS, AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES Land use regulations can prevent the development of affordable housing and an equitable distribution of housing types throughout all areas of the City. Impediment: Zoning and land use regulations can restrict possibilities for affordable housing, thereby limiting housing choice for protected classes. As a large rental city, Salt Lake City has a considerable amount of multifamily zoning. As such, Salt Lake City provides a broad range of housing types for households with a wide range of incomes. However, many of the City’s neighborhoods are zoned for single-family use and prohibit multi-family housing. These neighborhoods are often considered to be high opportunity by offering quality schools, low crime rates, public amenities, and economic opportunities. As housing affordability continues to decline in Salt Lake City, the inadequate supply of affordable housing will increasingly impact protected classes. Such disparities will compound if zoning limits affordable housing development through the following: • Limitations on the siting of group homes • Limitations on the siting of accessory dwelling units • Minimum single-family lot sizes • A lack of multifamily zoning in census tracts with low poverty rates Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Provide zoning incentives to encourage affordable housing development throughout the City; II. Revise zoning to more broadly allow mixed-income, multi-family, and affordable residential uses; III. Broaden the range of explicitly permitted residential uses for vulnerable populations, especially for supportive housing, group homes, and others; 5. FAIR HOUSING COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE Salt Lake City is committed to promoting fair housing through education and coordination. Producers, consumers, and providers of housing need to have adequate fair housing knowledge to promote best practices. In addition, coordination needs to occur between local municipalities to effectively ameliorate fair housing impediments at the regional level. 184 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Impediment: Lack of reginal fair housing coordination between municipalities, service providers, and other fair housing stakeholders. Several impediments to fair housing choice are shared across municipalities in Salt Lake County. The most effective mitigation to these common impediments is a coordinated approach by all of the jurisdictions in the region. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Salt Lake City will continue to participate in the Utah Fair Housing forum which includes representatives from HUD’s Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Disability Law Center, the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor division, representatives from various Utah entitlement cities, and fair housing advocacy groups. II. Salt Lake City will participate and promote with community partners all regional Fair Housing training, conferences, and Fair Housing Design and Construction training. Impediment: Fair housing knowledge does not reach all producers, consumers, and p roviders of housing, which results in a lack of understanding, misconceptions, and violations of fair housing laws. Fair housing cannot become a high priority for our community without increased awareness on fair housing rights and responsibilities. Increased awareness needs to occur for all fair housing stakeholders, from producers to consumers of housing. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Promote fair housing rights and responsibilities through Salt Lake city’s annual workshop for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA subgrantees. II. Distribute fair housing literature in multiple languages through various outreach events and through the City’s website. III. Utilize the good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on fair housing laws and requirements. IV. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and Human Rights to provide educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing. V. Collaborate with community partners, including community development organizations, religious institutions, employment centers and housing counseling agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and Spanish, as well as other languages as applicable. 185 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Impediment: Language barriers faced by recent immigrants, refugees, New Americans, deaf, hard - of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals create a challenge to access available housing opportunities and obtain fair housing knowledge and resources. Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) are those whose proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English is such that it denies or limits their ability to have meaningful access to programs and services if language assistance is not provided. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS), over 16.4 percent of Salt Lake City’s population is foreign -born. Salt Lake City is committed to providing language assistance for LEP persons to ensure equal access to all programs, resources, and opportunities for public engagement. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Salt Lake City and its subgrantees will identify populations served that have limited English proficiency (LEP) and develop reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP persons. Each agency/program will develop and implement a language access plan (LAP) to prevent discrimination and foster an environment of inclusiveness. II. Salt Lake City will continue to make its Housing Rehabilitation and Low and Moderate-Income Homebuyer programs available to all eligible individuals including those for whom English is not their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development’s LAP outlines steps to ensure meaningful access to its housing programs and activities by LEP persons. III. Salt Lake City will utilize and advertise communication resources and options for deaf, hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals who can use a Text Telephone (TTY) service. The City will also coordinate with the Mayor’s Americans with Disability Act (ADA) community liaison for additional communication resources and options. IMPLEMENTATION Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing by promoting fair housing enforcement and education, as well as expanding housing choice and availability. The City intends to further develop the action steps included in this plan and report on progress through the City’s annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs). Implementation of these actions will require coordination of efforts from multiple stakeholders inside and outside of City government, including subgrantees, housing, and community development partners, various committees, and City staff. 186 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Citizen participation is key to ensure goals and priorities in the Consolidated plan are defined in the context of community needs and preferences. It also provides an opportunity to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stake holders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Public engagement efforts included a citywide survey, public hearings, public meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. The City received input and buy-in from residents, homeless service providers, low-income service providers, food banks, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. Citizen participation opportunities included the following: • Housing and Neighborhood Development Needs Survey • Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings • Consolidated Plan Interdepartmental Technical • Consolidated Plan Public Hearing • Consolidated Plan Comment Period • General Needs Hearing • Various Community Fairs • Salt Lake County Needs Survey • Input from Various State & Public Agencies • Salt Lake City Planning Commission Presentation • Salt Lake City Planning Open House • Email blasts, Website postings INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #1 On July 29, 2019, the Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) conducted their first meeting. The ITAG members responded to real-time interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to ensure consistency and compare results. The top priorities were housing and transportation with an emphasis on insufficient housing stock to meet the needs of a growing population. This concern about stock and growth was focused mostly on low-income individual and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Another key takeaway from the meeting was that ITAG members felt that their role in relates to the Consolidated Plan was to assist the City Council with implementation and to be a liaison to the public and City officials. STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1 On July 30, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public meeting with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain input and discuss which needs of low- and moderate-income residents were the greatest. This input helped form the Consolidated Plan’s goals and priorities. 187 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The meeting agenda was as follows: • 10:30 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. – Introductions • 10:40 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. – What is the Consolidated Plan? o Importance of the meeting o Citizen Participation Timeline/Process • 10:50 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. – Existing Conditions & Trends • 11:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. – Survey • 10:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. – Stakeholder Priorities • 12:15 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. – Wrap-up As outlined in the agenda, the meeting set aside time to help the attendees understand the importance of their feedback in the Consolidated Plan’s goal-setting process and then immediately consulted with them to gain insight into their perception of existing conditions and trends. This was followed by a survey which helped the attendees specify priorities moving forward. The survey results indicated housing services were the highest priority. Homeless services, mental health services, healthcare services, and childhood education programs were the next top priorities respectively. 188 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY - (AUG – SEPT. 2019) The survey fielding began in mid-August and ran through September with 2,068 total respondents. The survey’s purpose was to collect feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, public services, and economic development. The survey was available in both English and Spanish versions with additional translation services available upon request. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. 189 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 190 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 191 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 192 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 193 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 194 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 195 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 196 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 197 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 198 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 199 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 200 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE COUNTY 2019 COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY Salt Lake County also conducted a survey to collect public input on community needs in regard to economic development, as well as housing and community development. 243 respondents reported living in Salt Lake City and indicated that air quality, housing affordability, and homeless services . The survey results also showed that over78% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion that Salt Lake County’s available housing units meet the need of the growing population. Survey results were as follows: 201 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 202 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 203 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 204 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 205 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 206 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 207 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 208 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 209 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 210 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 211 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 212 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 213 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 26, 2019 Contact: Jennifer Schumann 801-535-7276 City Now Accepting Applications for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA Federal Grant Programs SALT LAKE CITY – Applications are currently being accepted for the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing affordable housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income households. • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Interested entities are invited to submit applications for activities that support local and national program requirements. An application resource guide is available online at www.slc.gov/hand. Optional training sessions will be held on October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. and October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. for potential applicants in Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. Applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 2019. Late applications will not be accepted. For questions about Salt Lake City’s federal grant programs, contact Jennifer Schumann at 801 -535-7276 or email jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east side of the building. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114- 5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 214 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT NOTICE of 2020-2021 GRANT APPLICATIONS CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS Salt Lake City will make available applications for the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Applications will be available Monday, October 7, 2019 with a closing date of Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:59 pm. Applications will be accepted via ZoomGrants™, an online grant management system. Please go to www.slc.gov/hand for directions on how to apply. To assist applicants, Salt Lake City will be hosting two in-person training sessions and will make available training session materials at www.slc.gov/hand. Participation in a training session is highly encouraged. They are as follows: • In-person trainings: October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. In-person training sessions will be held at the City and County Building in Room 126. Potential applicants must RSVP to Baylee White at Baylee.White@slcgov.com. To assist potential applicants, resources have been made available at Salt Lake City’s Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development website at www.slc.gov/hand. Completed applications must be submitted via ZoomGrants by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 2019. Late applications will not be accepted. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east side of the building. 215 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #2 On September 23, 2019, a second ITAG meeting was held to ensure feedback from City staff would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City asked ITAG members to prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July. Housing, transportation and the provision of needed services ranked as the highest priorities. STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2 On September 24, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public meeting with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain input and discuss which strategies that would help achieve the priorities identified in the first stakeholder meeting on July 30, 2019. This input helped form the Consolidated Plan’s strategies which would ultimately aid in achieving the overall goals of the plan. The meeting began with a review of the survey results from the stakeholder meeting held on July 30, 2019 and reaffirmed that the main priorities which had been outlined were housing services and transportation. There was then a review of the data analysis which had been conducted so far with key demographic data points highlighted such as population, housing costs increases, cost burdened households by area, homeless statistics, and others. The stakeholders then worked together to outline a number of suggested funding strategies that the City and nonprofit service providers might consider employing. These strategies included, but are not limited to: • Provide ‘aging in place’ programs • Offer affordable housing voucher programs • Provide client centered community-based case management • Eliminate housing barriers • Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along trans it corridors • Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the allocation of resources and to reduce redundancies • Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable hou sing demand and supply • Offer free fare or reduced transit options • Expand transit service in underserved communities • Subsidize rideshare options 216 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 GENRAL NEEDS HEARING PRESS RELEASE OFFICE of the MAYOR | JACQUELINE BISKUPSKI FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 21, 2019 Contact: Elaine Wiseman 801-535-6035 GENERAL NEEDS HEARING - Residents Invited to Submit Comments on Community Development Needs SALT LAKE CITY – The Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) invites residents to participate in a General Needs Hearing to gather pub lic comments on overall housing and community development needs as they relate to low and moderate-income Salt Lake City residents. Each year Salt Lake City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grant funds. For the 2020-21 program year HAND anticipates receiving approximately $6 million that may be used to support programs and projects throughout the city. Information gathered at this public hearing and other community engagement events will be used to prioritize funding to address eligible community needs during the 2020-21 program year. Community needs may include projects such as: Homeless Services Health Services Youth Services Adult Services Infrastructure Economic Development Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied Hearing from you is vital to ensuring that we are able to prioritize these funds in a way that supports the needs of our community and creates lasting impact. We invite you to participate in the upcoming public hearing or submit comments via email. Public hearing details are as follows: DATE: Thursday, October 24, 2019 TIME: 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION: Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 126 217 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 If you are unable to attend the public hearing, written comments may be submitted to Dillon Hase, Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments must be received by November 1, 2019. Please limit your comments to the benefit of the general needs of our citizens/neighborhoods. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535- 6220. In order to access Salt Lake City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by email at joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114- 5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 218 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GENERAL NEEDS HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS Community Feedback Needed! WHAT: The Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development seeks public comment on community need for the development of 5 year Consolidated Plan WHEN: Thursday, October 24, from 5:30 - 6:30 PM WHERE: Room 126, Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We want to hear from you! Community needs may include projects such as: Homeless Services Health Services Youth Services Adult Services Infrastructure Economic Development Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development considers community need in the development of the new 5 year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan helps determine funding decisions for our federal grant projects. Community feedback is vital to this process! Written comments will be accepted by Dillon Hase, Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com until November 1, 2019. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535-6220. In order to access Salt Lake City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by email at joshua.rebollo @slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 219 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AUDIENCIA DE NECESIDADES GENERALES SOBRE PROYECTOS FINANCIADOS CON FONDOS FEDERALES Se Necesitan Comentarios de la Comunidad Que: El ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Salt Lake busca comentarios del publico acerca de las necesidades de la comunidad para el desarrollo del Plan Consolidado a 5 anos. Cuándo: Jueves, 24 de octubre de 5:30 a 6:30. Donde: Sala 126, Edificio del municipio y Condado, 451 S State Street, Salt Lake City Venga y deje saber a la Cuidad de Salt Lake que problemas son importantes en sus vecindarios y comunidades! Queremos escuchar a los residentes sobre los problemas que enfrentan y escuchar sugerencias sobre como podemos mejorar las cosas. Queremos escuchar de ti! Las necesidades de la comunidad pueden incluir proyectos como: Servicios Para Personas sin Hogar Servicios de Salud Servicios Juveniles Servicios para Adultos Infraestrctura Desarrollo Economico Vivienda – Servicios de Alquiler Vivienda – Ocupada por el Propietario La Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios considera las necesidades de la comunidad en el desarrollo del nuevo Plan Consolidado de 5 anos. El Plan Consolidado ayuda determinar decisiones de financiamiento para nuestros proyectos que serán financiados con dólares federales. Los comentarios de la comunidad son vitales para este proceso. Los comentarios por escrito serán aceptados por la Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios en 451 South State Street, Sala 445, PO Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 o por correo electrónico a dillon.hase@slcgov.com hasta el 1 de noviembre de 2019. Programa de igualdad de oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar un ajuste razonable con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una facilidad accesible. El número de Salt Lake City’s TDD es 801 535-6220. Para acceder a la línea TDD de Salt Lake City, debe llamar desde una línea TDD. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Joshua Rebollo por correo electrónico a joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7976. Las adaptaciones de ADA pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 220 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 General Needs Hearing NextDoor Invitation Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We want to hear from you! Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development will be hosting a General Needs Hearing on Thursday, October 24, from 5:30 to 6:30pm in Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. We hope you can join us! If you are not able to attend the public hearing, written comments may be emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments can be sent now through November 1, 2019. 221 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 2019 General Needs Hearing: Public Comment Summary Source: Email Date Submitted: 10/22/19 Contacted Through: NextDoor Key Points: Streets/Police Thanks for asking about what are issues are. Think the city should concentrate on the things the city is supposed to accomplish. These things, as I see it, are the main responsibilities of the city Police and Fire protection Courts Water and sewer, trash pickup, street lighting, flood control Streets (repair, traffic flow) Parks, including golf courses and disc golf courses I think that the city does a pretty good job on most of these items but, we probably could get better on streets and police. On the west side the streets are in disrepair and have been for what seems like a long time. The main east/west streets, 10th north, 6th north and North temple all have some problems. 10th and 6th are beat to death and North Temple has poor semaphore usage. I think you are working on a plan for 6th north. If not, you should be. The same needs to be done for 10th North. On North temple, the Tracks line mid block cross walks (sometimes not at mid block) need to activate only one half of the road at a time. Pedestrians should have to push a button to get from side A to the train island and then push a button to get from the island to side B since most of the people are crossing just to get on the train. Secondly those lights should all be of the new type for pedestrians where passing the button stops traffic and then after a few seconds flashes to make traffic stop, look and go. As far as police go, I think they do a great job but are somewhat undermanned. I hear and see people speeding or racing on Redwood road far too often. I think if police pull people over once in a while, at random intervals, it would act as a traffic calming action. 222 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Shooting occurs too often. Perhaps a “seen” police presence would help eliminated that. I actually feel safe in my area but I see more city employees on Segways checking the garbage for contraband than I see police in the area. That doesn’t seem right. I also see FAR TOO MANY people texting while driving. I think that if we shower our texters with tickets the streets would be safer. I don’t think that the media campaign is useless but there would be more impact if more people got ticketed. That’s my 2 cents for now. If I think of anything else, I will add it. If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact me. Thanks for reading, Source: Email Date Submitted: 10/24/19 Contacted Through: NextDoor Key Points: Air BnB, Private Streets, Community Garden Dear Dillon, I have some general concerns to share with you. 1) Short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. I live on the 400 South block of Elizabeth Street, 84102. It's a tiny, private street, and yet there are TWO people operating AirBNB on our block. We have contacted Civil Enforcement often and there is reluctance to do anything. Why isn't the City interested in enforcing existing codes? 2) Private streets are another concern. There are many of these in our city, holdovers, from developments many years ago. Now it is a situation where it is no longer clear that anyone is in charge. Our block of Elizabeth Street is one such example. If you look at the plat map, the street doesn't look like it belongs to anyone. It is in disrepair, but there is no clear way for it to be fixed. 3) The LDS church is apparently planning to change the space that has been a community garden behind the 33rd Ward (453 S 1100E, 84102) into a parking lot. This is of great concern to me, both as a member of the garden and a neighbor of the plot. It is in a historic district, and based on the zoning it seems inappropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Happy to follow up with you 223 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 COMMUNITY EVENTS Beginning in May and running through November of 2019, the City performed a grassroots citizen participation effort where City staff attended community events to gather public input through existing forums where opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a single event. Some of the events included: • The Rose Park Festival • The Sorenson CommUNITY Fair • Partners in the Park • Groove in the Grove • The Monster Block Party • And dozens more City staff managed information booths and solicited input from residents in the form of interactive materials. It is estimated that over 1,322 residents participated resulting in the following outcome: 224 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 STAKEHOLDER AND ITAG COMBINED #3 On December 11, 2019, the final stakeholder meeting was held in collaboration with members if the City’s (ITAG to ensure collaboration between nonprofit service providers and City departments. The meeting focused on the following objectives: • Homeless Services • Housing Services • Transportation • Economic Development • Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff voted on strategies which could be used to directly address the objectives of the Consolidated Plan. It was indicated that client centered community-based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five objectives. 225 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISION MEETING 226 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Recognized Organization Input Notification US Department of Housing & Urban Development: Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan TO: Registered Recognized Community Organizations FROM: Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development (jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276); John Anderson, Planning Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division (john.anderson@slcgov.com or 801-535-7214) DATE: February 7, 2020 RE: Proposed Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan Since May of 2019, Salt Lake City’s Housing & Neighborhood Development Divi sion has been working on creating the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, as required by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development. Part of the Plan’s development has included engaging over 4,000 interested parties at community events, focus groups, and an online survey. A draft of the plan is now ready for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. We are formally requesting input from the Recognized Community Councils within the City on the draft before we preset it to the Planning Commission. Request Description: The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the City’s guiding document for expenditure of the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement funds: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). These funds are intended to address disparities that exist in our community impacting low income residents and/or low-income areas of the City. Through an extensive process, the City has collaborated with over 4,000 interested parties in the development of the draft Plan. This includes constituents, community partners, city experts, elected officials, state departments, and local municipalities. Together, we have identified highest priority needs; service and funding gaps; actionable goals and strategies; performance measurements and desired outcomes; and specific geographic areas of the city to focus infrastructure improvements. Over the US Department of Housing & Urban Development Program years of 2020 through 2024, Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development will accept applications from non -profit partners, city divisions, and other agencies that address the specific goals and strategies outlined in the plan. All projects/programs must adhere to the applicable grant regulations, the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and city policies. Those interested in learning more about the Plan may visit https://www.slc.gov/hand/consolidated-plan/. Housing & Neighborhood Development respectfully requests that all comments be submitted via the following email address: consolidatedplan@slcgov.com. Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of t he project and solicit 227 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. In general, the plan details specific ways in which CDBG, ESG, HOME, & HOPWA funding may be used to address a wide variety of community needs. This includes goals and strategies around Affordable housing, Transportation, Economic Development, Homeless Services, and Behavioral Health. Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day: March 23, 2020 Open House The Planning Division will be holding an Open House to solicit comments on this project. Housing & Neighborhood Development Division staff will be on hand to review and discuss the draft plan. The Open House will be held on Thursday, February 20, 2020 from 5:00-7:00 PM in the 4th floor conference room of the SLC Main Library located at 210 E. 400 S. Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. Questions and issues that you might want to consider: For your reference, the following are topics that the Planning Commission may want to hear about. 1. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that could be addressed with the listed, eligible federal funded priorities & activities? 2. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that are not addressed in this plan? Note that any needs must be eligible for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding, and must rise to a community highest priority need. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to consolidatedplan@slcgov.com or mail them to: ATTN Jennifer Schumann Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development Division 451 S State St Rm 445 PO Box 145487 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5487 If you have any questions, please call me at (801) 535 -7276 or contact me via e-mail at Jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com. 228 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 CONSTANT CONTACT 229 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARING #1 SALT LAKE CITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate -income. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. - Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. 230 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PUBLIC HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS WHAT: The Salt Lake City Council seeks public comment on proposed 2020-2021 projects to be funded with federal dollars WHEN: Tuesday, March 24th, 2020 at 7:00 PM WHERE: City Council Chambers, Room 315, Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street A public hearing will be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. 231 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Audiencia Pública sobre proyectos con fondos federales Programas CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA Que: El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake requiere el comentario público acerca de proyectos propuestos para el 2020-2021 que serán financiados con dólares federales Cuándo: Martes, 24 de marzo 2020 a las 7:00 de la noche Donde: Cámara de Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad, Cuarto 315, Edificio del Condado y Municipal, 451 South State Street Se llevara a cabo una audiencia pública ante el Ayuntamiento de Salt Lake en búsqueda de comentarios en proyectos y actividades propuestos que se realizaran con fondos federales en el 2020-2021 bajo los siguientes programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los EE.UU. (HUD). • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos durante la audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde Mendenhall y los asesora de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede encontrar en el sitio web la Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood Development) de Salt Lake City a www.slcgov.com/HAND. Si no puede asistir a la audiencia y quiere que su voz sea escuchada, comentarios por escrito podrán ser presentadas a Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comentarios en referencia a la propuesta de financiamiento serán aceptadas por las oficinas del ayuntamiento de Salt Lake City en la 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o por correo electrónico a council.comments@slcgov.com. También puede dejar mensajes en el teléfono de comentarios del ayuntamiento marcando el número, 801.535.7654. Comentarios deben ser presentadas antes de abril 7, 2020. Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicita acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible. Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7697. 232 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARING #2 SALT LAKE CITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a remote public hearing will be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate -income. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. - Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living With HIV/AIDS and their families. This Council Meeting will NOT have a physical location. All participants will connect remotely. (This public hearing is an additional public hearing opportunity in addition to the public hearing held March 24, 2020.) Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. To send comments directly to the Council, email council.comments@slcgov.com, leave a message on the 24-hour comment line 801-535-7654, mail comments to the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or see Webex Instructions to learn how to participate live, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council- meetings/. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council a nd added to the public record. Written comments may also be submitted to HAND, tony.milner@slcgov.com, which will be provided to the Council. 233 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801-535-7697. 234 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA abril 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. POR MEDIO DE LA PRESENTE SE NOTIFICA QUE EL martes 7 de abril de 2020 a las 7:00 p.m. se llevará a cabo una audiencia pública remota ante el Consejo de la Ciudad de Salt Lake para aceptar comentarios públicos sobre los proyectos y actividades propuestas que se llevarán a cabo con 2020-2021 fondos federales bajo los siguientes programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los Estados Unidos (HUD): - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Los fondos CDBG pueden utilizarse para el desarrollo de comunidades urbanas viables al proporcionar viviendas dignas y entornos de vida adecuados para personas de ingresos bajos y moderados. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Los fondos ESG pueden usarse para ayudar a las personas y familias a recuperar la estabilidad de la vivienda después de experimentar una crisis de vivienda o falta de vivienda. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Los fondos de HOME pueden utilizarse para crear oportunidades de vivienda asequible para nucleos familiares de bajos ingresos. - Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Los fondos de HOPWA se pueden utilizarse para proporcionar asistencia de vivienda y servicios de apoyo relacionados a personas que viven con VIH / SIDA y sus familias. Esta reunión del consejo NO se efectuara físicamente. Todos los participantes se conectarán de forma remota. (Esta audiencia pública es una oportunidad de audiencia pública adicional además de la audiencia pública celebrada el 24 de marzo de 2020). El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos durante la audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde Mendenhall y los asesora de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede encontrar en el sitio web la Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood Development) de Salt Lake City a www.slcgov.com/HAND. Para enviar comentarios directamente al Consejo, envíe un correo electrónico a council.comments@slcgov.com, deje un mensaje en la línea de comentarios de 24 horas 801-535- 7654, envíe comentarios a la oficina del Consejo de Salt Lake City en 451 South State Street, Room 304 , PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o vea las Instrucciones de Webex para aprender cómo participar en vivo, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council- meetings/. Todos los comentarios recibidos a través de cualquier fuente se comparten con el Consejo y se agregan al registro público. Los comentarios por escrito también se pueden enviar a HAND, tony.milner@slcgov.com, que se proporcionará al Consejo. 235 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible. Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801-535-7697. 236 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC HEARING #1 AND #2 Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, March 24, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube. Public Comments. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:12 pm Executive Director of Journey of Hope. CDBG – Public Services Applicant. Agency: Journey of Hope. Project: Advocacy and Case Management Services. Comments: Retired from law enforcement after 20 years of services. She set up programs for women getting out of jail and prison, did as much work inside the system as she could. She started Journey of Hope, and they’ve served 2,000 women in five years, with only 17% recidivism. Overall, their services have saved millions of dollars to the State. Their second try for SLC CDBG funds for case management services to expand services to girls who are aging out of the juvenile justice system. These girls have been sexually exploited and trafficked. These girls turning to the Youth Resource Center as they have no family, where there are boys and gang members who traffic girls. Had one young lady who was drugged and woke up in Las Vegas. One of the few non-profits standing in the gap for girls/women leaving the justice system. They were not chosen for CDBG, they’re the “little guys” and are new, they would like to be re-considered for CDBG funding. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:24pm. He worked with International Rescue Commission. He recommended how great the agency is and how hard they work. He wants funding for digital equity, as not everyone has internet or access to computers. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:26pm. She Executive Director of The INN Between. Applied for CDBG – Public Services, wasn’t recommended by the CDCIP Board or the Mayor for funding. Hospice and Medical Respite for-Homeless. Comments: Asked the Council to reconsider the non-recommendation for funding. Strong partnership with the City. Before the agency existed, many homeless individuals were dying on the street without access to hospice care, that cannot be delivered in shelters, campsites, or motels. They offer wrap around services and save the area money. The Inn Between serves 40 individuals a night and is projected serve 30 more. They serve homeless and non-homeless, those near medical bankruptcy. End of life care without having to go into shelter or hospital. The Inn Between is a critical par t of homeless services. They have the infrastructure, licensing and professional staff in place. The new Homeless Resource Centers don’t have medical beds, and they’re able to fill that need. The homeless resource centers are also at capacity. The Homeless Resource Center’s don’t have the ability to care for people getting cancer treatment. Asking for only one half of 1% of total budget to serve the homeless, 60% of the clients come from Salt Lake City. 237 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:34pm. Executive Director of the International Rescue Committee Applied for CDBG – Public Services. Program: International Rescue Committee Getting Up to Speed: Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding. Comments: Appreciates the consideration of their digital inclusion application. She identified how the program serves those vulnerable in the community. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:37 pm. Grants Manager, International Rescue Committee. CDBG – Public Services. Getting Up to Speed: Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding. Comments: Thank you to the Mayor and City council and Housing and Ne ighborhood Staff for continued support for CDBG funding, and for past funding. Highlights the connection for digital inclusion and refugees. Aligned to digital connection to Housing Plan, stabilizing renters and increasing self-sufficient, employment and financial stability. A renewal would help increase refugee household overall stability who are hampered by language and cultural skills. Project complimented through cross agency interaction. Digital inclusion program is integral for clients accessing employment when they enter the U.S. She identified that the program stabilizes low income renters by helping them obtain employment, which in turn helps with stable housing. Emails Regrading Federal Funds Between City Council Meetings Source: Email to City Council Staff Date Submitted: 3/27/20 Salt Lake City Council Members, Volunteers of America, Utah is grateful for the partnership we have had with the City government over many years. We appreciate the time that the CDCIP Board, Mayor Mendenhall and her staff have spent reviewing all applications that were submitted. Volunteers of America, Utah has submitted three applications for funding for next fiscal year 2020-2021. Community Development Block Grant – CDBG Public Services Program Request CDCIP Board Recommendation Mayors Recommendation Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $105,797 $89,000 100,281 We are grateful for both recommendations and encourage the support of Mayor Mendenhall’s recommendation of $100,281. 238 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Emergency Solutions Grant – Shelter Operations Program Request CDCIP Board Recommendation Mayors Recommendation Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $40,000 $38,000 $38,000 Youth Resource Center $60,000 $46,000 $46,000 We appreciate the CDCIP Board and the Mayors funding recommendation for both emergency solutions grant applications. We value the support of our programs that provide shelter and services for both homeless youth and homeless women. We thank you for the opportunity to submit a written document at this time given the Stay Home. Stay Safe. Order endorsed by the Mayor to decrease public gatherings. Comments Received by Email regarding Federal Grant Dollars Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. This is not the time to cut support services for the homeless. They are, along with the undocumented, the ones least likely to get adequate medical care during this pandemic. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident and a neighbor of The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. The Inn Between plays a key role to our homeless and their need for hospice care, and we need to support them so they can continue to serve our community. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members: I just got word that the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council will be cutting off funding for The Inn Between – this is being sent as my plea that you carefully reconsider this decision. 239 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Inn Between is a wonderful organization that provides much needed, and otherwise lacking, services to the homeless community. Its funding is limited, and this decision by the City Council and Mayor will have a significantly detrimental impact on its ability to provide these services – which will in turn only contribute to our homeless challenges. I plead with you to reconsider and continue the funding that is so needed to help sustain this important organization. In these challenging times, it is even more important that organizations like The Inn Between – and the mission it serves – receive our support. Thank you. Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. During a crisis like the one we are in, cutting funding to organizations like the INN Between seems shortsighted and unnecessary. Thanks Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council member, The Inn Between has provided a place for terminally ill homeless patients to receive comfort care in their final days. It is a much need service provider in this community. They have previously received $46,000 in Block Grant Funds to help them provide their services. Please reconsider your funding discussions and allow them the money to continue their important work. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident and actually a neighbor of the Inn Between. I am also a member of The Inn Between Board of Directors. Every month at our board meetings we hear a “mission moment” when a member of the staff shares a story of an event at The Inn Between since we last met. Sometime it is about a reunification with a resident and their extended family, sometimes it is about a residents last days and passing, always the stories reflect the mission of The Inn Between to enhance the dignity of each resident wherever they are in their life journey. 240 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In this time of uncertainty, anxiety and fear, and human and economic crises, there are hard choices to be made. While previous levels of funding may not be possible, I urge you to reconsider your funding decision regarding the CDBG dollars. Any amount you can fund would be of great assistance in sustaining the vital work of The Inn Between. The efforts of the staff of The Inn Between have been nothing less than heroic in protecting the residents from contracting Covid-19. Continuing some level of funding assures them their efforts are not in vain and that you too understand the importance of not forcing our residents to have to access services from already overwhelmed medical services in our community or even worse, die in the streets. Your consideration of this plea is much appreciated. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members, I have been a volunteer with the Inn Between for 4 years and have seen first hand the good this nonprofi t has done for the vulnerable homeless in our city. PLEASE, please reconsider giving any amount possible to this facility. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. "I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program." Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council members, I am the Volunteer Coordinator at The INN Between and have been since the beginning. I have watched our resident population expand from 16 to 40 with the move to our new location. I am asking that you please reconsider your CDBG funding decision for t he support of our residents. Our historical amount of about $46,000 represents only 3% of our annual budget, and yet about 80% of the people we serve are from salt Lake City. The need is great among homeless service providers and funding is understandably limited. However, TIB will be significantly impacted by this funding cut. We would appreciate your funding at any level. Please consider your CDBG funding decision. Which of our 40 residents would you deny? Thank you and my best to you all. 241 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Greetings, I understand that The Inn Between is not being recommended for CDBG Funding at this time. I would like to strongly encourage you to restore CDBG funding to this important asset in our community. As some of you may know, I work to support students experiencing homelessness within the educational system. I have become more acutely aware of the needs of all individuals experiencing homelessness. Compound that with a terminal illness, or a need to be in a rehabilitation program for a long term condition, and the odds are not good. As a community, we need to do better by our homeless friends. The Inn between provides a vital service to our entire community. It allows those with no limited options, a place to die with dignity. I was fortunate to become acquainted with The Inn Between when it was across the street from my house. I volunteered to be part of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and heled address concerns neighbors had with the program. I found the staff to be willing to work with community members to address concerns, and make sure they were being good neighbors. I am sure that is still the same today in their new neighborhood. Please restore the funding request to the Inn Between, so they can continue the work on behalf of our truly less fortunate community members in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 PLEASE - As a Salt Lake City resident, and I implore you to reconsider decision to cut CDBG funding for The INN Between. I realize this is a difficult time but this is a group that has done so much with so little as it is and this is a great humanitarian need. Please continue to help them with any amount that you can to sustain their program. Thank you. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members, I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between for 2020 -2021. They provide critical medical respite housing services for medically frail and terminally ill clients, and are an integral part of the homeless services continuum in Salt Lake City. However, they do not receive adequate funding from the state or other sources because they are not designated as a "shelter," which means that they must raise funding from other sources to provide this medical housing service to the community. Any amount of funding that you grant will help the sustainability of the program. Sincerely, 242 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. It is shameful for you to cut their funding. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear SLC Council, As an Avenues resident of Salt Lake City, I am writing to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. This facility provides a desperately-needed service, providing hospice care for the homeless of SLC. Any amount that you can fund will help them provide dignity at the end of life. Thanks for your consideration. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident and I urge you to reconsider your funding for the Inn Between. I unders tand that there is an urgent need to help the homeless in Salt Lake City, but the Inn Between needs funding to remain open and provide their care for the very ill and dying among the homeless. We must care for the poor, sick and/or dying members of our community. It is not only a moral and humane obligation but a public health issue as well. Before the Inn Between existed, my husband and I stood in the the cold in winter with fellow church members holding a candles to protest the fact that we had Salt Lake City residents dying in our streets. Please don't let us go back to those dark days. The Inn Between has my support and I hope you will make sure they have the funding to help them maintain their service. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am very concerned about the proposal to reduce funding for the homeless in Salt Lake - in particular the federal HUD funds distributed by the SLC Community Development Block Grant program for the INN Between. They - and the homeless - especially need these funds now during this exceptional crisis. I ask you to please reconsider this decision. Thank you for your attention, 243 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello Salt Lake City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Your funding is invaluable to the sustainability of this wonderful program. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 As a resident of Salt Lake City, I believe The INN Between is an appropriate expenditure for CDBG funding. Please do not cut that appropriation at this precipitous time for the most vulnerable. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: As a resident of Salt Lake City and a board member of The Inn Between, I write to urge your reconsideration of The INN Between’s request for CDBG funds to help insure our homeless population receives hospice, respite care and shelter. I am sure that requests for funding far outweigh what is available, but I would be grateful for any support you could provide. Thank you for your service and consideration. Kind regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members: I am a Salt Lake City resident, as well as a volunteer at The Inn Between. I am aware of how tight budgets are this year. However, I urge you to consider funding The INN Between at any level possible. This facility is of vital importance to our community. Thank you. 244 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council: I am a resident of Salt Lake City, and an advocate for the ethical treatment of vulnerable populations, the homeless being one. I ask that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program, and give the population they serve a safe place to live the remainder of their lives, and access to the treatment they deserve. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am reaching out and asking that you consider helping with any funding possible for the folks at the Inn Between I know these are crazy times but please help these folks provide some little bit of help to the dying Thank you Mike Evans SLC Resident Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a resident of Salt Lake City and am very concerned that The INN Between receive proper funding from the city. Please reconsider the funding for The INN Between. The services they provide are critical to those at the end of life and ultimately, to our community at large. We simply cannot turn our back on such a vulnerable population. At the least, we should fund at previous levels if not beyond, given the difficult time that we’re in. Logic would lead one to anticipate the population served by The INN Between is going to be more vulnerable to COVID19 and thus in need of their services. And, God forbid, should the infection result in more people dying before they need to be admitted to The INN Between, there will still be people who will be in need of hospice care for other reasons. This facility is desperately needed by the community much less by those whom it serves. The dignity conveyed upon the dying is shared by those who exhibit such compassion. The city funds a small but critical amount of the facility’s needs, but it’s probably that many corporate and personal contributions will be less this year than in the past. Thank you for your consideration of this. I could argue that this facility is n eeded even more than Allen Park. Please prove to me that my community cares more for people than for birds. (I love birds and agree that we deserve to have them in our midst, but not at the expense of caring for a human being as they die). 245 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I understand that funds from the Community Development Block Grant will not be allocated to The Inn Between. These are difficult times for the city I know, but this is an excellent organization deserving of a second look at funding. The Inn Between fulfills a very heartbreaking mission. We hear much now about patients dying in hospitals due to Covid-19, separated from loved ones. Imagine dying alone, homeless, without friends or family. Any amount of funding would help The Inn Between achieve its mission. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I have seen the good that this facility does. Please do not cut fubding, ESPECIALLY now. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council members, I know the city is dealing with major shortfalls, but just want to plead for maintaining funding for the INN Between - this program provides an incredibly valuable service to hospice patients who do not hav e a home. Please re-consider and try to maintain their funding. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I feel this is especially important in this time of COVID-19. Thank you, 246 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Best, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members, I have recently learned that the latest budget effort does not include funding for the homeless hospice, and I ask you to reconsider. I know that you care and that all the choices you must make are hard. However, their funding is only in the tens of thousands and every dollar is well spent to keep homeless people from dying by emergency room visits. We will wind up having to pay for their medical expenses anyway, and the Inn Between is a MUCH more efficient use of those relatively modest funds. Also, in addition to the obvious need for care these people experience, the rest of us are affected by seeing them uncared for on the streets, which affects morale at this difficult time. Please reconsider, and fund the Inn Between for our most desperate and voiceless citizens. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Salt Lake City Council As a resident of Salt Lake City, I am asking you to please reconsider the much needed funding for the Inn Between. The important part they play in giving a safe place for those that would otherwise die on th e streets is so valuable, and allows them to at least die with dignity in a safe place. When my late husband passed away in 2015 we were among the lucky ones, as the job he had held for only 6 months placed him on long term disability which gave us an income which allowed is to continue living in a safe place, with the care he needed. Otherwise we would probably have landed on the street somewhere and he wouldn't have had the care he received up until the end. I do what little I can to support the Inn Between, and I am reaching out to you and asking that you do your part to help them keep helping those that need it the most. Thank you 247 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern, "I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their valuable program. Thank you very much, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I ask you to please reconsider funding the CDBG (in any amount) for The Inn Between. Thank you so much. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Please continue funding the Inn Between they do wonderful work.. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members – Everyone seems to talk a lot about what they’ll do for the homeless, but actions speak so much louder than those words. I just discovered that CDBG funding for The INN Between is at risk. The funding received by The INN Between in the past is a small fraction of available CDBG funding and makes a tremendous difference in the sustainability of its program. This is all about dignity and compassion for dying homeless people. If the funding is going to be eliminated, please provide me and the rest of the community with your reasoning. I know there are a lot of competing claims for CDBG funding. For the eight years I served as Mayor, I went through the grueling process of considering all requests and making the tough decisions for CDBG funding recommendations. I was also aware that the priorities of City government were reflected in the funding decisions recommended by the Mayor and ultimately made by the City Council. Please count dying with dignity as a value supported by the City Council. 248 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 City Council: As a Salt Lake City resident and supporter of The INN Between I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your CDBG funding decision you made in regards to this important organization. I believe that they provide a vital and compassionate service for the least among us. Thank you for your service and reconsideration. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I have volunteered for years with the group and they do amazing things for the homeless and critically ill patients. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Council Members, I am the resident of township but familiar with the INN and their mission. They provide a major social return for a very small amount of public funding. It is not easy to put a price on death with dignity but in this health crisis death on the streets should be a public concern. Thank you for your consideration in renewing their funding. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 249 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I live in Salt Lake City and I volunteer at the Inn Between. It provides needed medical service for our citizens who have limited access to medical care. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, City Council I'm a neighbor of The Inn Between, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between, especially during this time of crisis. The Inn Between performs a vital service on behalf our community's most vulnerable people, and they need your help. Thank You and Kind Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council, I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. This mone y is critical for the sustainability of their program. As a volunteer for the Inn, a resident of Salt Lake City, and a Firefighter I see the the incredible work that the INN Between does for our most vulnerable population. Please don't turn your back on this fine organization. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members, Please Support the CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I support The INN Between, by being a good neighbor 1 block south, by small personal donations of money, food, and clothes, and through supporting the efforts of my wife Mary Beth Vogel-Ferguson Ph. D, who is on the board of directors. As a former RN I've had experie nce in hospice settings, witnessed death with dignity, and I know the positive impact The Inn Between has on our people in need. Please support their request for the CABG funding. We must ensure that The INN Between can continue to serve the poor and afflicted members of our community as they face a medical crisis or the end of life. Sincerely, 250 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am pleading to have continued funding for The Inn Between in this upcoming year; I speak as a family member of Patricia Rice who died there Nov. 7, 2019. She was diagnosed with cirrhosis from Hepatitis C in 2007, continued to work at a SLC company until her disability prevented her from doing acceptable work, @ 2013 when she went to full time disability through her employer and applied for Medicaid. She received a waiver through Salt Lake County Aging Services and was able to live pretty independently t hat way at Wasatch Manor with HUD funds until Sept. 2019 when too many falls made it impossible for her to live alone. Her hospice agency and SLCounty Aging services expedited her move to The Inn Between the first week of Sept 2019 and she was able to live there with some level of dignity and safety until her death. She was care for very tenderly and I have the greatest respect for all the staff and volunteers whose efforts let her die in dignity and peace. The population of poor and ill are the most voiceless in our community and I know we must speak for them when their care and protection are threatened. They are not receiving luxuries, they are offered a clean place to live in their dying days; some have shared rooms, there are clothes available fro m donations, arts/crafts supplies are donated, classes are given by volunteers. This is a remarkable example of public/private/volunteer collaboration to support these least of us in their times of need. If anyone would like me to speak directly to the time my sister spent at The Inn Between, I am sheltering at home (I live in the Liberty Wells section of SLCity) during this time of Coved19. My telephone number is 801-674-0721, this is my email and I can use ZOOM. I can’t imagine the impact of Coved 19 on the poor and homeless population of SLCity and that The Inn Between may be the last option for more people next year than this year. This is not the time to cut their funds. Please reconsider. Very truly, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, I'm writing to advocate for the INN -between. This is a first class organization that is taking a huge burden off of the city of Salt Lake. Over three-quarters of the hospice patients taken in by the INN are from Salt Lake City.. I run a Resort property on North Temple and we've been supporting the INN with dollars as well as supplies, for years. Their work deserves to be encouraged and supported. I hope you will put a line item in the budget equivalent to the $46,000 from last year or at least very very close to that. They're doing the work for us all and taking the financial burden of those folks away from Salt Lake City government! Proven track record spanning years ~ Regards, 251 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the City Council, I am a resident of Salt Lake City and a supporter of the Inn Between. I am asking you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. The INN Between provides an important service as a medical respite facility for homeless individuals, 80% of whom are from Salt Lake City. I understand that there are many, many competing needs for funding at this time. However, having a safe place for medically-fragile people to recover is still important, even more important, during this challenging time. Please consider restoring their funding for this year. Thank you. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a volunteer hairdresser for The Inbetween as well as a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I first hand, have seen the impact of this program for the staff, patients and community. These beautiful people would be lost or have died a lonely death without this service. As a community we must look out for each other, provide a better future for each other and build each other up. This is how you can help. As in life you meet the good the bad and the ugly. These people are good that want good, want a chance and want comfort in their final days or the support to make a new future. In all the conversations I have had with people at the Innbetween I have realized, this could be you, your mentors, your family members, your neighbors or your friends. What would you do if they needed your help in their final days? I hope you continue the support for such a great cause. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a palliative and hospice care social worker. The InnBetween is vital. We cannot return to the homeless dying on our streets. We are better than this. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program! We vote! 252 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I am sincerely asking you to not cut funding for the INN Between. This organization performs such important work in serving the dying within the homeless population. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Inn Between. I was shocked and surprised that the funding was cut for support of this very important and necessary service to provide a place for homeless citizens to die with dignity. I was a volunteer in the very beginning of the Inn Between and have been an advocate ever since. I have been so impressed with the loving care that is provided for the very sick and the end of life care that is provided for the homeless and less privileged in our city. Please continue your support. Salt Lake City has been a model for other states to provide the same kind of service. Thank you for reconsidering your decisions and I pray for your continued support. Best Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please DO NOT cut funding for The Inn Between Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, I will keep this note short, as I realize this is and intense time for the world and our community. I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 253 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council Members: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of this program. I am aware that our city and the country are facing more than difficult times, but this program is so important for our homeless who require hospice or respite care. Yours, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear city council members, Please reconsider your position on funding the Inn Between. This organization is the only one of its kind serving the clients they help: homeless individuals who are dying and others who cannot get hospice or respite care any other way. They desperately need funding support, so please reconsider the cut and fund them fully. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 SLC shelters the homeless who are living. The Inn Between shelters the homeless who are dying. Please do not massively cut their fundin g. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the SLC council, I will keep this note brief as I realize this is and incredibly intense and scary time in our community and our world. As a resident of Salt Lake City and the Sugarhouse/Yalecrest neighborhood, I am asking you to please, please reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. The Inn provides a critical service in our community and any amount that you can fund will help sustain this very important pro gram. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 254 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 The Inn Between has emailed their supporters and asked them to send letters of support for funding. As many of you know, I do not support funding The Inn Between. If the genesis/funding/operations of organizations like this is typical, - then it will not stand out for you. Incompetence and grift should never be the norm and I will speak out against it at every opportunity. I have already been attacked and opine d upon by SLT and Gehrke so I have nothing to hide from. I don't have to tell you that the decision being made, based on models of a virus, are going to have devastating effects on the economy as a whole. Places like The Inn Between will now stand out as the repellent example of waste that they are. 1. The State granted them a license as an assisted living (AL). In order to be legal in zoning. They have between 5-10 on the AL side. 2. The City granted them a license under eleemosynary and then housed the chronically homeless with NO criteria for entry. 3. This is not a hospice and never has been! They have since rebranded and covered most of the signage that indicates they are a hospice. 4. The appropriations committee gave them 1M dollars to buy a building that was sound and needed no work. The attached pictures shows the current work taking place which includes a new roof/electrical/elevator/HVAC to just name a few! This was possible from a federal grand that someone in this state gave them. I will be researching more on that. 5. Within 5 months of opening they were over budget by $700,000. 6. They were over budget because they did not hire the required medical staff per AL licensing. They were operating for 5 months without MA's. And guess what? Everyone was just fine. They operated for several years at Goshen street without MA's. Why? Because they were not needed. So basically we are paying for medical staff so that they can be legal in zoning they should not be in. 7. Drug deals, residents sneaking out at night, assaults, suicides all go on within this facility. 8. 911 calls from WITHIN this facility are significant and consistent. 9. Our City Council, Erin Mendenhall told us at a town hall that she would hold TIB accountable. Many on the street, as well as myself, reached out to her with our concerns and proof of misdeeds. We never got a response. The only way any improvements have been made at TIB is because myself and several others have held them accountable. This is the project of those that want to put homeless shelters in neighborhoods because somehow it will fix the ills of these people. Senator Escamilla made that exact claim. While I am glad that people have a roof over their head, it should not be at the expense of what was once a functioning street. The residents of Sherman Ave. who could and understood the implications of housing the mentally ill and addicted, sold or moved and got out of the neighborhood. Stop rewarding incompetence. 255 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear council members and Mayor Mendenhall, I am writing to request that you reinstate funding for the hospice center The Inn Between. Without this service, the most vulnerable among us the homeless who are facing death will again die on our streets. Certainly we can find the funds to provide hospice care to our brothers and sisters in need. I trust that you will find it in your hearts to continue helping those who help others. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members: I am a volunteer with the Inn Between and live in District 7. I understand that you are cutting the CBDG funds allotted to the program. I urge you to reconsider directing those funds to support the facility. They op erate under a bare-bones budget and do whatever they can to minimize costs yet maintain the quality of service they provide to this most needy population. Through my observations at the facility I can assure you that the funds are well spent. I appreciate your time and hope you will reconsider funding this most needed program. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and have been for 20 years. My house is one block from the INN Between. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. This is not the time to reduce funding for the critical programs provided by this important institution. If it puts the homeless terminally ill back on the streets, you will be responsible for having made our current health care crisis worse. More city residents will die, and not just those at the INN Between. I ask that you reconsider this decision. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I can’t believe you red lined the whole budget for the INN Between. It’s a treasure for those who need it most. The people who are the most vulnerable are the ones we need to tend too. As a society, we are judged by the thoughts and actions of those who can give, and the homeless are the ones who need a voice, they need the kind and giving support of people who are fortunate to have the means to give back . 256 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 You, as a City Council have those means of giving dignity, and relief to people that have no where else to turn. Please, I beg, return the funding to a project that truly helps people who are suffering. Kim has worked so hard, put in so many hours to bring this idea to life. Don’t bring it down now. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 It has come to our attention that the City Council has cut funding to The INN Between. We are Salt Lake City residents and believe that this facility provides an invaluable service to members of our community who are otherwise unable to care for themselves. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will benefit the sustainability of their program. The people who are served there are primarily from Salt Lake City, and, we believe, deserve to have end of life services provided when they have nowhere else to turn. Please do reconsider your decision. We live in the general neighborhood (1900 E & 900 S), an area filled with medical care facilities. This one is providing a service like no other. Please do not let such a facility fold for lack of funds or for lack of consideration by those who may indeed have a say in its viability! Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom ever it may concern and City Counsel Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident who has volunteered for years at The Inn Between and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Though it is only 3% is a small percentage of our absolutely necessary funding to keep the INN functioning for the many Salt Lake Residence that we provide safe, clean residence for. Most of our residence are, in fact, from Salt Lake City. We are able to supply a caring and supportive environment for our residence from a deeply committed staff and volunteers. This is an underserved community and your support deeply matters. Please come by and visit us at you convenience. Thank you warmly, 257 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern: I am a Salt Lake County resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. It is clear that the homeless will be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Cutting any funding to their care at this point could be especially catastrophic to them, as well as our community as a whole! Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, I'm a SLC resident, and I heard that that the Council has cut all CDBG funding to The INN Between, which continues to serve our local homeless population at a time of great need. Can you explain why this was done? Where are those funds being redirected? I hope you will reconsider your decision, and perhaps find additional resources that can help The INN Between continue their important mission. My heart aches when I try to imagine the suffering to come for those who have nothing. I beg you to feel the same compassion. Thank you for you work, as well. I hope that you'll reply to this email. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Greetings Salt Lake City Council, I just found out that tomorrow (April 7th) is the last time to send in a comment on the next city budget. I would like to personally advocate for restoring funding to The INN Between (TIB). I know you have very difficult decisions to make as to allocation of the CDBG money, and there is not enough to spread as far as desired. However, I have been following TIB closely (live near them) and am so impressed with their mission and the compassion and professionalism they bring to fulfilling it. Any amount of restoration of funding will be very much appreciated and frugally utilized. I stand with my friends experiencing homelessness in our community, particularly as they face end of life and medical rehab needs. I know you care as well and thank you for your consideration of this matter. Thanks, 258 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am employed by Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation (RMCRC). In 2019 RMCRC provided most of the financing for the acquisition and rehab of the current Inn Between facility. Through its involvement RMCRC became uniquely aware of the cost savings to the City of Salt Lake and emergency services and local hospital emergency rooms because of the Inn Between. RMCRC has since been rapaid on its loan and funding of the INN Between will have no impact on it financially. The relatively few dollars allocated to the Inn Between if withdrawn will substantially impact the City of Salt Lake’s expenditures for emergency care and transit for this vulnerable and costly segment of the homeless population in the City. We strongly urge you to support the INN Between by continuing your funding. It is pennies on the dollar savings to the City of Salt Lake. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, As someone who has volunteered at INN Between and lived at the Young Men’s Transition Home, I have seen first hand the benefit that these programs provide for people. I have consistently seen young men make it out of homelessness thanks to this transition home program; and countless old folks have died with a smile on their face instead of a grieving frown. Let us value this as highly as it deserves to be. And let us know that our community’s tax dollars are going to a good cause thanks to these programs. We would all rather fund these programs with our tax dollars than something else. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Council, We are volunteers and financial supporters of The INN Between and witness the impact which this non profit clinic has on many Salt Lake City residents in need. We're asking you to reconsider the decision to cut CDBG funding for this facility. This grant is vital in ensuring that the clinic can continue to serve the poorest and most distressed members of our community. Please remember that The INN Between provides shelter to homeless individuals facing medical crisis as well as safety and comfort to those at the end of life. If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to provide you with more information about the mission of The INN Between and their success stories. Sincerely, 259 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern, Please accept this letter of support for The INN Between. The INN Between is a wonderful organization that we have worked with several times in the past as a private foundation. They make such an important impact in our community and I would urge that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision. Any amount funded can help this program remain sustainable. Kind regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Greetings Salt Lake City Councel Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident and volunteer at the Inn Between, and I strongly urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of the program. 80% of the people we serve are from Salt Lake City and they would take the hit if we stop receiving this grant. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council Members, I would urge you to reconsider cutting funding for one of the most vulnerable populations in Utah. The INN Between is a wonderful place that brings homeless patients comfort and hospice care during their last days on earth. Every human deserves palliative care and to be surrounded by those who show them love. I know that they have taken multiple patients from the Fourth Street Clinic before they became terminally ill. I appreciate you all working towards a solution towards the housing and healthcare crise s and for fighting the idea that humanity is conditional. Sincerely, 260 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I've been a Salt Lake City resident for almost 3 years now and one of the things that impressed me the most was your care for the less fortunate. Having a hospice for the homeless demonstrates that care. My parents and two siblings, indeed, my whole family, benefited from the care they received through hospice at the end of their lives. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding dec ision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thank you for your reconsideration, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident and I am writing this email today to plead that you reconsider cutting the funding for this. Especially in the current situation we are in as a nation. We need to band together and help those in need as much as possible. Our homeless population are still people and deserve to have a place to go and die with some dignity and care. Life is hard enough for everyone, we need to show some basic human compassion and not have them suffering and miserable in their last bit of life left to die on the streets. Again, I ask to please reconsider cutting funding this would be such a sad shame. Any type of funding you can allot for this organization would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this email, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members, I am concerned about the proposed complete cut to funding for The INN Between from Salt Lake City's Community Development Block Grant program. I am a Salt Lake City resident who cares deeply about this compassionate resource that does so much with so little, receives significant volunteer support, and is surely deserving of ongoing recognition and support from our city. Please reconsider your decision and return funding to The INN Between at any amount, to show the city’s support of this vital, meaningful service in our community. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I just found out that the funding has been stop for places like the Inn Between. This place is essential for a lot of people waiting for surgery or getting treatment for Cancer and other medical needs. Hospice for the homeless for those who would having a worse time at a bad time in their life. I hope that you reconsider what you’re doing. I am a registered voter and my voice counts! 261 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I understand that funding will be tight with everything going on but th is program has minimal funding to begin with. Please reconsider. Thank you! Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I received an email from a friend with concerns about SLC cutting their funding for the Inn Between. While it represents a low percentage of the Inn’s funding, any more cuts at this time would appear rather devastating because of funding cuts from other private groups. Is there any rationale for cuts to those who would appear to be in dire need of medical and hospice care? I assume patients at the Inn are sheltered in place and there must be restrictions on who may come and go. If not, there should be enforcement of appropriate safe guards. I lost my husband to terminal cancer 2.5 yrs ago after enduring 4.5 yrs of a lot of pain and suffering through treatments and the devastation of this disease. I can’t imagine what lack of care and home comforts would be like for those at the end of their lives no matter the illness. That goes for those who would need skilled nursing and medical care as well. We were so fortunate to have excellent care and medical insurance. I live withint 4-5 miles S of the Inn and am a SLCo resident. Certainly homelessness affects anyone in this area. A shelter was already closed. The homeless disperse throughout the valley and areas near the City and end up in homes or on other streets. It affects many areas and I applaud city and county efforts to address homelessness issues. I’m merely expressing my concerns and have questions. Thank you, and stay healthy. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I urge you to reconsider funding for the INN Between. They offer vital services to the homeless population that no other provider offers. We have been supporting The INN Between for many years and urge the county to do the same. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP THEM!!!! They’re doing some of the greatest work!!!! Homeless that are dying need a place to die with dignity, love, care and compassion. We need someone to FIGHT for them!!!!!! They need us!!!!!!!!!!!! HELP THEM!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!! 262 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please do not cut funding for the Inn Between. Other than people who are on ventilators in hospitals right now, I can’t think of any group of people more in need of support than those who are both homeless and ill, some of the terminally. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 A critical component in this community of so many homeless. The INN Between is a functioning resource and will continue with active funding from Salt City and other organizations. The need for funding is now...now. Please. Kim Correa and other staff members are dedicated of course, and the hours and commitment they provide is...well...unreal. A perfect time for CDBG ) funding. Thank you . Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern: I’m reaching out to you as a Service Provider in this community who has benefited from having had a wonderful organization like the Inn Between available to take in and care for Sick Homeless clients. They have been cut enormously over this last few years and I am very much afraid especially having 255 fewer Shelter beds still than we logistically need. I really feel like cutting funding and not increasing it during the Covid-19 crisis would be a bad look. Our Homeless and unsheltered community bear the brunt of our lack of investment in vital community programs when we invest in a continually over-developed city and we don’t even have enough shelter beds even with the Sugarhouse shelter, it feels uncaring and that is not who we are as a community. Please reconsider your decision to cut the CDBG Grant Please consider offering more help to an agency that shows up for our very sick, and dying homeless population. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Thank You, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear City Council- I know there are a lot of competing priorities out there right now. As a 40 year resident of Utah (the Avenues) I’ve supported many organizations. The Inn Between fulfills a unique niche within our 263 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 community and their public funding is essential to them fulfilling their mission. I hope you will consider funding them to the extent that you can and know the people they support need it now more than ever. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I am a hospice music therapist and have had the privilege of serving patients at this facility, and know how valuable it is to the wellbeing of those it serves. Thank you for your consideration. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a resident of SLC and ask they you consider the continuation of funding for the Innbetween, this is a much needed organization and we as the people should help in whatever manner we can. CDBG funding is necessary please reconsider. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Seems like a bad time to cut funding to a homeless shelter that serves unhoused persons with serious health issues! Janine Sheldon Neighbor Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello council members, I’m a resident of SLC and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision regarding The Inn Between (TIB). TIB provides an essential service to those experiencing homelessness and significant and/or terminal illnesses. Any amount of money that could be allocated to TIB would we put important use. Thank you, 264 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake County Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the organization Inn Between which provides much needed hospice care for homeless individuals that have nowhere to go. Please do not cut funding which would mean the individuals being helped would have no other means for services . I know you have to budget funding. I know you have to make hard decisions. At a time when everyone has so much to lose, this loss would seem astronomical to the individuals receiving care. Every life is valuable and worthy of dignity facing end of life. We as a people have to do a better job of helping people feel their self -worth. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council, I sincerely hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy during these uncertai n times. I am a Salt Lake City resident, living a couple blocks away from The INN Between. What they do for those underserved in our community is remarkable. This organization is doing the work no one else wants to do. We should be honoring them, thanking them, and funding them with whatever we can. Any amount makes a difference to them - please do not cut their funding. You must reconsider your CDBG funding decision for their facility. Do the right thing. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 We , as a community need to support the marvelous work done by In Between. Please reconsider your decision for funding this fine organization. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please continue your support for The Inn Between!! It plays such a vital role in this community and is a model of compassion. 265 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members. I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident. I’ve watched the various ‘assistance programs’ that have existed for individuals experiencing homelessness over the last 12 years that I’ve lived here. Every administration, and even different council members, has had a different impact on the population of individuals that need help. Has all the help had the intended outcome? No. Are we getting there? Perhaps. I realize that there is a lot going on right now. I find myself disappointed to hear with everything that is goi ng on, that you have cut CBDG funding to The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their unique program. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear City Council Members, I am the founder and current Nurse Supervisor of The INN Between and am really grateful for all of the support you have provided for this vital agency in the past. Historically we have received about $46,000 from the Community Development Block Grant program. This represents only about 3% of our annual budget yet about 80% of our residents come from the Salt Lake City community. The need is great for all homeless service providers, however, even the small percentage of a cut in our budget represents a significant impact on what we can do to serve this community. I would urge you to reconsider the elimination of funding for The INN Between and know that we will appreciate funding at any level. Sincerely, 266 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To SL City Council Members, I am a resident of salt lake city. In the past you have supported the INN Between. Pleas, please help again by granting money to the INN Between via the block grant program. Thank You! Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello Council Members, I'm writing you to plead with you to continue supporting The Inn Between. The services they provide are truly nonexistent anywhere else. Our low-income, homeless, and formerly homeless neighbors NEED this service. To deprive this population of the option of having a place to die with dignity would be so cruel. As both a social worker and a resident of Ssalt Lake City, I urge you to continue your support. The alternative for many of these folks is to die alone and without the proper care that you or I would be able to receive. Any help you can continue to give them would be truly appreciated. These people are among our most vulnerable. Thanks so much for your consideration, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Please have empathy and compassion for our homeless community. They have a right to pass away with dignity and as comfortably as possible. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, We have been Salt Lake City residents for more than three decades. For the past two years we have been weekly volunteers at The Inn Between, which, as you know, is the nation's first hospice for terminally -ill homeless people, something SLC can be most proud of. It's likely that the COVID pandemic will increase the number of such people, yet the City plans to actually eliminate its financial support for The Inn Between. 267 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 We can well imagine the financial constraints the City must be laboring under during this economic/healthcare crisis. Still, if you have any discretionary funds available, we hope you will continue supporting The Inn Between. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I live just 2 blocks from the Inn Between and support the work they are engaged with. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a resident of Salt Lake City, residing at 923 S 1500 E writing to urge you to reconsider CDBG for the Inn Between. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello Council: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. As a former volunteer and public relations coordinator for the INN Between, I witnessed the achievement of this small group of people firsthand. I count as friends the residents who passed through those doors. Their colorful and tragic way of living left an indelible imprint that remains as part of the very fiber of my being. The thought of a funding loss for such a worthy program is painfully disheartening and for want of a better word, ludicrous. Given the COVID outbreak, so many homeless are helplessly forced into death even earlier. Denied services by hospitals all across the united states, they face horrendous conditions without help. The INN Between is one of only TWO such facilities in the entire United States able to provide services to those who are terminally ill and homeless. In and of itself, this is shameful. I am at a loss trying to fathom why you would cut funding. 268 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Kim Correa and her incredible staff are tirelessly devoted to ensuring quality care for each and every patient in this facility. For so many of us navigating the waters of COVID and staying alive is actually an ever-present goal. Up to three months ago, it wasn't even a thought. For the residents of the INN Between and all the homeless struggling to stay alive, this is the ever-present reality of daily living. Why would you want to participate in any effort to undermine this herculean effort and support for the downtrodden? Thank you for funding the INN Between, please keep doing so. Save lives instead of taking them away. Truly, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear members of the City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident who also serves as a volunteer (board member) at The Inn Between. I write to strongly encourage continued City assistance to The Inn Between, particularly at this critical time for the homeless in our City. Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a constituent of SLC and I support funding for the Inn Between. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thanks, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 As a Salt Lake City resident who is concerned about the welfare of people experiencing homelessness, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount you can fund will help the sustainability of their program, particularly at a time when public health is a concern for all, with vulnerable populations at even greater risk. Thank you for your consideration, 269 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is ___________, a student at the University of Utah and proud resident of Salt Lake City. I am writing to you at this time as an advocate for The INN Between, a remarkable organization that I also volunteer for. The INN Between is an incredibly charitable organization that provides invaluable services to many marginalized residents of Salt Lake City. The INN Between provides a beacon of hope for numerous individuals suffering from homelessness and provides an opportunity for them to get back on their feet and become valuable members of the community. In my volunteer efforts, I have seen firsthand the benevolent services that are provided to the occupants at The INN Between who deeply appreciate the care that they receive. I would ask that you please consider renewing the pu blic funds that are granted to the The INN Between via Salt Lake City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as this will drastically assist in helping provide vital services for some of the most vulnerable populations of this great city. Thank you for your great leadership for the residents of Salt Lake City during these extraordinary times. Best, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council and Mayor - I urge you to please find a way to fund the CDBG request for The INN Between. They do so much with so little, and I can’t imagine a better use of a small portion of my taxes than toward this essential service. The INN Between provides critical care to individuals who are homeless, largely due to terminal health conditions. Please support allowing them to live out their remaining days in dignity, and for those few who recover in their care, be a part of working miracles. Yours in hope and gratitude - Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:02 PM To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bridge to Backman Greeting City Council- Thank you for considering the additional funding for the Bridge to Backman. I want to echo James Rodgers’ comments regarding the importance to funding the whole project. If not funded or only partially funded, this would still leave a big empty eyesore in the Westside community. The empty lot we are wanting to improve serves as a message to our community about the investment the city is willing to 270 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 make in us. 900 South, on the Eastside, gets ANOTHER facelift and Rose Park fails to be properly invested in. With the 600N/700N plan underway, this is a great way to beautify and enhance the corri dor. Please consider the importance of the project on a school and community and needs and deserves beautiful spaces to enjoy. Best, Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, April 7th, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube. Public Comments. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: She felt she could help women better outside of the criminal justice system than inside, wanted to address women through a trauma informed lens. Journey of Hope offers services to women with high ACE scores, institutionalized, homeless, evicted, victims of sexual violence and/or trafficking. They have served over 2,000 women in their program. Most will not recidivate if they have supportive services. 17% of their clients do not return to incarceration. They offer mentorship for up to 18 months, and most don’t return to homelessness after their treatment. 200 of their clients haven’t returned to homeless, after receiving their services. Their agency needs the funding to serve people, please reconsider, there are many women and girls aging-out of foster care/Juvenile Justice Services or slated to go to homeless shelters who are getting out of jail. She fears those girls/women going to shelter will be exposed to trafficking or drugs. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: Survivor of sexual and physical abuse, she got her first job out of incarceration at Journey of Hope. Journey of Hope could do so much more in the state, they could flip the recidivism rate, which Utah is the highest in the country. It’s difficult to pull people out of poverty if they don’t’ have enough staff support. They’re the only agency that will go into all settings to serve women in the criminal justice system. Their Executive Director understands the issues these girls/women face. Journey of Hope hires survivors to serve other survivors. Please reconsider funding recommendations. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: SVS is a domestic violence shelter that serves people affected by physical or sexual violence, located in West Jordan. Though they serve residents of Salt Lake City through the Salt Lake City Library and the Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center. This allows flexibility to meet survivors at places they’re at instead of their agency. They serve over 400 domestic violence survivors a year. This improves their quality of life. Thank you for recommendation for funding to provide case management in various SLC locations and the support for South Valley Services. 271 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 7:43 pm. With Journey of Hope. Wants to inform you of how her experience working with Journey of Hope has improved her life. With the agency she’s had the opportunity to work with women like her, who are getting out of prison, to get sober and get custody of their children. She’s had the chance to work with domestic violence and rape survivors and women coming out homelessness. She’s been able to turn her adverse childhood experiences and turn it into hope for other women. Journey of Hope has empowered her to move forward and help others find their voice and hope. She hopes the Council will consider them for their funding. Without the funding they cannot help as many women. She wants to thank them for hearing her, and for all that they do. Additional Comments Received After the Public Meeting Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/8/2020 Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:16 AM To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) CDBG Funding Recommendations Dear Council Members, I am the Executive Director of Utah Health and Human Rights. We have provided wrap - around services for refugee, immigrant, and asylee survivors of torture for 17 years. I recognize that all the recommended CDBG projects focus on homeless services. I attended all the consolidated plan stakeholder meetings and am disheartened to see that programs that work tirelessly to prevent homelessness have been overlooked such as ours. 99% of our clients have income less than 50% of the MFI. Our clients have overcome the unimaginable in their home countries and continue to face obstacles with mental health, poverty, language and cultural barriers, physical health, and ongoing trauma. We are the only refugee service provider in Utah who provides services without time limits. Survivors can access our services no matter how long that have been in the U.S. and they can actively receive services for as long as they need, whether that is 8 months, or 8 years. Without our services many of our clients would face homelessness, generational poverty and trauma, and chronic physical health needs. I hope that you will consider funding our program as an essential service keeping Salt Lake City families from entering homelessness. Thank you, 272 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDA April 21, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chris Wharton, Chair District 3 Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair District 2 James Rogers District 1 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Amy Fowler District 7 Generated: 4/21/2020 4:33:58 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 273 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 • If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801- 535-7600 to learn how you can share your comments live during the meetings. • As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email: • 24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654 • council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings. The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two- minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning to speak to the next. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 274 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 4. The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 17, 2020 and Tuesday, March 24, 2020 as well as formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 24, 2020. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item. 1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) COPS Office Fiscal Year 2020 Hiring Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits of ten (10) new police officer positions. The new officers would be assigned to the Patrol Division, and the Police Department would assign ten experienced officers to newly created Intelligence-led policing squads which would focus on addressing emerging violent crime issues and repeat violent crime offenders in Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) 275 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: 2020 Grants to Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits for one full-time Victim Advocate position at the YWCA Utah. This new position would replace a current part-time, grant-funded advocate position. This advocate will be co-located at the YWCA Family Justice Center (FJC) and will serve as a liaison to support victims, ensure they receive appropriate services, and are informed about the criminal justice process. If awarded, the grant would also fund police overtime efforts to increase arrests for protection order violation warrants and warrants in domestic violence cases. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Grant Application: Assistance to Firefighters Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund eight battery-powered ventilation fans to replace old gas-powered fans for the Salt Lake City Fire Department. The new fans are more compact, can be safely carried by one firefighter, and do not emit fumes. In addition, the grant funding would be used to purchase eight battery-operated, vehicle-mounted extrication units which will replace older equipment to ensure successful heavy rescue extrication on metals used in newer vehicles. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. 276 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 5. Grant Application: 2020 Parks as Community Nutrition Hubs: Expanding Access to Healthy Foods The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would be used to construct a 1,000 square foot outdoor classroom at the Sorenson Unity Center. The classroom will become a community nutrition hub for hosting nutrition and gardening education events, a farmers market, and health and wellness activities for Glendale and Poplar Grove residents. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice Department (DOJ) COPS Office Fiscal Year 2020 Community Police Development Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits of three new part-time Gang Outreach Advocate positions to assist with the Promising Youth Project, a gang intervention and prevention program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 277 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 C. COMMENTS: 1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) 2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. D. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and approving an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 278 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDAS May 5, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBERS: Chris Wharton, Chair District 3 Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair District 2 James Rogers District 1 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Amy Fowler District 7 Generated: 5/4/2020 5:11:05 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 279 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7600 to learn how you can share your comments live during the meetings. As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email: • 24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654 • council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings. The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two- minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning to speak to the next. LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council/Board Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meetings. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 280 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020 -21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C. CONSENT: 1. Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2019 and Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates D. ADJOURNMENT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. 281 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). F. CONSENT: 1. Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates G. ADJOURNMENT: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. H. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, April 14, 2020. 2. Mayor Mendenhall will present the proposed Salt Lake City budget, including the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2020-21. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 282 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item. 1. Ordinance: 1172 East Chandler Drive Rezone The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone a parcel at approximately 1172 East Chandler Drive from Open Space District (OS) to Foothills Residential District (FR- 3/12,000). The intent of the rezone is to match the zoning of the property to the east, which is under the same ownership, to allow residential accessory uses on the property after the two lots are combined. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2019-00795 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone property at 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The applicant is requesting the rezone to accommodate future development of the property and implement the area master plan zoning. No site development proposal has been submitted at this time. Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to M-1, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM-2019-00431. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Ordinance: Washington Street Alley Vacation The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close a City-owned alley located at approximately 1040 South Washington Street. The alley is 15 feet wide and approximately 253 feet long. It runs west of Washington Street toward an abandoned Utah Transit Authority (UTA) railroad line, where it becomes a dead end before reaching 300 West Street. The proposal would allow the petitioner to incorporate it into the seven of eight adjacent properties they own. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Cleveland Court Master Plan Amendment and Rezone (1430 South 400 East) The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning map pertaining to a property at 1430 South 400 East. The rezone and amendments would allow the applicant to build a seven-unit development. The proposal would change the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density 283 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezone the property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the FB-UN1 district, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition Nos.: PLNPCM2019-00189 & PLNPCM2019-00190 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 17, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: RECM Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment at 347, 353 and 359 North 700 West The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map pertaining to three parcels of property located at 347, 353 and 359 North 700 West to rezone the parcels from SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-family Residential. The request is in anticipation of a multi-family project being constructed at the site. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00638. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment 480 E 6th Avenue The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map for the property at 480 East 6th Avenue from Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-1A) to Small Neighborhood Business District (SNB). The proposed rezone is to make the current legal nonconforming commercial use in the 6th Avenue structure conforming and allow for a commercial use in the historically residential structure facing G Street. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00813. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Grant Application: 2021 Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police Department that would fund enforcement/education overtime shifts for the Distracted Driving Prevention program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - 284 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 8. Grant Application: 2021 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police Department that would fund crosswalk enforcement/education overtime as well as youth bicycle rodeo overtime. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. J. COMMENTS: 1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) 2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. K. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020 - 24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020; Tuesday April 7, 2020; and Tuesday April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020 -21 and approving an 285 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 286 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX C: 2020 – 2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN INTRODUCTION The Citizen Participation Plan specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City. The Consolidated Plan articulates how HUD funding will be used for the following programs: ● Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); ● Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG); ● Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME); and ● Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Citizen participation in planning and implementing housing, public services, infrastructure, and economic development activities is an essential step in creating vibrant, livable and sustainable cities that are responsive to resident’s needs. A robust citizen participation process provides residents with an opportunity to improve their environment and equips local elected officials with information regarding their constituent’s desires and priorities. If residents are involved in designing programs that will improve their communities, it is more likely that projects and strategies will meet their needs. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide input into all aspects of the City’s consolidated planning activities, including but not limited to assessing needs, setting priorities, and evaluating performance. This Citizen Participation Plan offers numerous opportunities for citizens to contribute feedback regarding ways to provide decent housing, establish and maintain a suitable living environment, invest in infrastructure, and expand economic opportunities, particularly for low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons. Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) will be responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the applicable plans. The Citizen Participation Plan applies to the following: ● The five-year Consolidated Plan; ● The Annual Action Plan (AAP); ● The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER); ● Any substantial amendments to the five-year Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan; and ● Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan. The City’s fiscal year begins July 1 of each year and ends June 30 of the following year. Each area of planning has its own schedule and must be maintained to ensure compliance with HUD regulations and eligibility for future funding. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate so long as it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. 287 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HUD PROGRAMS Salt Lake City receives four entitlement grants from HUD to help address the City’s affordable housing, community, and economic development needs. The four grant programs are described below: 1. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created the CDBG program. It was reauthorized in 1990 as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic development opportunities for person s of low and moderate income. The City develops locally defined programs and funding priorities for CDBG, but activities must address one or more of the national objectives of the CDBG program. The three national objectives are: (1) to benefit low- and moderate- income persons; (2) to aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and/or (3) to meet other urgent community development needs. The City’s CDBG program emphasizes activities that directly benefit low and moderate-income persons. 2. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG): The ESG Program is authorized by the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 and was amended by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. The ESG Interim Rule took effect on January 4, 2012. The change in the program’s name, from Emergency Shelter Grants to Emergency Solutions Grants, reflects the change in the program’s focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in emergency or transitional shelters to assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness. The ESG program provides funding to address five program components: street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing assistance, and HMIS; as well as administrative activities. 3. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): HOME was introduced in the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and provides funding for housing rehabilitation, new housing construction, acquisition of affordable housing, and tenant-based rental assistance. A portion of the funds (15 percent) must be set aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) certified by the City. 4. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): HOPWA funds may be used to assist housing designed to meet the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS, including the prevention of homelessness. Supportive services may also be included. HOPWA grants are allocated to Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Areas (EMSAs) with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS. The City receives HOPWA funds that can be utilized in Salt Lake County, Tooele County and Summit County. CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS The City uses advisory boards to assist in the recommendation of funding for these grant programs. CDBG & ESG applications are reviewed by the Community Development and Capital Improvements Program Advisory Board (CDCIP). The HOME & HOPWA applications are reviewed by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB). These advisory boards are made up of a diverse resident base that allows for additional community input. The recommendation of the board is used by the Mayor and City Council as final funding allocations are determined. If a member of the public is interested in serving on the CDCIP or HTF Advisory Boards, please contact Housing and Neighborhood Development to learn how you can help direct the efforts of the city at 288 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 www.slcgov.com/hand. The City encourages diversity among its boards and encourage constituents from a wide variety of backgrounds, and experiences to apply for volunteerism on this and other city boards. During the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with businesses, developers, and nonprofit organizations, as well as philanthropic, community, and faith -based organizations. Representatives from these various entities served on a Stakeholder Advisory Committee and provided valuable input regarding suggested priorities for unmet, unfunded needs. In addition, these stakeholders provided direction regarding the strategies the City could employ to help address those needs with the federal funding available through the Consolidated Plan. This input is reflected in the Consolidated Plan and will help to guide how the funding is used over the five-year period. Salt Lake City will continue to use advisory boards as a way to receive community input and encourage citizens to play an active role in decision making processes. The advisory boards will provide recommendation for funding to the Mayor & City Council for consideration. The Mayor may elect to change which advisory board(s) responsible for review and recommendation of these grant sources, without further impact to this Plan or associated Plans. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (PHA) The City will provide information about consolidated plan activities to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) and the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, “Housing Connect.” This will allow HASLC and Housing Connect to make this information available at the annual public hearing required for the Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. MEASURING SUCCESS The City will explore alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative approaches to measuring the success of efforts related to the Consolidated Plan. These techniques could include various online engagement tools such as online surveys, discussion forums, GIS-based interactive maps with public comment layers, social media analytics, and/or other quantitative approaches. DISPLACEMENT OF PERSONS SLC will adhere to and uphold all requirements under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The City will continue to explore other methods to ensure that displacement is minimized where applicable. PUBLIC NOTICE The City will provide advanced public notice once when a planning activity subject to the Citizen Participation Plan occurs. When appropriate, public notices, announcements, draft documents, and final documents may be provided as follows: 1. Press Releases issued by the Office of the Mayor; 2. Written Public Notices, provided in both English and Spanish; 3. Posting of written Public Notices on the State’s Public Notice website; 4. Email to HAND’s comprehensive contact list consisting of residents, past and present grant applicants, government officials, Council liaisons, interested parties, Community Councils, local neighborhood groups, and City departments; 289 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 5. Post announcements, information, and documents to the City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development website; 6. Information released via the City’s social media accounts; 7. Follow the City’s Public Engagement Guide; 8. The City will use electronic means wherever applicable to reduce the requirement for in person noticing or engagement. To be added to HAND’s email/mailing lists for the purpose of automatically being informed about the federal grant activities and processes, please contact Housing and Neighborhood Development at www.slcgov.com/hand. SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE In September 2019, Salt Lake City updated the Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide. The document has been accepted by the legislative body (though not officially adopted by the City Council), and serves as a framework for use by all Departments, Divisions, and employees as they engage the public in City decisions. The Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide was developed in conjunction with the Open Government Initiative and principles of the International Ass ociation for Public Participation (IAP2). The Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide is a tool designed to assist city employees in determining the scope and appropriate level of public engagement necessary for a successful process. Issues of culture, language, income and protected classes come into play when the specific and/or unique stakeholders are identified, based on the characteristics and intent of a particular plan, program or process being discussed. This guide will be used in the programming and implementation of gaining the greatest level of meaningful participation with the citizens of Salt Lake City. PLANNING ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN General Needs Hearing Each year, during the grant application period, the City will host a General Needs Hearing. The public is invited to attend the hearing and provide input on the general needs within their community. This may include gaps in services, housing opportunities, neighborhood improvements, the provision of public service, and other needs. Information gathered at the General Needs Hearing will be used to prioritize funding to address community needs. To reach a wide variety of residents, Housing and Neighborhood Development may outreach to the public using the following forums: 1. Public Notice that meets State public noticing requirements in advance to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list in both English and Spanish; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space in their place of business; 5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website; 6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. 290 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Grant Application Availability The City will attempt to alert eligible applicants of the application process, training opportunities, and application deadlines when grant applications are available. Outreach may be repeated as often as necessary to ensure outreach is successful. To reach current and potential partners, HAND will provide outreach as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Advisory Board Meetings The public is invited to attend and observe all Advisory Board meetings. Per State requirements, all CDCIP & HTF Advisory Board meetings are posted on the State’s Public Notice website. These public meetings may occur in person or electronically, following the State of Utah Open Meetings Act requirements. This includes and is not limited to hosting remote meetings as necessary. During time of emergency declaration, these meetings will continue to follow the State of Utah Open Meetings Act requirements as advised by and under the input of the City Attorney. This includes and is not limited to hosting remote meetings as necessary. Community Input/Public Engagement On an annual basis before the Advisory Boards make funding recommendations for the CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOPWA funding, the City will conduct a widespread effort to ensure that a wide variety of community members have the ability to provide input into funding priorities. The method of this effort may change from year to year, however, it is always the goal of the City to specifically outreach to community members that are more likely to use the services and programs supported by these funding sources. Each year the efforts will enhance and improve the outreach to vulnerable populations, communities of color, disadvantaged populations, and will always include outreach within CDBG eligible areas and/or areas of high poverty. Consolidated Plan U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements dictate that the City must have a Consolidated Plan. This is a five-year strategic plan that identifies community development and housing needs within the community. This document must specify short-term and long-term objectives that provide for decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity primarily for persons of low and moderate income. Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on increasing opportunity in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and supporting the City's most vulnerable populations. The five-year plan provides a strategy for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect and expand opportunities for residents. Many steps were taken to determine the community needs and solicit feedback from the community, interested parties, stakeholders and government partners. Below is a list of events, activities and reports that were completed: 291 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The public was invited to comment on the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan draft document before adoption by the City Council. Printed copies of the Consolidated Plan Executive Summary were made available for public review and comment for 30 calendar days. The copies were located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the Office of Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), the Salt Lake City Public Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of the draft Consolidated Plan was posted on the City’s official website during the same period. The final adopted Consolidated Plan will be made available on the City’s official website. Any comments made by the public were reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments and may be incorporated into the final Plan document. Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan The Citizen Participation Plan defines a substantial amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a substantial amendment must be completed. The above list represents the City’s criteria for determining what constitutes a substantial amendment and are subject to the City’s citizen participation process. The public is invited to comment on any Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Printed and electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of 30 calendar days, except for when US Department of Housing & Urban Development allows for a lesser amount of noticing days. If accessible, printed copies will be located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the Office of Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), and the Salt Lake City Public Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of any Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the City’s official web site during the same period. 292 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be incorporated into the final Consolidated Plan document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. Annual Action Plan City Council Public Hearing Each year, the Salt Lake City Council will host a public hearing to allow public input on projects proposed for funding. This is one of the two public hearings during the planning process as noted in the General Requirements section of the Citizen Participation Plan. To engage citizens, outreach will be conducted as follows: 1. Public Notice, provided at least 14 calendar days in advance to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list in both English and Spanish; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office. 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website. 4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space in their place of business; 5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website; 6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. The City Council will accept public input from those who attended the public hearing to express their views, either by verbally addressing the Council or providing written comments. Written comments are also allowed by those unable to attend in person, but who wanted to provide their input on the projects requesting funding. The draft AAP will be available for public comment for 14 calendar days. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be incorporated into the final Plan do cument. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Every year, the City must submit to HUD the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) within 90 calendar days of the close of the program year. The CAPER describes how funds were spent and the extent to which funds were used for activities that benefit low- and moderate- income residents. The City will provide reasonable notice that the draft CAPER is available so that residents will have an opportunity to review and comment. The draft CAPER will be available for public comment for 15 calendar days. To engage citizens, outreach will be as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. The City will consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, in preparing the performance report. A summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the performance report. 293 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan An “Amendment” to the Citizen Participation Plan is defined as: If HUD has new citizen participation plan requirements, that will be considered amendment. If the City finds that this Citizen Participation Plan no longer meets the needs of the community and decision makers, an adjustment to this Plan will be considered an amendment. This Citizen Participation Plan can be amended only after the public has been notified of the City’s intent to modify it, and only after the public has had a reasonable chance to review and comment on proposed substantial changes. The draft Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan will be available for public comment for 15 calendar days. To engage citizens, outreach will be as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be reflected in the final amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Public Hearings There will be a minimum of two public hearings during the planning stages of any formal Plan required by HUD. Notices of all Public Hearings will be communicated within 14 calendar days of the Hearing. Public Hearings will also be identified on Utah’s Public Notice website. Public hearings may occur in person, electronically, or by written comment. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Public Meetings Public meetings may occur throughout the grant application and administration process. Any public meeting that is being held to discuss a matter of the federal grants discussed herein, will be communicated at a minimum of 2 calendar days in advance of said meeting. Notices of all public meetings will also be identified on Utah’s Public Notice website. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours 294 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Non-English speaking In the case of public hearings where a significant number of non -English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate, the City will meet the needs of non -English speaking residents by providing translation services and interpreters, upon request. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Individuals with Disabilities People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Document Access Copies of all final planning documents including the following federal reports will be made ava ilable on the City’s website: ● Citizen Participation Plan ● Five Year Consolidated Plan ● Annual Action Plan Funding Allocations ● Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Printed copies of these documents are available to the public upon request. Additional reasonable accommodations will be made for individuals with disabilities, upon request. Access to Records The City will provide citizens, public agencies, and other in terested parties reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the Citizen Participation Plan, Five Year Consolidated Plan, annual Action Plan, and CAPER, and the City’s use of assistance under the four entitlement grant programs. Technical Assistance The City will provide technical assistance upon request and to the extent resources are available to groups or individuals that need assistance in preparing funding proposals, provided that the level of technical assistance does not constitute a violation of federal or local rules or regulations. The provision of technical assistance does not involve reassignment of City staff to the proposed project or group, or 295 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 the use of City equipment, nor does technical assistance guarantee an award of funds. Contact information for City staff is as follows: Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street PO BOX 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 801-535-7712 www.slcgov.com/hand CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS Written complaints related to Salt Lake City’s programs and activities funded through entitlement grant funding may be directed to SLC’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND). A timely, written and substantive response to the complainant will be prepared within 15 calendar days of receipt of the complaint by HAND. Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development will work to determine the appropriate course of action, including but not limited to, involving other City divisions, any State or Federal community level resources to help address the complaint to the fullest extent reasonably possible based upon the nature of the complaint. Written complaints must include the complainant’s name, address, and zip code and must be signed by the person(s) filing the formal complaint. A daytime telephone number and/or email address should also be included in the event further information or clarification is needed. Complaints should be addressed as follows: Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development Attn: Director 451 South State Street PO BOX 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 2 & VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON DISTRICT 3 & CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO DIST RICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 2 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN AP-05 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................04 AP-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................................................................................12 AP-10 CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................................13 AP-12 PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................27 AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES.................................................................................................33 AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................38 AP-35 PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................41 AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................44 AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................53 AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ...............................................................................................56 AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING .........................................................................................................57 AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES .................................................59 AP-70 HOPWA GOALS ............................................................................................................64 AP-75 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................................................64 AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS ...........................................................................................................68 AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................74 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 3 | P a g e FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN The First Yea r Action Plan outlines the activities and funding priorities for the first year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 4 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AP-05 Executive Summary 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction Salt Lake City’s 2020-2021 Action Plan is the product of a collaborative, strategic process that spans community partners, service providers, non-profit/for-profit housing developers, housing authorities, internal divisions/departments, and the input of our citizens. Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) has worked extensively to identify community development needs and establish goals that align funding streams, community priorities and city initiatives. This plan highlights many of the efforts to max imize and leverage the City’s block grant allocations with other resources to build healthy and sustainable communities. The 2020-2021 Action Plan identifies how the City intends to leverage the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutio ns Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA) funding. These four resources will provide for over $5.4 million in support for low to moderate income households or areas of the city. Sim ilar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality, increasing poverty levels, decreasing housing affordability and diminishing federal resources. We are also grappling with the immediate, mid-term and long-term impac ts of the Coronavirus, which is sure to have lasting impacts on our community. This Action Plan works to address concerns within each of these needs by continuing to develop and refine new and collaborative strategies. The following highlights a few of the initiatives and efforts that the City is excited about:  Salt Lake City has gone through a robust community engagement process in the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and the 2020-2021 Action Plan. These planning efforts have provided the City with a clear vision of the needs in the community and a framework for strategic and targeted deployment of funding. The Con solidated Plan will serve as the foundation and guide as the City implements block grant funding over the next five year s. Each program identified in the 2020-2021 Action Plan meets one of the five goals as outlined in the Con solidated Plan and below. Additionally, the programs will serve as the catalyst to implement the strategies tied to each of the five goals. o Housing – Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population will diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. o Transportation – Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation opti ons. o Build Community Resiliency – Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 5 | P a g e o Homeless Services – Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring. o Behavioral Health – Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.  In January 2020 Erin Mendenhall was sworn in as the 36th Mayor of Salt Lake City. Mayor Mendenhall’s Administration is focused on breaking down equity barriers within Salt Lake City and providing opportunities for upward mobility for residents regardless of race, income, age or ability. Ensuring a diverse and equitable community is at the foundation of the City’s guiding principles. The City strives to understand the needs of underrepresented residents and will be embarking on a gentrification and equity study in the coming year to help shape future policy and program decisions.  Salt Lake City in partnership with Salt Lake County, the State, and community -based organizations is working to rapidly respond to the community impact from the Coronavirus (aka COVID-19) and a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that occurred on March 18, 2020. These tragic events have further emphasized the need for affordable housing in our community and the need for resources has never been greater. The City has applied for PY 19/20 waivers for service providers to provide flexibility and deployment of resources. Additionally, the City is working on a substantial amendment to the PY 19/20 Action Plan, Consolidated Plan, and Citizen Participation Plan in anticipation of the CARES Act funding award. Salt Lake City will have an accelerated, but competitive application pro cess for our community partners to address the immediate and pressing needs as they are responding to the COVID-19 crisis.  Salt Lake City conducted a survey in which 37 community partners responded to help the City understand how community and organizati on needs have shifted during the pandemic. These survey results have helped to identify the need in the community and organizational capacity to implement programs in response to COVID-19. Additionally, the City hosted an “Ask Me Anything” on Facebook that provided residents with an opportunity to ask housing related questions. Additionally, numerous outreach materials have been created and distributed to guide residents to services.  The City has been a constant leader in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition t o End Homelessness (Coalition) which is a coordinated coalition of stakeholders working collaboratively to end homelessness in Salt Lake County. In the fall of 2019, the Coalition transitioned homeless shelters to a Homeless Resource Center (HRC) model. Th e HRC’s provide residents housing stability and case management services to assist clients in overcoming barriers to self -sufficiency. The HRC’s provide a multitude of services SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 6 | P a g e include housing navigation, job training, employment services, life skills, and connection to community resources. The HRC’s will continue to be an important and critical service in our community and will lift our most vulnerable residents out of homelessness.  Salt Lake City supports the Housing First model , that housing is a right not a privilege. This view shapes housing policy and program implementation. Salt Lake City is working closely with community partners to provide opportunities for permanent supportive housing. This model provides the City’s vulnerable residents with critical services to find stability, self -sufficiency, and upward mobility.  Small community businesses serve as the life blood of Salt Lake City. They not only provide opportunities for employment but also build the fabric of diversity within the City. Salt Lake City will continue to support our small, locally owned businesses by providing economic development loan funding through City resources. The COVID-19 crisis has impacted small, local businesses at a devastating level. The City is committed to ensuring that small, local businesses are able to open safely, and survive this economic crisis. While this is just a sampling of many of the exciting efforts the city is undertaking to address the needs in our community, it is fair to say that while federal fun ding plays an important role in our ability to leverage and maximize long term impact, it is – and will continue to be a struggle as funding continues to be constantly challenged. As a city we look to other communities, best practices, etc. to find the mos t effective methods of deploying these limited resources. In an effort to engage and leverage best practices across the nation, HAND participates in training opportunities, attends national conferences, contributes to regional planning conversations, and looks for opportunities to advocate not only for affordable housing, but also for addressing the gaps of funding or services that exist in our community. 2. Summarize the Goals and Strategies identified in the Plan This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. These goals are briefly outlined below. Greater detail is provided in section AP -20. 1) Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 7 | P a g e  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock with in neighborhoods  Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents  Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation  Provide housing and essenti al services for persons with HIV/AIDS 2) Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies:  Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experienc e of public transit in target areas  Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations  Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas 3) Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies:  Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations includin g, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities  Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the c ycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population s 4) Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 8 | P a g e  Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness  Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations  Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and su pportive services 5) Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies:  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6) Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG HOME, and HOPWA programs. Salt Lake City's strategy for most-effectively utilizing HUD funding is heavily influenced by the City's housing market study, the City’s Five Year Housing Plan , the annual Utah Comprehensive Report on Homelessness, and the adopted Salt Lake City Master Plans that highlight strategic neighborhood investme nt opportunities. 3. Evaluation of past performance Salt Lake City deliberately monitors the process of advancing the strategic goals outlined in the newly adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. This plan , like the previous 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan was developed with input from many stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to report back to US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the residents, community and decision makers the impact of these funds. As we complete the time period associated with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, here is an evaluation of progress during that time period In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s previous Action Plans and CAPERs can be viewed at www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated-plan/con-plans-aaps- capers/. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 9 | P a g e During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Goal Description Est imated Projected 1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430 2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70 3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925 4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homeless Indivi duals and Families 965 3,217 5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individuals & Families 15,000 7,380 6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At -Risk Populations 35,000 24,385 7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Ar eas 75 50 8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344 9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112 All the goals surrounding homeownership continued to be a struggle as the city experiences a sustained, rapid increase in housing prices and land values. This created challenges on two fronts, one being finding an eligible household that can afford the housing units long term. The other is finding units available to purchase to utilize for affordable housing. Often, single family homes are on the market mere moments before very competitive offers come in. Unfortunately, municipalities are not set up to quickly react as housing becomes available. That often means that the city ends up paying more for a unit that requires a lot of rehabilitation to bring it up to city code. These increased costs must be carefully weighed as housing can easily out price available federal subsidies and regulatory limitations. In 2016, the City launched a new economic development program to address the façade of businesses within the geographic target area of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The reception of the program and impact has been terrific, even though our initial projections proved to be overly optimistic for an entirel y new program. Over the past several years, the City has taken a different approach to homeless services. This includes making a city commitment of over $2 million from general fund sources. As homelessness continues to be an issue that SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 10 | P a g e needs to be addressed, the city took the approach of shifting many of the service providers from this competitive annual process to the general fund. Additionally, Salt Lake City has further invested general fund dollars into homeless services through the Funding Our Future sales tax increase initiative. This shift allowed the city to invest significantly more f unding, provide local direction, closely monitor performance measurements, and provide flexibility that makes sense for the local challenges we face. It is important to reiterate that the city continues to be committed to providing and expanding services for the homeless population. This also means that federal resources are being diverted to address other Plan goals, while the city is taking the opportunity to leverage local resources. Providing public services to our community fell short. Over the past few years, the City modified its strategy for spending in this category, providing more services to a smaller group of people that are in greatest need. This has been a successful strategy thus far, though it does mean the City is serving a smaller total number of individuals. Salt Lake City will soon be receivin g final reports regarding 19-20 funding. This data will drive future decisions about funding allocation. This data will also be fully reflected in the upcoming Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER). 4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan & Action Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of the community needs and preferences. In addition, th e citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant prog rams. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan. A comprehensive public engagement process included a cit ywide survey (including 2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one-on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, Salt Lake City internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into this plan. The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing developers, hou sing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For more information on the citizen participation efforts, refer to the AP-10 Consultation . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 11 | P a g e The City held three public hearings at different points in the process. The General Needs Hearing is an event open to the public to comment on community needs. HAND accepts all comments and looks to understand how federal funding can address these concerns. The concerns that are not within the prevue of the federal funding is passed along to the appropriate City Department. The City Council Public Hearing is an opportunity for the public and non-profit partners to comment on how federal funding may impact their nei ghborhoods or the services being provided. This year, City Council held-over the initial public hearing for a second public hearing two weeks later. This is because the City had just entered into an electronic meeting space due to COVID-19 and Council wanted to ensure that constituents had as much opportunity for input into the process. More detail about these events is available in the AP-12 Participation section. 5. Summary of public comments A summary of the public comments can be found in the appendix of the finalized 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. All comments were received and considered while creating this 2020-2021 Action Plan. In general, the comments submitted through both the General Needs Hearing and the City Council Public Hearing s were very positive. The comments received during the City Council Hearing typically related to the support of funding a specific agency. Topics included homelessness, housing, social service programs, youth advocacy, youth protections, health services, and addressing the special needs of populations such as refugees, aging or disabled residents. While most comments did advocate for a specific organization, many comments were based on sound evidence to make a point about service delivery creating powerful narratives th at advanced the issue being addressed beyond a simple funding request. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 12 | P a g e AP-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Co nsolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Hou sing and Neighborhood Development Division HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Narrative (optional) Salt Lake City was the sole agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan and is solely responsible for the subsequent Action Plans. Salt Lake City administers each of the HUD grant programs and the funding sources. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information - Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Lani.Eggertsen- Goff@slcgov.com or 801-535-6240. - Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276. - Tony Milner, Policy & Program Manager, Tony.Milner@slcgov.com or 801-535-6168. Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 445 P.O. Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 13 | P a g e AP-10 Consultation 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction The City engaged in an in -depth and collaborative effort to consult with City departments, representatives of low -income neighborhoods, non -profit and for-profit housing developers, service providers, social service agencies, homeless shelter and service providers, supportive housing and service providers, community stakeholders, community partners, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the Consolidated Plan. Salt Lake City continues to engage these critical partners regularly as we look to maximize our potential impact on an annual basis. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) The Salt Lake City Mayor and key staff worked this year with the State legislature on a bill that has increased access to Medicaid for the most vulnerable members of our community. Proposition 3 and SB96 have expanded Medicaid access to an estimated 70,000 – 90,000 people across the state. Recently, the City has also passed a city -wide sales tax increase which has allotted over $5 million for housing programs across the city. This fu nding source has increased funding for programs that provide housing for the chronically homeless, homeless, mentally ill, children, developers, and people on the verge of becoming homeless, amongst others. The City is also a key participant in Salt Lake County's Collective Impact process which is responsible for coordinating a new homeless care model. This effort is driven by improving service delivery to all individuals who may enter homelessness for any period of time. Lastly, the City is very active in working with State Legislators at crafting legislation that can positively impact housing. Recently this has include working on bills such as SB34, SB39, and SB3006. Each of these bills are critical at supporting affordable housing in the State. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 14 | P a g e Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives served on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and actively participated in meetings and efforts. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care 's (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funders meet regularly to coord inate ESG and CoC activities to make sure service are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Allocate ESG Funds Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders m eet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make sure service are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Develop Performance Standards and Evaluate Outcomes The Salt Lake Continuum of Care and the three ESG funders share common measures to evaluate service providers. The three entities also share monitoring results of subrecipients. Develop Funding, Policies and Procedures for the Administration of HMIS The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. TABLE: CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identify ing service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 15 | P a g e was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non -Homeless Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization tha t assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching p riorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Pers ons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to d etermine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was a ble to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 16 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordinati on? closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization T ype Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts , the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organi zation Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consu ltation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assi sting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agency/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Home less Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, includ ing specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consulta tion? Housing Need Assessment SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 17 | P a g e How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization t hat assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine t he overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine t he overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 18 | P a g e What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the over arching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What secti on of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assist ed in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching prioritie s and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeles s What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to dete rmine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these effor ts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 19 | P a g e Agency/Gro up/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticip ated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Grou p/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anti cipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/G roup/Organization Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allow ed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where fundin g will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization th at assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 20 | P a g e 21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Heal th What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organizat ion that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overar ching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeles s Needs - Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assiste d in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Child ren, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 21 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addresse d by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportun ities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to oc cur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 26 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Council Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity o f leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled a n Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 22 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that a re in a geographically focused area. 29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulte d and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastru cture, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 23 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Co llaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organization Type O ther Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Ci vic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Hou sing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Th e City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other fund ing tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federa l funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 24 | P a g e and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations w ill continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmen tal - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Nee ds, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to dis cuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assemble d an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting: All agency types were invited to participate in the process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan TABLE: PLAN CONSULTATION COMMUNITY PLAN CONSULTATIONS SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 25 | P a g e 1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights initiatives centered on using the Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places minimal restriction on persons to place them into safe housing. Housing goals include promoting the construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all income l evels and to put specific emphasis on housing homeless persons. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in -Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative t o find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliab le estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five year period of thi s plan will focus on: 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long -term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitability and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for futu re development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Salt Lak e Valley Coalition to End Homelessness Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community‐wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re‐house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs, optimize self‐sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness 6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes state wide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 26 | P a g e 7 Name of Plan Strategic Eco nomic Development Plan Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City th rough analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do about it. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 27 | P a g e AP-12 Participation 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through robust planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to provide equitable services, offer funding, and create housing opportunities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under - resourced communities. The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan that reflects the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2020, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, commun ity-based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts. The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, economic development, and public services in the most u nderserved and under-resourced areas of the community. The survey and all accompanying materials were translated into Spanish, with additional language translation services available upon request. The survey was posted on the City website and social media platforms, third-party digital applications like Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder advisory and interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were asked to distribute the flyer to their respective constituencies. The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019 with a total of 2,068 respondents completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments, respectively. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 28 | P a g e Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as areas of the City with the most unmet needs for underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current housing stock was sufficient to meet the needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Since the survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self -selection bias. To supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the City also compared them with the recently completed annual resident survey results. Both surveys showed that residents wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 29 | P a g e TABLE: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OUTREACH SUMMARY CHART Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Internet Outreach Survey Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2,068 Respondents Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: City Collaboration Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee Other: City Departments/ Divisions On average, approximately 30-40 City staff attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused o n identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Focus Group Stakeholder Advisory Committee Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of On average, approximately 40-50 representatives from non - profit service providers and government entities attended Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federa l funding, city priorities, and All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 30 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public and Assisted Housing multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. Public Meeting Presentation to City Council Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to Planning Commission Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused o n how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan develope d. Public Hearing General Needs Hearing Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of 1 resident attended the hearing and 2 residents emailed public comments Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consol idated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 31 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public and Assisted Housing included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan (AAP) Hearing Planning Commissioner s, City staff, Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan Hearing City Councilmembe rs, City staff, Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; No n - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: Community Events Community Events Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Person s with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Over 1,322 respondents Staff attended dozens of community events over the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Respondents ranked All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 32 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Assisted Housing homelessness, subs tance abuse & mental health, and transportation services as their top priorities for the City. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 33 | P a g e AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES - 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction 7 TABLE: EXPECTED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $14,176,656 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multi family Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $5,030,004 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation, program Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 34 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Multifamily Rental income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,216,936 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re - Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,687 $2,463,468 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT HE R : H OU SI NG – TR US T FU ND Acquisitions $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a Admin istration SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 35 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing i n Facilities Rapid Re - Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R P R O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 36 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N F U N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. Source: Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Matches require subrecipients to produce a specific amount of funding that will “match” the amo unt of program funds available. In a US Dept of Housing & Urban Development memo from John Gibbs, Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development (D), dated April 10, 2020, re: Availability of Waivers and Suspensions of the HOME Program Requirements in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, Salt Lake City intends to maximize the waiver and suspension of HOME match requirements.  HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement As per #4 of the above mentioned memo, Matching Contribution Requirements, given the urgent housing and economic needs created by COVID -19, and substantial financial impact the Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) will face in addressing those needs, wavier of these regulations (24 CFR 92.218 and 92.222(b)) will relie ve the PJ from the need to identify ad provide matching contr ibutions to HOME projects.  Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subgrantees. Funding sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state and local SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 37 | P a g e grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General Fund; in -kind match and unrestricted donations. Fund Leveraging Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD Programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following:  Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers  Low Income Housing Tax Credits  New Market Tax Credits  RDA Development Funding  Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF)  Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)  Salt Lake City General Fund  Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund  Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding  Continuum of Care Funding  Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the redevelopment of C ity-owned land, strategic land acquisitions, expansion of the Community Land Trust for affordable housing, parcel assembly, and dispo sition. The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division will work collaboratively with other City Divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. Discussion: Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 38 | P a g e AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND STRATEGIES TABLE: G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geogra phic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $1,855,073, ESG $135,104, HOME $1,536,677, HOPWA $702,841, 1149 Household s assisted 2 – Transportati on Improve access to transportation 2020 2021 Transportati on City Wide Transportat ion CDBG $45,000 271 Household s assisted 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economic and/or housing stability 2020 2021 Economic Developmen t/Public Services Target Areas/Ci ty Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $530,692 126 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homelessness is brief, rare, and non -recurring 2020 2021 Public Services/Ho meless Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $279,566, ESG $174,000, 630 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerable populations experiencing substance abuse and mental health challenges 2020 2021 Public Services/Beh avioral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $97,000 299 household s assisted 6 – Administrati on Administration 2020 2021 Administrati on Citywide Administrat ion CDBG $701,833 ESG $22,630 HOME $95,750 HOPWA $18,026 N/A Goal Descriptions SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 39 | P a g e TABLE GOAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents  Support programs that provide access to home ownership  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs  Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal tra nsportation options.  Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit  Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation  Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housi ng stability  Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility  Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area  Provide economic development support for mic roenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and n on-recurring  Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness  Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations  Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 40 | P a g e Goal Name Goal Description 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration 5 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 41 | P a g e AP-35 PROJECTS – 91.220(d) Introduction The goals and strategies outlined in Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan serve as the foundation for program year 2020-2021 projects and activities. The Consolidated Plan encourages building resiliency in low income areas by investing in economic development, and transportation infrastructure. These two categories of projects/activities will be limited to the West Side CDBG Target Area. The Consolidated Plan also addresses the need to utilize federal funding to further support housing, transportation, building community resiliency, homeless services, and behavioral health. The Consolidated Plan goals will be supported through the following 2019-2020 efforts: This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. It is recognized that not every strategy will be accessed each year, however, each year there will be projects that move forward each of the goals identified . Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies:  Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing sto ck through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods  Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing  Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents  Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing  Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primar y strategy to prevent and end homelessness  Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation  Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies:  Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas  Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations  Expand and support the installation of bike rack s, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 42 | P a g e Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies:  Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities  Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs  Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses  Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses  Expand access to early childhood educat ion to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty  Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet  Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services: Expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies:  Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness  Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations  Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life  Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies:  Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG HOME, and HOPWA programs. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 43 | P a g e TABLE: PROJECT NAME # Project Name 1 CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2 CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training Programs 3 CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 4 CDBG: Hou sing 5 CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 6 CDBG: Public Services: Transportation 7 CDBG: Administration 8 ESG20: Salt Lake City 9 HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 10 HOME: Down Payment Assistance 11 HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund 12 HOME: Administration 13 HOPWA20: Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 44 | P a g e AP-38 PROJECTS TABLE: PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Homeless Service Programs Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Public Services Funding CDBG: $279,566 Description Funding for eligible actives that support homeless resource centers, emergency shelters and other supportive service programs directed to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Funding allocations are coordinated with local CoC and ESG efforts. Target Date Matrix Code 03T National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 1 58 homeless individuals including chronically homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations are expected to benefit from proposed activities. Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Activiti es will provide essential day-to-day services for the city's most vulnerable populations. Funding will be targeted, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to support the chronically homeless, homeless families, and victims of domestic violence. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Catholic Community Services, Weigand Homeless Resource Center, $47,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Resource Center, $100,281 Salt Lake Donated Dental Services, Community Dental Project, $44,000 YWCA of Utah, Women in Jeopardy, $58,285 South Valley Services, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, $30,000 2 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training Programs Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Build Community Resiliency Needs Addressed Build community resiliency SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 45 | P a g e Funding CDBG: $104,809 Description Funding for eligible activities that enhance, expand, and improve job training programs as a way to build resiliency and self sufficiency. Target Date Matrix Code 05H National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 96 adults are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This includes low income residents that are working w ith existing job training programs for those that are homeless, exiting homelessness or low income residents. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target areas. Planned Activities Activities will provide a cost -effective intervention in increasing self -sufficiency for households for those that are low income and/or living in poverty. Many adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are employed but unable to mee t the needs of their families. Adults and teenagers experiencing intergenerational poverty will be connected to resources that assist them with employment and job training. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Advantage Services, Provisional Support Employment Program: $64,809 Catholic Community Services of Utah, St. Vincent Kitchen Academy, $40,000 3 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Behavioral Health Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Behavioral Health Needs Addressed Public Se rvices: Expand Opportunity/Self-Sufficiency Funding CDBG: $97,000 Description Public Service activities that provide a behavioral health component for the City. Target Date Matrix Code 05M National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 299 adults living at or near the poverty level are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This includes refugees, recent immigrants, homeless individuals, persons with a disability, victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable adults. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in behavioral health programming. Planned Activities Activities will provide access to behavioral health programs, with an added benefit of connection to stable housing opportunities and building self resiliency. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 46 | P a g e First Step House, Employment Preparation and Employment, $47,000 First Step House, Peer Support Services, $50,000 4 Project Name CDBG: Housing Target Area Citywide West Side Target Area Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding CDBG: $1,855,073 Description Funding for eligible activities that provide housing rehabilitation, emergency home repair, and accessibility modifications for eligible households. Target Date Matrix Code 14A National Objective LMH Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 369 low and moderate -income households are expected to ben efit from proposed activities. Funding will be targeted to elderly, disabled, low-income, racial/ethnic minorities, single -parent, and large-family households. This may include, but is not limited to, multi-family housing or single -family housing. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target areas. Planned Activities Activities will provide essential housing rehabilitation, emergency repair, and accessibility modif ications to address health/safety/welfare issues for eligible homeowners. Assistance will be provided as grants or low -interest loans. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: ASSIST Inc. –Community Design Center, Emergency Home Repair; Accessibility and Community Design, $391,373 Community Development Corp. of Utah, Affordable Housing and Revitalization: $68,100 NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Rebuild and Revitalize Blight (RRB), $100,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Community Land Trust, $250,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Housing Rehabilitation and Homebuyer Program, $485,600 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Targeted Repairs Program, $500,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Small Rep air Program, $60,000 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 47 | P a g e 5 Project Name CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development Target Area West Side Target Area Goals Supported Build Community Resiliency Needs Addressed Support access to building community resiliency by providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive Funding CDBG: $425,883 Description Funding for eligible activities that provide commercial rehabilitation in local target areas. Target Date Matrix Code 14E National Objective LMA Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 30 businesses Location Description Targeted outreach in West Side Target Area Planned Activities Activities will include grants and forgivable loans/grants for businesses located in the West Side target areas to make exterior façade improvements and to correct code violations. Eligible costs include labor, materials, supplies, and soft costs relating to the commercial rehabilitation. Planned activities are as follows: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development: $425,883 6 Project Name CDBG: Public Services: Transportation Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Transportation Needs Addressed Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. . Funding CDBG: $45,000 Description Funding will be utilized to promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Target D ate Matrix Code 05E National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 271 individuals SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 48 | P a g e Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. . Salt Lake City Transportation, HIVE Pass Will Call, $45,000 7 Project Name CDBG: Administration Target Area N/A Go als Supported Administration Needs Addressed Funding CDBG: $701,833 Description Funding will be utilized for general management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's CDBG program. Target Date Matrix Code 21A National Objective Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 8 Project Name ESG20 Salt Lake City Target Area County-wide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Public Services Funding ESG: $301,734 Description Funding will be utilized for homeless prevention to prevent individuals and families from moving into homelessness, and for rapid re -housing to move families out of homelessness. In addition, funding will be utilized for emergency shelter, shelter diversion, outreach and other essential servic es for homeless individuals and families. Target Date Matrix Code 03T SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 49 | P a g e National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Proposed activities will prevent individuals and families from m oving into homelessness; provide rapid rehousing to quickly move families out of homelessness; and provide day -to-day services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness as follows Part 1 ESG: Shelter Operations, Outreach, Day -to -Day Services: 97 individuals Part 2 ESG: Prevention, Rapid Rehousing, Diversion: 481 individuals Location Description County-wide Planned Activities 1. Activities will prevent household from moving into homelessness and move homeless families quic kly into permanent, stable housing through the following eligible costs: utilities, rental application fees, security/utility deposits, rental fees, housing placement fees, housing stability case management, and other eligible costs. Funding is projected t o be allocated as follows: The Road Home, Rapid Rehousing Program, $40,765 Utah Community Action, Rapid Rehousing Program, $30,000 Utah Community Action, Diversion Program, $30,000 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Homeless Prevention Program, $34,339 2. Activities will provide emergency shelter and other essential services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Services include outpatient health services, homeless resource centers, and transitional h ousing. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: First Step House, Homeless Resource Center Behavioral Health Treatment Services, $60,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center, $38,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Homeless Youth Resource Center, $46,000 3. In addition, $22,630 will be utilized for program administration for general management, oversight and coordination of the City's ESG program. 9 Project Name HOME: Tenant Based Rental Ass istance Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Access to affordable housing Funding HOME: $270,000 Description Funding will be utilized to provide tenant -based rental assistance housing to homeless and at -risk of homeless individuals and families. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families 112 families will benefit from the proposed activities. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 50 | P a g e that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Activities will provide tenant -based rental assistance to homeless, disabled persons and other vulnerable populations. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Utah Community Action Program, TBRA: $70,000 The Road Home, TBRA: $200,000 10 Project Name HOME: Down Payment and Deposit Assistance Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding HOME: $200,000 Description Funding will be utilized to provide low-interest loans an d/or grants for down payment assistance and/or closing costs to eligible homebuyers. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 13 households will benefit from proposed activities. Location D escription Citywide Planned Activities Direct financial assistance to eligible homebuyers in the form of down payment low -interest loans and/or grants. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Community Development Corp. of Utah, Down Pay ment Assistance: $200,000 11 Project Name HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding HOME: $1,066,677 Description Funds wil l be used for development activities including acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of existing housing. Target Date SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 51 | P a g e Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities At least 7 households are to be nefit from proposed activities. Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of multi - family properties and single family homes. SLC Housing and Neighborhood Dev, HOME Development Fund: $1,066,677 12 Project Name HOME: Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Administration Needs Addressed Funding HOME: $97,750 Description Funding will be utilized for genera l management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's HOME program. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 13 Project Name HOPWA20 Salt Lake City Target Area Metropolitan Statistical Area Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Access to affordable housing Funding HOPWA: $600,867 Description Funding will be utilized to provide housing and related services to persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Activities include, TBRA, Housing Information Services, Permanent Housing Placement, STRMU, and supportive services. Target Date SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 52 | P a g e Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families are expected to benefit from the proposed activities as follows: Supportive Services: 36 households STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services: 65 households TBRA: 66 households Location Description Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area Planned Activities Activities will include project-based rental assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, short -term rental/mortgage/utility assistance, housing information services, permanent housing placement, and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Funding is projected to be allocated a s follows: Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, TBRA, $510,797 Utah Community Action Program, STRMU, PHP, Supportive Services, $162,044 Utah AIDS Foundation, Supportive Services, $30,000 In addition, Salt Lake City will utilize $18,026 in program administration for general management, oversight and coordination of the Salt Lake City MSA HOPWA program. Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs As entitlement funding decreased considerably over the past decade, the city is taking a strategic approach to directing funding. Priorities include expanding affordable housing opportunities throughout the city, providing critical services for the city’s most vulnerable residents, expanding self-sufficiency for at-risk populations, and improving neighborhood conditions in concentrated areas of poverty. The City and partners are unable to fully address needs due to a lack of funding and resources. To address the lack of resourc es, the City will continue to engage with community development organizations, housing providers, housing developers, service providers, community councils, City departments, local businesses, residents, and other stakeholders to develop strategies for inc reasing impacts and meeting gaps in services. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 53 | P a g e AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low -income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighb orhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designed to allow for a loc ally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the entirety of the associated Consolidated Plan period, will be identified as, “West Side Target Area”, as shown on the map below. CDBG and other federal fundi ng will be concentrated, but not necessarily limited to, the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximized community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. During this Action Plan period, infrastructure projects such as transportation projects and commercial façade improvements will be limited to this target area. Housing activities will happen citywide, however, a more concentrated marketing strategy for rehabilitation efforts will be deployed in the West Side Target Area as an opportunity to expand housing stability. FIGURE: 2020-2024 WEST SIDE CDBG TARGET AREA SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 54 | P a g e Salt Lake City’s HUD entitlement funds are geographically distributed with the following priorities: The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic activities to persons of low and moderate income. To support the CDBG program’s primary objectives, Salt Lake City is taking a two-pronged approach to the distribution of funding: 1. Direct funding to local target areas to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Utilize funding citywide, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to s upport the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food -insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low - income elderly. The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. ESG funding is distributed citywide to support emergency shelter, day services, resource centers, rapid re-housing and homeless prevention activities. The majority of funding is target to Salt Lake City’s urban core, as this is where the highest concentration of homeless services are located. The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. HOME funding is distributed citywide to provide direct financial assistance to homebuyers, tenant - based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation. The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and rela ted supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funding is distributed throughout the Salt Lake City MSA, including Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele counties, to provide project -based rental assistance, tenant- based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, and supportive services. The majority of funding is utilized in Salt Lake County, as the majority of HIV/AIDS services are located in the Salt Lake area. TABLE: GEOGRPAHIC DISTRIBUTION Target Area % of Funds 1 West Side CDBG Target Area 12% SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 55 | P a g e Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low -and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources. A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existi ng “for sale” homes falling short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact, households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes a bove the median have a 1 in 130 chance.1 Discussion The City’s west side and central corridor continue to have economic disparities that can be addressed through investments of CDBG funding. Expanding and building upon the target areas of the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, will allow the city to continue to focus resources in a meaningful way. The first year of this plan is a transition year and will see a small level of investment at approximately 12%. The city will look to grow that in future years that w ill ultimately end up in investments closer to 35% on an annual basis. While not limited to the target area, housing rehabilitation efforts will be heavily marketed in the target area. For the 2020 -2021 Action Plan, this includes efforts of partners such a s ASSIST, NeighborWorks, and Salt Lake City ’s Housing & Neighborhood Development (HAND). Each organization provides housing rehabilitation services targeted to low-to-moderate income households. Marketing these programs will help ensure that aging housing stock does not fall into disrepair or become blighted. Throughout this Plan period and beyond, t he City will leverage and strategically target funding for neighborhood improvements, transportation improvements, and economic development to maximize impact w ithin targeted neighborhoods. 1 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affor dability, May 2018. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 56 | P a g e AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Introduction The Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, thr ough a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless: 378 Non -Homeless: 1365 Special Needs: 65 TOTAL: 1808 One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Discussion The City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, through a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability f or all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. To guide these initiatives, in December 2017, the City approved Growing SLC, A Five Year Housing Plan, 2018- 2022, a thoughtful, data-driven strategy for ensuring long-term affordability and preservation while continuing to enhance neighborhoods, while balancing their unique needs. Salt Lake City will support affordable housing activities in the coming year by utilizing the following federal community development funding programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Affordable housing activities will provide subsidies for individuals and families ranging from 0% to 80% AMI. Activities will include:  Tenant-based rental assistance;  Short-term rental/utility assistance;  Rapid re-housing;  Homeowner housing rehabilitation ; and  Direct financial assistance for eli gible homebuyers. Rental Assistance: 492 The Production of New Units: 7 Rehab of Existing Units: 257 Acquisition of Existing Units: 23 TOTAL: 790 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 57 | P a g e AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING Introduction The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and afford able – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties emphasizing safe, decent, and aff ordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC maintains a strong financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continu ed access to affordable tax credits, foundations, and grant resources. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and b elow). This program provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low -income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelter plus Care Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided ren tal subsidies to additional qualified program participants. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing HASLC continues to build a strong portfolio of new properties and aggressively apply for additional vouchers. As part of a strategic planning process held with Commissioners, staff, and residential leaders, HASLC has also identified several goals for 2020-2021. Among these goals are increased focus on assisting local leaders and agencies respond to homelessness in the City as well as developing and attaining more capacity for additional living units through real estate activities, rehabilitation, pursuing new Shared Housing (previously referred to as Single Room Occupancy) projects, developing increased relationships and services targeting and attracting landlords, and sophisticated management of HUD programs. In April 2019, HASLC broke ground on Pamela’s Place a new 100 unit PSH project for chronically homeless individuals. This project is anticipated to be completed in August 2020. HASLC also utilizes HUD RAD to preserve and improve their many properties . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 58 | P a g e HASLC continues to look for ways to expand their portfolio by identifying challenging properties and continuing to develop catalytic and transformative projects and progra mming. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Both HASLC and Housing Connect have active monthly tenant meetings and encourage participation in management decisions related to the specific housing communities. Housing Connect has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing, Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appointed to the Housing Connect’s Board of Comm issioners. HASLC operates Family Self -Sufficiency programs that address areas of improving personal finances and homeownership preparation for voucher recipients. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Housing Connect and HASLC are both designated as high performers. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 59 | P a g e AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES Introduction Salt Lake City works with a large homeless services community to reduce the number of pe rsons experiencing homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness, increase successful transitions out of homelessness, and reduce the number of instances that clients may return to homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care’s executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care’s priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. The three local ESG funders also meet regularly t o coordinate ESG and CoC activities to ensure an accurate level of funding is provided to match the community’s service needs and goals. Additionally, the City participates in Salt Lake County’s Coalition to End Homelessness and the State Homeless Coordinating Council to further coordinate efforts. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ES G funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. A representative from Salt Lake City sits on the HMIS Steering C ommittee. HMIS data allows Salt Lake City and its partners to track the effectiveness of programs and gauge the continuing service needs of the community. The State of Utah, in coordination with local service providers and volunteers, conduct an annual Point In Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI-SPDAT assessment tool to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families ge t off the street and into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Salt Lake City recognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits all solution. There is a wide variety of homeless subpopulations in the greater community. Each of these groups have different needs that Salt Lake City focuses on in order to provide the best services possible. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 60 | P a g e There are groups of chronic homeless individuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth, and homeless-by-choice in the greater community. Each of these groups have different needs and each stage of homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (keeping people from dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping with daily needs – lockers, showers, etc.), transcending homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence (offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will eventually be unsuccessful. Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City is exploring how to introduce lived experience peer support assistance as outreach teams work with unsheltered homeless individuals. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services; Volunteers of America, Utah; the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop-in center and employs social workers that assess individuals’ needs and help connect people with availa ble housing and supportive services. The CCC has been successful in filling the need for additional homeless outreach and case management services in the City. The work of the CCC is continuing through 2020 and continues to be a support space as Salt Lake City looks to readdress homeless services in our community . Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First m odel. Although the ten year plan has sunset, the programs and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more li kely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First m odel has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new solutions in these areas as outlined in the City’s adopted five-year housing plan, Growing SLC . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 61 | P a g e There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Needed daytime services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and an indoor area to “hang out”. Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and providing a free storage program. These things were all considered in the recent creation of the homeless resource centers. These centers also provide food services and look to be all inclusive, one stop shop for services and connection to community resources. This shift in how homeless services are provided will help the community realize our goal that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Moving forward, Salt Lake C ity will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts undertaken by other stakeholders and, at times, filling in g aps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues. Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing options along with the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing. Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committee, and the Salt Lake City Continuum of Care voted in support of merging these two entities into a new homeless system structure called the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to pe rmanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 62 | P a g e Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent liv ing. Salt Lake City has been working with service partners and other governmental agencies through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH). This includes work on various subgroups that focus on specific areas of service, including housing and coordinated entry. Salt Lake City has the goal to help streamline service delivery to the homeless community with the express purpose of shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness. Salt Lake City has also funded th e creation of new permanent supportive housing units and programs which serve the most vulnerable members of our community. Progress is being made on both goals. Salt Lake City and its partner, the Road Home, are continuing to operate the House 20 program. The House 20 program engages with some of the most vulnerable members of our community, the majority of whom are now in stable housing. Through the City’s Funding Our Future efforts, the City has funded a variety of housing programs that aim to fill in gaps in services in our community. These programs include a new shared housing pilot program and housing programs which target families with children, individuals with substance use disorders, refugees, and victims of domestic violence. Salt Lake City has provided funding to support the creation of a combined 280 new units of permanent supportive housing that are at various stages of development in the City. 175 of these PSH units are slated for completion within the calendar year. These permanent supportive housing units have been identified by the Salt Lake Continuum of Care as a need in the larger homeless services community. Salt Lake City continues to make progress on our 5-year housing plan, Growing SLC, which seeks to improve the housing market in the City by focusing on three primary goals:  Reforming City practices to promote a responsive, affordable high -opportunity housing market;  Increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households; and  Building a more equitable city. Through implementation of Growing SLC and the funding of housing programs through Funding our Future and Federal dollars, Salt Lake City is working to increase access to affordable housing units for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. These efforts will he lp shorten the period of time individuals and families experience homeless and prevent recently homeless individuals and families from falling back into homelessness. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extreme ly low- SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 63 | P a g e income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short -term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Discussion Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and serv ice providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and families experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from re scinding back into homelessness. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 64 | P a g e AP-70 HOPWA GOALS One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA for Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance Payments: 65 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: 66 Units Provided in Permanent Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 Units provided in Transitional Short -Term Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 TOTAL: 131 AP-75 ACTION PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFOR DABLE HOUSING Introduction As discussed in sections MA -40 and SP-55 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, several barriers to the development and preservation of affordable housing exist within Salt Lake City, including the following:  Land costs  Construction costs  Housing and transportation costs  Development and rehabilitation financing  Housing rehabilitation complexities  Foreclosures and loan modifications  Neighborhood market conditions  Economic conditions  Land use regulations  Development fees and assessmen ts  Permit processing procedures  Environmental review procedures  Lack of zoning and development incentives  Complicated impact fee waiver process  Competition for limited development incentives  Landlord tenant policies  NIMBY’ism While not all of these barriers can be addressed during with federal funding, d uring the 2020-2021 program year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing through the following planning efforts and initiatives: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 65 | P a g e  Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan, 2018-2022: The City has f ormally adopted a housing plan that is addressing the barriers listed above and has served as a catalyst on a local and regional level to focus on the housing crisis. The plan provides an assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on the availability and affordability of housing, housing needs for changing demographics, and neighborhood-specific needs. Growing SLC identifies several goals to remove barriers to affordable housing. Those goals include reforming City practices to promote a responsive , affordable, high- opportunity housing market; increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households; and building a more equitable City.  Homeless Strategies: Salt Lake City works collaboratively with service providers, local municipalities, the State of Utah, the Continuum of Care, and other stakeholders through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Coalition) to ensure a regional and concerted effort to address homeless issues within the City. The structure of the Coalition provides a succinct network for data collection, resource deployment, and service implementation. The City will continue to play a critical and visionary role in the Coalition in the coming year.  Home Ownership Options: The City has launched a new program for homeo wnership, Welcome Home SLC. The program provides low to moderate-income families the opportunity to purchase a home in Salt Lake City. It will help stabilize communities, provide incentive for neighborhood investments, and allow families to build wealth.  C ommunity Land Trust: Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust that will allow donated and trusted land to maintain perpetual affordability while ensuring the structure on the land, the home, is purchased, owned, and sold over time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home would be. By holding the land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the home is sold, insulating the property for growing land costs but still allowing equity to be built by the homeowner.  Funding Our Future: Will provide additional funding during FY 20-21 to increase housing opportunities in Salt Lake City through a new .5% sales tax increase approved by Council in May 2018.  Leverage Public Land: The City has been and will cont inue to look at City owned properties as an investment in affordable housing. Additionally, proceeds from development on public land could be used for future affordable housing development.  Redevelopment Agency: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has committed $17 million since 2017 to address affordable housing efforts in the City, with a specific focus on areas with high land values.  Housing Trust Fund: The Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 66 | P a g e Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance rel ating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant -based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. Applications for funding can be accepted year -round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council.  Policy: The City is continually evaluating policies that may impede the development of affordable housing. A few policy changes the City is considering over the coming year include an Affordable Housing Overlay zoning ordinance, Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance amendment, and a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance. Actions planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use co ntrols, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barrier s to affordable housing through the following efforts:  Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following: o Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensu re that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. o Develop an Affordable Housing Overlay zone that allows for and provides incentives for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. o Evaluate the desire for a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance that allows for SRO’s in single-family neighborhoods throughout the City. o Off-Street Parking Ordinance update to improve pedestrian -scale development and amenities. o Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning amendments to remove local zoning barriers to housing density and types of housing.  Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including city - owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development.  Funding Targeting: The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 67 | P a g e local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc.).  Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identi fied in the City’s 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan.  Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project- based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 68 | P a g e AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS Introduction This section outlines Salt Lake City’s efforts to carry out the following:  Address obstacles to meeting underserved needs  Foster and maintain affordable housing  Reduce lead-based paint hazards  Reduce the number of poverty -level families  Develop institutional structure  Enhance coordination between public and private housing and soci al service agencies  Radon Mitigation Policy Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The most substantial impediment in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding and resources. Strategic shifts identified through Salt Lake Ci ty’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide a framework for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations better focus funding to address underserved needs. Underserved needs and strategic actions are as follows: Underserved Need: Affordable h ousing  Actions: Salt Lake City is utilizing federal and local resources to expand both rental and homeownership opportunities. In addition, the City is utilizing public land to leverage private capital for the development of affordable housing. These efforts will work to address the affordable housing gap in Salt Lake City. Underserved Need: Homelessness  Actions: Salt Lake City is working with housing and homeless service providers to coordinate and streamline processes for service delivery. By utilizing th e VI-SPDAT pre-screen survey, providers are able to access and prioritize services based on chronicity and medical vulnerability. These efforts will assist in addressing unmet needs by utilizing resources more effectively. Underserved Need: Special needs individuals.  Actions: Salt Lake City is working to address underserved needs for refugees, immigrants, the elderly, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and persons with a disability by providing resources for basic needs, as well as resources to expand self -sufficiency. For example, federal funding is utilized to provide early childhood education for refugees and other at -risk children; improve immediate and long-term outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS; and provide job trainin g vulnerable populations; and provide medical services for at risk populations. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 69 | P a g e Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City is committed to foster and maintain affordable housing throughout our City. This is evident through identifying specific gaps that exist in the community, and then designing affordable housing efforts specifically to address these needs. The City has developed an aggressive strategy to develop, preserve and assist affordable housing over the next two years. The initiative aims to target households earning 80% AMI and below, with emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Through this housing initiative and efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City aims to:  Address the City’s aff ordable housing shortage for those most in need.  Address housing needs for Salt Lake City’s changing demographics.  Address neighborhood specific needs, including the following: o Protect affordability in neighborhoods where affordability is disappearing. o Promote affordability in neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing.  Preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock.  Strengthen the City’s relationship with our housing partners, financial institutions, and foundations.  Support those who develop and advocate for affordable housing. Toward this end, Salt Lake City will foster and maintain affordable housing during the 201 9-2020 program year through the following actions:  Utilize CDBG funding to support owner-occupied rehabilitation for households at 80% AMI and below.  Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated and blighted housing.  Utilize ESG, HOME and HOPWA funding to create housing opportunities for individuals and households at 30% AMI and below through Tenan t-Based Rental Assistance and Rapid Re-Housing.  Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for direct financial assistance to homebuyers at 80% AMI and below.  Promote the development of affordable housing with low income housing tax credits, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s HOME Development fund and other funding sources.  Leverage public resources, including publicly owned land, with private capital for the development of affordable housing.  Work to ameliorate and/or eliminate housing impediments for protected classes as outlined in the Fair Housing Action Plan.  Work to leverage other city resources such as Redevelopment Agency funding/strategies, maximize sales tax housing funding, and other sources as they are identifi ed with federal funding where applicable. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 70 | P a g e  Salt Lake City has launched a new Community Land Trust that currently has six properties, with plans to increase the number of properties in the coming years. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards Because of the high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City that were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The Ci ty’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. Du ring the 2020-2021 program year, Salt Lake City will work in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to ed ucate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, to include the following:  Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils.  Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead-based paint hazard awareness in minority communities.  Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as having elevated blood levels.  Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation.  Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty -level families In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households at risk of moving in to poverty from doing so, Salt Lake City is focusing on a two -pronged approach: 1. Creating neighborhoods of opportunity to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Support the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, school -readiness of young children, employment skills of at-risk adults, access to transportation for low-income households, and access to fresh foods for food -insecure families. Efforts will focus on the following objectives:  Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 71 | P a g e  Reduce the linkages between poor health and poverty.  Ex pand housing opportunities.  Reduce the impacts of poverty on children.  Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services. Federal entitlement f unds allocated through this 2020-2021 Action Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty strategy through the following efforts:  Provide job training for vulnerable populations.  Provide early childhood education to limit the effects of intergenerational poverty.  Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations.  Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners.  Expanded affordable housing opportunities.  Improved neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in West Side Target Area.  Enhance support for small businesses and micro-enterprise businesses.  Reduce food insecurities for low income households. Actions planned to develop institutional structure As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is building upon the 2019-2015 Plan and continuing to take a coordinated and strategic shift in allocating federal entitl ement funds to place a stronger emphasis on community needs, goals, objectives and outcomes. This includes the following efforts to strengthen and develop institutional structure:  Geographically target infrastructure and economic development funding to areas of the city with higher poverty rates, lower incomes, reduced access to transportation  Increase coordination between housing and supportive service providers to reduce/eliminate duplicative efforts, encourage partnerships, increase transparency, and sta ndardize processes.  Strengthen support for the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly.  Support housing efforts that connect residents with supportive services and programs that improve self-sufficiency.  Offer technical assistance to agencies implementing projects with CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding to ensure compliance and support of program objective s.  Support employee training and certifications to expand the internal knowledge base on HUD programs, as well as housing and community development best practices. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 72 | P a g e Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of coordination between supportive service and housing providers in meeting priority needs. Stakeholders have been working towards developing and implementing a streamlined and effective delivery system to include the following efforts:  Created and implemented a no wrong door approach to accessing housing and other services.  Increased coordination through the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Committee, Salt Lake County Collecti ve Impact Committee, and State Homeless Coordinating Council.  Coordinated assessments to help individuals and families experiencing homeless move through the system faster.  Coordinated diversion and homeless prevention resources to reduce new entries into homelessness.  Coordinated efforts to house the highest users of the homeless services and provide trauma informed case management.  Improved weekly “housing triage” meetings that provide a format for developing a housing plan for homeless individuals and families with the most urgent housing needs. Discussion Actions planned to mitigate impacts of Radon Salt Lake City is committed to providing safe, affordable housing opportunities that are free of contaminations that could affect the health and safety of occupants. Section 50.3(i) states that “it is HUD policy that all property proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gasses, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and saf ety of occupants of conflict with the intended utilization of the property.” To that end, the city created a Radon Mitigation Policy that address the potential of Radon in homes that are newly construct ed or rehabilitated utilizing federal funding issued t hrough this Action Plan. In June 2020, Salt Lake City will host a training seminar to review the requirements with subrecipients and ensure that they are prepared to be compliant with the updated requirements. The city has, and will continue, to provide technical assistance to each agency in an effort to ensure agencies are properly identifying sites that must be tested, how to test correctly, how to read test results, and the appropriate mitigation standards that must be followed. The Radon Mitigation P olicy includes specifics on testing and mitigation requirements. The city has also partnered with the State of Utah to implement the mitigation policy, provide technical assistance, and outreach/education materials. To leverage resources, the city will ref er clients needing financial assistance for mitigation to other community resources. To ensure that even the most vulnerable and high risk populations SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 73 | P a g e have an opportunity to mitigate Radon, the City has implemented a grant program whereby residents meetin g a set of criteria, may apply for a grant to bear the costs of mitigation. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 74 | P a g e AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS - 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction Salt Lake City’s program specific requirements for CDBG, HOME, and ESG are outlined as follows. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) 1. Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out 1 The total amount of anticipated program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and tha t has not yet been reprogrammed. $6,000,000 2 The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3 The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlement s. 0 4 The amount of any grant funds returne d to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan . 0 5 The amount of income from float‐funded activities. 0 Total Program Income: $6,000,000 2. Other CDBG Requirements 1 The amount of urgent need activities 0 2 The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 90% Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefi t of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. This Annual Action Plan covers a one year period. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2) 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows Salt Lake City does not utilize HOME funding beyond those identified in Section 92.205. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 75 | P a g e 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows In order to preserve the number of affordable housing units for continued benefit to low -income residents, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds used to assist homeownership be recaptured whenever assiste d units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of af fordability. Homeownership Recapture: Salt Lake City follows the HOME recapture provisions established at §92.253(a)(5)(ii). Any remaining HOME assistance to the home buyer must be recovered if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence of the family for the duration of the period of affordability. The HOME investment that is subject to recapture is based on the direct subsidy amount which includes the HOME assistance that enabled the home buyer to buy the housing unit. In all cases, the recapture provisions are limited to the net proceeds of the sale. Salt Lake City requires all sub-recipients and CHDO’s to follow the same recapture guidelines as outlined and required in the HOME rule. The City will utilize one of the following options: A) If it was determined that HOME regulations were not adhered to for initial approval of the homeowner or during the term of affordability, the entire HOME subsidy will be recaptured. B) In the event of change of title/ownership, the City will reduce the HOME inve stment amount to be recaptured on a pro-rata basis for the time the homeowner has owned and occupied the housing measured against the applicable affordability period. C) If the net proceeds are not sufficient to recapture the appropriate HOME investment plus enable the homeowner to recover the amount of the homeowner's down payment and any capital improvement investment made by the owner since purchase, the City will share the net proceeds. Net proceeds are the sales price minus loan repayment (other than HOME funds) and closing costs. The net proceeds will be divided proportionally on a pro -rata basis for the time the homeowner has owned and occupied the housing measured against the applicable affordability period. Owner investment returned first. The City may choose to permit the home buyer to recover the home buyer's entire investment (down payment and capital improvements made by the owner since purchase) before recapturing the HOME investment. This provision is intended to ensure a fair return on investment for the homeowner if a sale occurs during the period of affordability. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 76 | P a g e HOME Funds Provided for Homebuyer Activity subject to Recapture of HOME Funds Minimum years of Affordability Under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 15 Years Homeownership Resale: Resale requirements will only apply to HOME -funded affordable homeownership opportunities provided using the Community Land Trust (CLT) model. In that model, Salt Lake City provides funding to a community land trust to sell homes at an affordable price while placing a 99-year leasehold on the estate. Resale provisions will be enforced by a recorded covenant signed by the land owner, the homebuyer, and the City, and also through a 99-year ground lease between the land owner (the trust) and the homebuyer. Under both the covenant and the ground lease, the home may be sold only to an income -qualified buyer who will occupy the home as a primary residence. The land owner, through the ground lease, shall have an option to purchase in order to ensure that the home is sold to an eligible buyer at an affordable price. The Resale Requirement will limit the sales price, as described below. The provision for determining the sales prices of CLT units incorporates historical appreciation data with an annual appreciation percentage for determining future sales prices. This provision is based on an objective standard and is included in the CLT lease agreement. This provision is intended to ensure a fair return on investment for the homeowner. The provision for determining homeowner return on capital improvements is included in the CLT lease under Construction Carried Out by Homeowner Requirements and Appraised Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale or Formula Price. Due to the growing costs of homes in the Salt Lake City residential market, the City has opted to implement a Homeownership Value Limit of $378,100 for a single family home. Salt Lake City determined 95 percent of the median area purchase price for single family housing i n the jurisdiction in accordance with procedures established at § 92.254(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, this purchase price was calculated based on a median sales price of $398,000 (i.e. $398,000 × 0.95 = $378,100) for single family homes. This figure is for bo th new construction and existing homes. The attached sales data includes a count of 2,361 sales since May 2020 and only includes addresses within incorporated Salt Lake City boundaries. An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reaso nable range of low -income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance:  US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2000-2018: o The median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 77 | P a g e o The median household income increased by 52.6%, f rom $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370  HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2020, Salt Lake County, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $70,300  US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2014-2018: o The number of households earning $50,000 - $74,999: 13,991 households, 17.9% of total population o The average monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,534  UtahRealEstate.com, May 2020, number of Salt Lake City listings between $100,000 -$299,999: 554 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units ac quired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows As stated above, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds be recaptured whenever assisted units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. In very rare cases, Salt Lake City will use HOME funds as an acquisition source for multifamily projects. With these rental activities, rental projects must meet the appropriate period of affordability or HOME funds provided to them will be recaptured by the City. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of affordability. Rental Housing Recapture: All HOME-assisted units must meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period specified below regardless of the term of any loan or mortgage, transfer of ownership, or repayment of loan funds. Rental Housing Activity Minimum years of Affordability Rehab or acquisition of existing housi ng per unit amount of HOME funds under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 or rehab involving refinancing 15 Years New construction or acquisition of newly constructed housing 20 Years 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refina nce existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows Not applicable. Salt Lake City does not intend t o use HOME funds to refinance multifamily housing debt. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 78 | P a g e Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(4) 1. Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment) The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Policies include written standards for providing ESG assistance. 2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system The Salt Lake Continuum of Care h as developed a collaborative, written coordinated assessment plan. Consensus exists for a coordinated assessment plan that covers the entire Continuum of Care with a multi - access entry point quick assessment method for any homeless individual or family in need of emergency shelter or service. Our 211 system, service providers, government agencies, and others publicize all existing access points, striving to do everything we can to ensure individuals and families in need have clear direction for accessing appropriate services. After entry into an emergency service, individuals are tracked as they progress toward housing and/or support interventions. All homeless families and those individuals prioritized for permanent supportive housing placements are guided toward this centralized process and placed into one of several housing programs depending on assessment. Standardized assessments include a quick assessment for emergency services and eligibility and enrollment materials for housing placements. Salt Lake City worked with partners as part of the Collective Impact process to further improve our coordinated assessment system. Representatives of the City worked with the CoC, ESG funders, and service providers to improve the coordinated assessment system to meet requirements set forth in Notice CPD-17-01. The new coordinated assessment system was approved by the Salt Lake County Homeless Coordinating Committee in January, 2018. Salt Lake City is continuing to work with the CoC, ESG funders, and service provider s to operationalize these new requirements through the Coordinated Entry Task Group. 3. Identify the process for making sub -awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith -based organizations) will be allocated Granting sub-awards is an intensive, months-long process. It begins with applications being made available and education workshops held to explain different federal grant programs and eligible activities under each. Staff also reaches out to potential applicants through the Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Council, the local Continuum of Care, the Utah Housing Coalition and others. After the application period closes, a general needs hearing is conducted to help guide how ESG monies should be spent. Applications are discussed with a citizen board in a public forum. Applicants are invited to meet with SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 79 | P a g e the citizen board to answer final questions or provide additional information regarding their programs and their role in the larger hom eless services system structure. The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP Board) reviews the applications and makes a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Mayor based on federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies. The Mayor then makes a recommendation on funding to the City Council based on the CDCIP board recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long -term homeless serv ices strategies. The City Council holds a public hearing for comment on the programs and proposed benefits of each. The City Council then makes a funding decision based on public comment, the Mayor’s recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies. 4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless o r formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG Before the Salt Lake City Council makes the final funding decisions for ESG funds, there are multiple venues for public outreac h including two public hearings. Efforts are made to include participation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals. Emergency Solutions Grant funds, along with other public and private monies, are used by Salt Lake City to implement our short and l ong term homeless service goals. Individuals experiencing homelessness often help the city craft and implement short -term and long-term service plans. Below are a few examples of how the city has created the opportunity for homeless persons to participate:  Homeless individuals participated in the creation of the long -term homeless services situation assessment.  The City interviewed over 100 homeless individuals as part of its Homeless Services Site Evaluation Commission in 2015.  Summer of 2016, the City hel d a workshop specifically with individuals experiencing homelessness to draft the criteria used to locate new homeless resource centers.  February 2017, a workshop was held with homeless individuals to gain feedback on the design, location and programming at new homeless resource centers.  March 2018, Salt Lake City participated in a Homeless Youth Forum, which brought together a wide range of service providers together to discuss service delivery for homeless youth. There were approximately 20 homeless and f ormerly homeless youth who were dispersed amongst SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 80 | P a g e the discussion groups and they provided valuable feedback on various service delivery systems.  Summer of 2018, the City coordinated with Salt Lake County to collect survey data on funding priorities from individuals experiencing homelessness on two separate occasions.  The City continues to reach out to persons with “lived experience” to help shape the services being prioritized and funded throughout the homeless services system. ESG subgrantees and other homeless service providers routinely consult with current and formerly homeless individuals to make programming and service delivery decisions. There is representation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals on the Collective Impact Steering Committ ee and the CoC executive board. 5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG Salt Lake City scores programs receiving Emergency Solutions Grant funding using the performance metrics required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H UD) and local priorities. In an effort to increase transparency, leverage resources, and maximize efficiencies, Salt Lake City does the following:  All applications undergo a risk analysis prior to the awarding of funds.  Standardized quarterly reporting is reviewed for compliance, timeliness, and accuracy.  Monitoring and technical assistance risk analyses are performed on all subgrantees to determine which organization would benefit from monitoring or technical assistance visits.  Collect information that supports the required performance measurement metrics and provides context on local initiatives. To ensure consistent performance metrics, the Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS, or Hom eless Management Information System. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City reviews HMIS data to ensure grantees are properly using funds as promised in their contracts and meeting larger City, Continuum of Care, and State goals. Sold Count:Low:High:Median Price:Average Price:Median CDOM: 2,361 132,474 2,540,000 398,000 464,051 21 Sold Price Range # Listings Median CDOM 100,000 - 149,999 6 26 150,000 - 199,999 13 16 200,000 - 249,999 130 12 250,000 - 299,999 405 18 300,000 - 349,999 349 14 350,000 - 399,999 290 16 400,000 - 449,999 272 22 450,000 - 499,999 187 25 500,000 - 549,999 157 29 550,000 - 599,999 112 15 600,000 - 649,999 81 20 650,000 - 699,999 62 30 700,000 - 749,999 67 35 750,000 - 799,999 45 34 800,000 - 849,999 28 45 850,000 - 899,999 34 41 900,000 - 949,999 21 40 950,000 - 999,999 16 55 1,000,000 - 1,049,999 10 56 1,050,000 - 1,099,999 9 51 1,100,000 - 1,149,999 6 63 1,150,000 - 1,199,999 4 16 1,200,000 - 1,249,999 9 80 1,250,000 - 1,299,999 9 32 1,300,000 - 1,349,999 6 17 1,350,000 - 1,399,999 7 126 1,400,000 - 1,449,999 4 49 1,450,000 - 1,499,999 4 83 1,500,000 - 1,549,999 1 45 Market Summary Report The following report breaks down residential properties into price ranges (in increments of 50,000). If no properties fit a range, that range is not shown. Search Criteria:State is Utah,Property Type is Single Family,County is Salt Lake,City is Salt Lake City,Number of Days Back at most 360 days back,Style is 2-Story or A-Frame or Bungalow/Cottage or Rambler/Ranch or Split-Entry/Bi-Level or Tri/Multi-Level or Tudor or Victorian,Short Sale is not Price subject to 3rd party approval or Price previously approved by 3rd Party,Offer Under 3rd Party Review is No,Construction Status is Blt./Standing,Zoning has any of Single-Family,Open House is No UtahRealEstate.com Page 1 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm 1,600,000 - 1,649,999 4 34 1,650,000 - 1,699,999 2 265 1,750,000 - 1,799,999 1 476 1,800,000 - 1,849,999 1 743 1,850,000 - 1,899,999 1 213 1,900,000 - 1,949,999 2 237 1,950,000 - 1,999,999 1 81 2,000,000 - 2,049,999 1 28 2,400,000 - 2,449,999 1 42 2,450,000 - 2,499,999 1 153 2,500,000 - 2,549,999 2 42 UtahRealEstate.com Page 2 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm Prepared By: Olga Crump Equity Real Estate - Premier Elite Branch 801-809-0544 This report was generated automatically by the Wasatch Front Regional MLS on 05/20/2020 at 02:56 PM UtahRealEstate.com Page 3 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm Community Land Trust Ground Lease SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION [INSERT TENANT NAME] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -1- SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 1: Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement and Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment or Homeowner’s Waiver ARTICLE 2: Leasing of Rights to the Land 2.1 CLT LEASES THE LAND TO HOMEOWNER: 2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS NOT LEASED TO HOMEOWNER ARTICLE 3: Term of Lease, Change of Land Owner 3.1 TERM OF LEASE IS 99 YEARS 3.2 HOMEOWNER CAN RENEW LEASE FOR ANOTHER 99 YEARS 3.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DECIDES TO SELL THE LEASED LAND ARTICLE 4: Use of Leased Land 4.1 HOMEOWNER MAY USE TH E HOME ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED PURPOSES 4.2 HOMEOWNER MUST USE THE HOME AND LEASED LAND RESPONSIB LY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW 4.3 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY OTHERS 4.4 HOMEOWNER MUST OCCUPY THE HOME FOR AT LEAST 10 MONTHS EACH YEAR 4.5 LEASED LAND MAY NOT BE SUBLEASED WITHOUT CLT’S PERMISSION 4.6 CLT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE LEASED L AND 4.7 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT ARTICLE 5: Lease Fee 5.1 AMOUNT OF LEASE FEE 5.2 WHEN THE LEASE FEE IS TO BE PAID 5.3 HOW THE AMOUNT OF THE LAND USE FEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED 5.4 CLT MAY REDUCE OR SUSPEND THE LEASE FEE TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY 5.5 FEES MAY BE INCREASED FROM TIME TO TIME 5.6 LAND USE FEE WILL BE INCREASED IF RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED 5.7 IF PAYMENT IS LATE, INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED 5.8 CLT CAN COLLECT UNPAID FEES WHEN HOME IS SOLD ARTICLE 6: Taxes and Assessments 6.1 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS 6.2 CLT WILL PASS ON ANY TAX BILLS IT RECEIVES TO HOMEOWNER 6.3 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST TAXES Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -2- 6.4 IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO PAY TAXES, CLT MAY INCREASE LEASE FEE 6.5 PARTY THAT PAYS TAXES MUST SHOW PROOF ARTICLE 7: The Home 7.1 HOMEOWNER OWNS THE HOUSE AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LEASED LAND 7.2 HOMEOWNER PURCHASES HOME WHEN SIGNING LEASE 7.3 CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY HOMEOWNER MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS 7.4 HOMEOWNER MAY NOT ALLOW STATUTORY LIENS TO REMAIN AGAINST LEASED LAND OR HOME 7.5 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS 7.6 A REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT RESERVE FUND IS ESTABLISHED TO SU PPORT FUTURE REPAIRS 7.7 WHEN LEASE ENDS, OWNERSHIP REVERTS TO CLT, WHICH SHALL REIMBURSE HOMEOWNER ARTICLE 8: Financing 8.1 HOMEOWNER CANNOT MORTGAGE THE HOME WITHOUT CLT’s PERMISSION 8.2 BY SIGNING LEASE, CLT GIVES PERMISSION FOR ORIGINAL MORTGAGE 8.3 HOMEOWNER MUST GET SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR REFINANCING OR OTHER SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES. 8.4 CLT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT A “STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE” 8.5 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE 8.6 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE LEASE 8.7 IN THE EVENT OF FORECLOSURE, ANY PROCEEDS IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE OPTION PRICE WILL GO TO CLT ARTICLE 9: Liability, Insurance, Damage and Destruction, Eminent Domain 9.1 HOMEOWNER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY 9.2 HOMEOWNER MUST DEFEND CLT AGAINST ALL CLAIMS OF LIABILITY 9.3 HOMEOWNER MUST REIMBURSE CLT 9.4 HOMEOWNER MUST INSURE THE HOME AGAINST LOSS AND MUST MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE ON HOME AND LEASED LAND 9.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOME IS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED 9.6 WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME OR ALL OF THE LAND IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE 9.7 IF PART OF THE LAND IS TAKEN, THE LEASE FEE MAY BE REDUCED 9.8 IF LEASE IS TERMINATED BY DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION OR TAKING, CLT WILL TRY TO HELP HOMEOWNER BUY ANOTHER CLT HOME ARTICLE 10: Transfer of the Home 10.1 INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -3- 10.2 HOMEOWNER MAY TRANSFER HOME ONLY TO CLT OR QUALIFIED PERSONS 10.3 THE HOME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CERTAIN HEIRS OF HOMEOWNER 10.4 HOMEOWNER’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SELL 10.5 CLT HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE HOME 10.6 IF PURCHASE OPTION EXPIRES, HOMEOWNER MAY SELL ON CERTAIN TERMS 10.7 AFTER ONE-YEAR CLT SHALL HAVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT SALE 10.8 PURCHASE OPTION PRICE EQUALS LESSER OF APPRAISED VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST OR FORMULA PRICE 10.9 HOW THE VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS DETERMINED 10.10 HOW THE FORMULA PRICE IS CALCULATED 10.11 QUALIFIED PURCHASER SHALL RECEIVE NEW LEASE 10.12 HOMEOWNER AND PURCHASER PAY LEASE TERMINATION FEE 10.13 HOMEOWNER REQUIRED TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS AT TRANSFER ARTICLE 11: Reserved ARTICLE 12: Default 12.1 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO MAKE REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO THE CLT 12.2 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER VIOLATES OTHER (NONMONETARY) TERMS OF THE LEASE 12.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER DEFAULTS AS A RESULT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS 12.4 A DEFAULT (UNCURED VIOLATION) GIVES CLT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OR EXERCISE ITS PURCHASE OPTION ARTICLE 13: Mediation and Arbitration 13.1 MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ARE PERMITTED 13.2 HOMEOWNER AND CLT SHALL SHARE CO ST OF ANY MEDIATION OR ARBITRATION ARTICLE 14: General Provisions 14.1 HOMEOWNER’S MEMBERSHIP IN CLT 14.2 NOTICES 14.3 NO BROKERAGE 14.4 SEVERABILITY AND DURATION OF LEASE 14.5 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN LIEU OF OPTION 14.6 WAIVER 14.7 CLT’S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND 14.8 CONSTRUCTION 14.9 HEADINGS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -4- 14.10 PARTIES BOUND 14.11 GOVERNING LAW 14.12 RECORDING Exhibits That Must Be Attached Exhibit LETTER OF AGREEMENT Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER Exhibit LEASED LAND Exhibit DEED Exhibit PERMITTED MORTGAGES Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL Other Exhibits to be attached as Appropriate Exhibit ZONING Exhibit RESTRICTIONS Exhibit INITIAL APPRAISAL APPENDIX: Alternative versions of Article 10 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE THIS SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE (this “Lease” or the “Lease”) entered into as of the “Effective Date” (as defined herein), between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, in connection with its COMMUNITY LAND TRUST program (“CLT”) and __________________________ (“Homeowner”). RECITALS A. Salt Lake City Corporation has created a Salt Lake City Community Land Trust program (CLT) for the purpose of providing homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income people who would otherwise be unable to afford homeownership. B. A goal of the CLT is to preserve affordable homeownership opportunities through the long-term leasing of land under owner -occupied homes. C. The Leased Land described in this Lease has been acquired and is being leased by the CLT in furtherance of this goal. D. The Homeowner shares the purposes of the CLT and has agreed to enter into this Le ase not only to obtain the benefits of homeownership, but also to further the charitable purposes of the CLT. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -5- E. Homeowner and CLT recognize the special nature of the terms of this Lease, and each of them accepts these terms, including those terms that affect the marketing and resale price of the property now being purchased by the Homeowner. F. Homeowner and CLT agree that the terms of this Lease further their shared goals over an extended period of time and through a succession of owners. NOW THEREFORE, Homeowner and CLT agree on all of the terms and conditions of this Lease as set forth below. DEFINITIONS: Homeowner and CLT agree on the following definitions of key terms used in this Lease. Effective Date: the date on which both parties have executed this Lease and it has been recorded with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. Leased Land : the parcel of land, described in Exhibit: LEASED LAND that is leased to the Homeowner. Home: the residential structure and other permanent improvements located on the Leased Land and owned by the Homeowner, including both the original Home described in Exhibit: DEED, and a ll permanent improvements added thereafter by Homeowner at Homeowner’s expense. Base Price: the total price that is paid for the Home by the Homeowner (including the amount provided by a first mortgage loan but not including subsidy in the form of deferred loans to the Homeowner). Purchase Option Price: the maximum price the Homeowner is allowed to receive for the sale of the Home and the Homeowner’s right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land, as defined in Article 10 of this Lease. Lease Fee: The monthly fee that the Homeowner pays to the CLT for the continuing use of the Leased Land and any additional amounts that the CLT charges to the Homeowner for reasons permitted by this Lease. Permitted Mortgage : A mortgage or deed of trust on the Home and the Homeowner’s right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land granted to a lender by the Homeowner with the CLT’s Permission. The Homeowner may not mortgage the CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, and may not grant any mortgage or deed of trust without CLT ’s Permission. Event of Default: Any violation of the terms of the Lease unless it has been corrected (“cured”) by Homeowner or the holder of a Permitted Mortgage in the specified period of time after a written Notice of Default has been given by CLT. ARTICLE 1: Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement and Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment or Homeowner’s Waiver Attached as Exhibit HOMEOWNER’S LETTER OF AGREEMENT and Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER and made part of this Lease by reference is a Letter of Agreement from the Homeowner, describing the Homeowner’s understanding and acceptance of this Lease (including the parts of the Lease that affect the resale of the Home). Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -6- Homeowner understands and ac knowledges that Homeowner has had the opportunity to have an attorney review this Lease , the Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement, the Deed, and any other materials provided by the CLT, and advise Homeowner regarding Homeowner’s rights and obligations under the se documents, and the present and foreseeable risks and legal consequences of the transaction. Homeowner further acknowledges that Homeowner is entering into this transaction in reliance on Homeowner’s own judgment and upon Homeowner’s investigation of the facts. If Homeowner elects to consult with an attorney, the attorney shall provide a n Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgement to be attached as an Exhibit to this Lease. Alternatively, if Homeowner does not consult with an attorney, Homeowner will provide a Homeowner’s Waiver to be attached as an Exhibit to this Lease. ARTICLE 2: Leasing of Rights to the Land 2.1 CLT LEASES THE LAND TO HOMEOWNER: The CLT hereby leases to the Homeowner, and Homeowner hereby accepts, the right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land (described in the attached Exhibit LEASED LAND) in accordance with the terms of this Lease. CLT has furnished to Homeowner a copy of the most current title report, if any, obtained by CLT for the Leased Land, and Homeowner accepts title to the Leased Land in its condition “as is” as of the signing of this Lease. 2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS NOT LEASED TO HOMEOWNER: CLT does not lease to Homeowner the right to remove from the Leased Land any minerals lying beneath the Leased Land’s surface. Ownership of such minerals remains with the CLT, but the CLT shall not remove any such minerals from the Leased Land without the Homeowner’s written permission. ARTICLE 3: Term of Lease, Change of Land Owner 3.1 TERM OF LEASE IS 99 YEARS: This Lease shall remain in effect for 99 years, beginning on the Effective Date , and ending on the ________ day of ______________, 20____, unless ended sooner or renewed as provided below. 3.2 HOMEOWNER CAN RENEW LEASE FOR ANOTHER 99 YEARS: Homeowner may renew this Lease for one a dditional period of 99 years. The CLT may change the terms of the Lease for the renewal period prior to the beginning of the renewal period but only if these changes do not materially and adversely interfere with the rights possessed by Homeowner under the Lease. Not more than 365 nor less than 180 days before the last day of the first 99 - year period, CLT shall give Homeowner a written notice that states the date of the expiration of the first 99-year period and the conditions for renewal as set forth in the following paragraph (“the Expiration Notice”). The Expiration Notice shall also describe any changes that CLT intends to make in the Lease for the renewal period as permitted above. The Homeowner shall then have the right to renew the Lease only if the following conditions are met: (a) within 60 days of receipt of the Expiration Notice, the Homeowner shall give CLT written notice stating the Homeowner ’s desire to renew (“the Renewal Notice”); (b) this Lease shall be in effect on the last day of the original 99-year term, and (c) the Homeowner shall not be in default under this Lease or under any Permitted Mortgage on the last day of the original 99-year term. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -7- When Homeowner has exercised the option to renew, Homeowner and CLT shall sign a memorandum stating that the option has been exercised. The memorandum shall comply with the requirements for a notice of lease as stated in Section 14.12 below. The CLT shall record this memorandum in accordance with the requirements of law promptly after the begin ning of the renewal period. 3.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DECIDES TO SELL THE LEASED LAND: If ownership of the Leased Land is ever transferred by CLT (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to any other person or institution, this Lease shall not cease, but shall remain binding on the new land- owner as well as the Homeowner. If CLT agrees to transfer the Leased Land to any person or institution other than a non-profit corporation, charitable trust, government agency or other similar institution sharing the goals described in the Recitals above, the Homeowner shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the Leased Land. The details of this right shall be as stated in the attached Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL. Any sale or other transfer contrary to this Section 3.3 shall be null and void. ARTICLE 4: Use of Leased Land 4.1 HOMEOWNER MAY USE THE HOME ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED PURPOSES: Homeowner shall use, and allow others to use, the Home and Leased Land only for residential purposes and any activities related to residential use that are permitted by local zoning law. 4.2 HOMEOWNER MUST USE THE HOME AND LEASED LAND RESPONSIBILY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW: Homeowner shall use the Home and Leased Land in a way that will not cause harm to others or create any public nuisance. Homeowner shall dispose of all waste in a safe and sanitary manner. Homeowner shall maintain all parts of the Home and Leased Land in safe, sound and habitable condition, in full compliance with all laws and regulations, and in the condition that is required to maintain the insurance coverage required by Section 9.4 of this Lease. 4.3 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY OTHERS: Homeowner shall be responsible for the use of the Home and Leased Land by all residents and visitors and anyo ne else using the Leased Land with Homeowner’s permission and shall make all such people aware of the restrictions on use set forth in this Lease. 4.4 HOMEOWNER MUST OCCUPY THE HOME FOR AT LEAST TEN (10) MONTHS EACH YEAR: Homeowner shall occupy the Home f or at least 10 months of each year of this Lease, unless otherwise agreed by CLT. Occupancy by Homeowner’s child, spouse , domestic partner or other persons approved by CLT shall be considered occupancy by Homeowner. Neither compliance with the occupancy requirement nor CLT’s permission for an extended period of non-occupancy constitutes permission to sublease the Leased Land and Home, which is addressed in Section 4.5 below. 4.5 LEASED LAND MAY NOT BE SUBLEASED WITHOUT CLT’S PERMISSION. Except as otherwise provided in Article 8 and Article 10, Homeowner shall not sublease, sell or otherwise convey any of Homeowner’s rights under this Lease, for any period of time, without the written permission of CLT. Homeowner agrees that CLT shall have the right to withhold such consent in order to further the purposes of this Lease. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -8- If permission for subleasing is granted, the sublease shall be subjec t to the following conditions. a) Any sublease shall be subject to all of the terms of this Lease. b) The rental or occupancy fee charged the sub-lessee shall not be more than the amount of the Lease Fee charged the Homeowner by the CLT, plus an amount approved by CLT to cover Homeowner’s costs in owning the Home, including but not limited to the cost of the homeowner’s mortgage payment including principal, interest taxes, insurance and homeowner or condominium association dues, if applicable. 4.6 CLT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE LEASED LAND: The CLT may inspect any part of the Leased Land at any reasonable time, after notifying the Homeowner at least 24 hours before the planned inspection. No more than one regular inspection may be carried out in a single year, except in the case of an emergency. In an emergency, the CLT may inspect any part of the Lease d Land and Home , after making reasonable efforts to inform the Homeowner before the inspection. Should deficiencies be identified during the course of an inspection, the CLT reserves the right to re -inspect the property to ensure they were remedied. In addition, if the CLT has received an Intent-To-Sell Notice (as described in Section 10.4 below), then the CLT has the right to inspect the interiors of all fully enclosed buildings to determine their condition prior to the sale. The CLT must notify the Homeowner at least 24 hours before carrying out such inspection. 4.7 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT: Homeowner has the right to quiet enjoyment of the Leased Land. The CLT has no desire or intention to interfere with the personal lives, associations, expressions, or actions of the Homeowner in any way not permitted by this Lease. ARTICLE 5: Lease Fee 5.1 AMOUNT OF LEASE FEE: The Homeowner shall pay a monthly Lease Fee in an amount equal to the sum of (a) a Land Use Fee of $50 to be paid in re turn for the continuing right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land, plus (b) a Repair and Replacement Reserve Fee of $35 to be held by the CLT and used for the purpose of preserving the physical quality of the Home for the long term in accordance with Section 7.6 below. 5.2 WHEN THE LEASE FEE IS TO BE PAID: The Lease Fee shall be payable to CLT on the first day of each month for as long as this Lease remains in effect, unless the Lease Fee is to be escrowed and paid by a Permitted Mortgagee, in which case payment shall be made as directed by that Mortgagee. 5.3 HOW THE AMOUNT OF THE LAND USE FEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED: The amount of the Land Use Fee stated in Section 5.1 above has been determined as follows. First, the approximate monthly fair rental value of the Leased Land has been established, as of the beginning of the Lease term, recognizing that the fair rental value is reduced by certain restrictions imposed by the Lease on the use of the Land. Then the affordability of this monthly amount, plus the amount of the Repair Reserve Fee, for the Homeowner has been analyzed and, if necessary, the Land Use has been reduced to an amount considered to be affordable for Homeowner. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -9- 5.4 CLT MAY REDUCE OR SUSPEND THE LEASE FEE TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY: CLT may reduce or suspend the total amount of the Lease Fee for a period of time for the purpose of improving the affordability of the Homeowner’s monthly housing costs. Any such reduction or suspension must be in writing and signed by CLT. 5.5 FEES MAY BE INCREASED FROM TIME TO TIME: The CLT may increase the amount of the Land Use Fee and/or the Repair Reserve Fee from time to time, but not more often than once every 2 years. Each time such amounts are increased, the total percentage of in crease since the date this Lease was signed shall not be greater than the percentage of increase, over the same period of time, in the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the urban area in which the Leased Land is located . 5.6 LAND USE FEE WILL BE INCREASED IF RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED: If, for any reason, the provisions of Article 10 regarding transfers of the Home or Sections 4.4 and 4.5 regarding occupancy and subleasing are suspended or invalidated for any period of time , then during that time the Land Use Fee shall be increased to an amount calculated by CLT to equal the fair rental value of the Leased Land for use not restricted by the suspended provisions, but initially an amount not exceeding ____ dollars. Such incre ase shall become effective upon CLT’s written notice to Homeowner. Thereafter, for so long as these restrictions are not reinstated in the Lease, the CLT may, from time to time, further increase the amount of such Land Use Fee, provided that the amount of the Land Use Fee does not exceed the fair rental value of the property, and provided that such increases do not occur more often than once in every 2 years. 5.7 IF PAYMENT IS LATE, INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED: If the CLT has not received any monthly installment of the Lease Fee on or before the date on which the such installment first becomes payable under this Lease (the “Due Date”), the CLT may require Homeowner to pay interest on the unpaid amount from the Due Date through and including the date such payment or installment is received by CLT, at a rate not to exceed 4%. Such interest shall be deemed additional Lease Fee and shall be paid by Homeowner to CLT upon demand; provided, however, that CLT shall waive any such interest that would otherwise be payable to CLT if such payment of the Lease Fee is received by CLT on or before the thirtieth (30 th) day after the Due Date. 5.8 CLT CAN COLLECT UNPAID FEES WHEN HOME IS SOLD: In the event that any amount of payable Lease Fee remains unpaid when the Home is sold, the outstanding amount of payable Lease Fee, including any interest as provided above, shall be paid to CLT out of any proceeds from the sale that would otherwise be due to Homeowner. The CLT shall have, and the Homeowner hereby consents to, a lien upon the Home for any unpaid Lease Fee. Such lien shall be prior to all other liens and encumbrances on the Home except (a) liens and encumbrances recorded before the recording of this Lease, (b) Permitted Mortgages as defined in section 8.1 below; and (c) liens for real property taxes and other governmental assessments or charges against the Home. ARTICLE 6: Taxes and Assessments 6.1 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FO R PAYING ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS: Homeowner shall pay directly; when due, all taxes and governmental Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -10- assessments that relate to the Home and the Leased Land (including any taxes relating to the CLT’s interest in the Leased Land). 6.2 CLT WILL PASS ON AN Y TAX BILLS IT RECEIVES TO HOMEOWNER: In the event that the local taxing authority bills CLT for any portion of the taxes on the Home or Leased Land, CLT shall pass the bill to Homeowner and Homeowner shall promptly pay this bill. 6.3 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST TAXES: Homeowner shall have the right to contest the amount or validity of any taxes relating to the Home and Leased Land. Upon receiving a reasonable request from Homeowner for assistance in this matter, CLT shall join in contesting such ta xes. All costs of such proceedings shall be paid by Homeowner. 6.4 IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO PAY TAXES, CLT MAY INCREASE LEASE FEE: In the event that Homeowner fails to pay the taxes or other charges described in Section 6.1 above, CLT may increase Homeowner’s Lease Fee to offset the amount of taxes and other charges owed by Homeowner. Upon collecting any such amount, CLT shall pay the amount collected to the taxing authority in a timely manner. 6.5 PARTY THAT PAYS TAXES MUST SHOW PROOF: When either party pays taxes relating to the Home or Leased Land, that party shall furnish satisfactory evidence of the payment to the other party. A photocopy of a receipt shall be the usual method of furnishing such evidence. ARTICLE 7: The Home 7.1 HOMEOWNER OWNS THE HOUSE AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LEASED LAND: All structures, including the house, fixtures, and other improvements purchased, constructed, or installed by the Homeowner on any part of the Leased Land at any time during the term of this Lease (collectively, the “Home”) shall be property of the Homeowner. Title to the Home shall be and remain vested in the Homeowner. However, Homeowner’s rights of ownership are limited by certain provisions of this Lease, including provisions regarding the sale or leasing of the Home by the Homeowner and the CLT’s option to purchase the Home. In addition, Homeowner shall not remove any part of the Home from the Leased Land without CLT’s prior written consent. 7.2 HOMEOWNER PURCHASES HOME WHEN SIGNING LEASE: Upon the signing of this Lease, Homeowner is simultaneously purchasing the Home located at that time on the Leased Land, as described in the Deed, a copy of which is attached to this Lease as Exhibit: DEED. 7.3 CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY HOMEOWNER MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS: Any construction in connection with the Home is permitted only if the following requirements are met: (a) all costs shall be paid for by the Homeowner; (b) all construction shall be performed in a professional manner and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations; (c) all changes in the Home shall be consistent with the permitted uses described in Article 4; (d) the footprint, square -footage, or height of the house Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -11- shall not be increased and new structures shall not be built or installed on the Leased Land without the prior written consent of CLT. For any construction requiring CLT’s prior written consent, Homeowner shall submit a written request to the CLT. Such request shall include: a) a written statement of the reas ons for undertaking the construction; b) a set of drawings (floor plan and elevations) showing the dimensions of the proposed construction; c) a list of the necessary materials, with quantities needed; d) a statement of who will do the work; e) before construction can begin, Homeowner shall provide CLT with copies of all necessary building permits, if not previously provided. If the CLT finds it needs additional information it shall request such information from Homeowner within two weeks of receipt of Homeowner’s request. The CLT then, within two weeks of receiving all necessary information (including any additional information it may have requested) shall give Homeowner either its written consent or a written statement of its reasons for not consenting. Before construction can begin, Homeowner shall provide CLT with copies of all necessary building permits, if not previously provided. 7.4 HOMEOWNER MAY NOT ALLOW STATUTORY LIENS TO REMAIN AGAINST LEASED LAND OR HOME: No lien of any type shall attac h to the CLT’s title to the Leased Land. Homeowner shall not permit any statutory or similar lien to be filed against the Leased Land or the Home which remains more than 60 days after it has been filed. Homeowner shall take action to discharge such lien, whether by means of payment, deposit, bond, court order, or other means permitted by law. If Homeowner fails to discharge such lien within the 60 -day period, then Homeowner shall immediately notify CLT of such failure. CLT shall have the right to discharge the lien by paying the amount in question. Homeowner may, at Homeowner’s expense, contest the validity of any such asserted lien, provided Homeowner has furnished a bond or other acceptable surety in an amount sufficient to release the Leased Land from such lien. Any amounts paid by CLT to discharge such liens shall be treated as an additional Lease Fee payable by Homeowner upon demand. 7.5 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS: Homeowner hereby assumes responsibility for furnishing all services or facilities on the Leased Land, including but not limited to heat, electricity, air conditioning and water. CLT shall not be required to furnish any services or facilities or to make any repairs to the Home. Homeowner shall maintain the Home and Leased Land as required by Section 4.2 above and shall see that all necessary repairs and replacements are accomplished when needed. 7.6 A REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT RESERVE FUND IS ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT FUTURE REPAIRS: In order to encourage homeowner succe ss as well as protect the CLT’s asset, a repair reserve will be established to help finance the repair and replacement of critical components of the Home such as the roof, siding, windows, HVAC and hot water heater. The repair and replacement reserve fee will be included in the homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment in the amount of $35 per month. Given the nominal amount of the monthly Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -12- reserve, it is not anticipated that there will be adequate funds in the reserve to pay for the full replacement of any of the eligible components, and the Homeowner remains solely responsible for the full cost of such repairs and replacements. The CLT will maintain the repair and replacement reserve, and the funds are accessible by the H omeowner only for CLT approved repairs and replacements . When the Homeowner sells the property, the balance of the repair reserve will remain with the CLT and can be used by future homeowners . 7.7 WHEN LEASE ENDS, OWNERSHIP REVERTS TO CLT, WHICH SHALL REIMBURSE HOMEOWNER: Upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, ownership of the Home shall revert to CLT. Upon thus assuming title to the Home, CLT shall promptly pay an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price to the Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee(s), as follows: FIRST, CLT shall pay any Permitted Mortgagee(s) the full amount owed to such mortgagee(s) by Homeowner in so far as the amount does not exceed the Purchase Option Price. In no event shall the total amount that the CLT is required to pay Permitted Mortgages be greater than the Purchase Option Price ; SECOND, CLT shall pay the Homeowner the balance of the Purchase Option Price calculated in accordance with Article 10 below, as of the time of reversion of ownership, less the total amount of any unpaid Lease Fee and any other amounts owed to the CLT under the terms of this Lease. The Homeowner shall be responsible for any costs necessary to clear any additional liens or other charges related to the Home which may be assessed against the Home. If the Homeowner fails to c lear such liens or charges, the balance due the Homeowner shall also be reduced by the amount necessary to release such liens or charges, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the CLT. ARTICLE 8: Financing 8.1 HOMEOWNER CANNOT MORTGAGE THE HOME WITHOUT CLT’s PERMISSION: The Homeowner may mortgage the Home only with the written permission of CLT. Any mortgage or deed of trust permitted in writing by the CLT is defined as a Permitted Mortgage, and the holder of such a mortgage or deed of trust is defined as a Permitted Mortgagee. 8.2 BY SIGNING LEASE, CLT GIVES PERMISSION FOR ORIGINAL MORTGAGE. By signing this Lease, CLT gives written permission for any mortgage or deed of trust signed by the Homeowner effective on the day this Lease is signe d for the purpose of financing Homeowner’s purchase of the Home. 8.3 HOMEOWNER MUST GET SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR REFINANCING OR OTHER SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES. If, at any time subsequent to the purchase of the Home and signing of the Lease, the Homeowner seeks a loan that is to be secured by a mortgage on the Home (to refinance an existing Permitted Mortgage or to finance home repairs or for any other purpose), Homeowner must inform CLT, in writing, of the proposed terms and conditions of such mortgage loan at least 15 business days prior to the expected closing of the loan. The information to be provided to the CLT must include: a. the name of the proposed lender ; b. Homeowner’s reason for requesting the loan; Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -13- c. the principal amount of the proposed loan and the total mortgage debt that will result from the combination of the loan and existing mortgage debt, if any; d. expected closing costs; e. the rate of interest; f. the repayment schedule; g. a copy of the appraisal commissioned in connection with the loan request. CLT may also require Homeowner to submit additional information. CLT will not permit such a mortgage loan if the loan increases Homeowner’s total mortgage debt to an amount greater than 80% of the then current Purchase Option Price, calculated in accordance with Article 10 below, or if the terms of the transaction otherwise threaten the interests of either the Homeowner or the CLT. 8.4 CLT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT A “STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE.” The CLT shall be required to permit any mortgage for which the mortgagee has signed a “Standard Permitted Mortgage Agreement” as set forth in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part C,” and for which the loan secured thereby does not increase Homeowner’s total mortgage debt to an amount greater than the lesser of (a)105% of the then current Purchase Option Price, calculated in accordance with Article 10 below , or (b) the total of the acquisition cost, plus closing costs from the CLT, plus the first year hazard insurance premium, plus prepaid amounts for the escrow account, plus the cost of the appraisal, less the required homeowner contribution. 8.5 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall be bound by each of the requirements stated in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part A, Obligations of Permitted Mortgagee,” which is made a part of this Lease by reference, unless the particular requirement is removed, contradicted or modified by a Rider to this Lease signed by the Homeowner and the CLT to modify the terms of the Lease during the term of the Permitted Mortgage. 8.6 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE LEASE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall have all of the rights and protections stated in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part B, Rights of Permitted Mortgagee,” which is made a part of this Lease by reference. 8.7 IN THE EVENT OF FORECLOSURE, ANY PROCEEDS IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE OPTION PRICE WILL GO TO CLT. Homeowner and CLT recognize that it would be contrary to the purposes of this agreement if Homeowner could receive more than the Purchase Option Price as the result of the foreclosure of a mortgage. Therefore, Homeowner hereby irrevocably assigns to CLT all net proceeds of sale of the Home that would otherwise have been payable to Homeowner and that exceed the amount of net proceeds that Homeowner would have received if the property had been sold for the Purchase Option Price, calculated as described in Section 10.10 below. Homeowner aut horizes and instructs the Permitted Mortgagee, or any party conducting any sale, to pay such excess amount directly to CLT. If, for any reason, such excess amount is paid to Homeowner, Homeowner hereby agrees to promptly pay such amount to CLT. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -14- ARTICLE 9: Liability, Insurance, Damage and Destruction, Eminent Domain 9.1 HOMEOWNER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY. Homeowner assumes all responsibility and liability related to Homeowner’s possession, occupancy and use of the Leased Land. 9.2 HOMEOWNER MUST DEFEND CLT AGAINST ALL CLAIMS OF LIABILITY. Homeowner shall defend, indemnify and hold CLT harmless against all liability and claims of liability for injury or damage to person or property from any cause on or about the Leased Land. Homeowner waives all claims against CLT for injury or damage on or about the Leased Land. However, CLT shall remain liable for injury or damage due to the grossly negligent or intentional acts or omissions of CLT or CLT’s agents or employees. 9.3 HOMEOWNER MUST REIMBURSE CLT. In the event the CLT shall be required to pay any sum that is the Homeowner’s responsibility or liability, the Homeowner shall reimburse the CLT for such payment and for reasonable expenses caused thereby. 9.4 HOMEOWNER MUST INSURE THE HOME AGAINST LOSS AND MUST MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE ON HOME AND LEASED LAND. Homeowner shall, at Homeowner’s expense, keep the Home continuously insured against “all risks” of physical loss, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form HO 00 03, or its equivalent, for the full replac ement value of the Home, and in any event in an amount that will not incur a coinsurance penalty. The amount of such insured replacement value must be approved by the CLT prior to the commencement of the Lease. Thereafter, if the CLT determines that the replacement value to be insured should be increased, the CLT shall inform the Homeowner of such required increase at least 30 days prior to the next date on which the insurance policy is to be renewed, and the Homeowner shall assure that the renewal inclu des such change. If Homeowner wishes to decrease the amount of replacement value to be insured, Homeowner shall inform the CLT of the proposed change at least 30 days prior to the time such change would take effect. The change shall not take effect without CLT’s approval. Should the Home lie in a flood hazard zone as defined by the National Flood Insurance Plan, the Homeowner shall keep in full force and effect flood insurance in the maximum amount available. The Homeowner shall also, at its sole expense, maintain in full force and effect public liability insurance using ISO Form HO 00 03 or its equivalent in the amount of $500,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. The CLT shall be named as Salt Lake City Corporation as an additional insured using ISO Form HO 04 41 or its equivalent, and certificates of insurance shall be delivered to the CLT prior to the commencement of the Lease and at each anniversary date thereof. The dollar amounts of such coverage may be increased from time to time at the CLT’s request but not more often than once in any one -year period. CLT shall inform the Homeowner of such required increase in coverage at least 30 days prior to the next date on which the insurance policy is to be renewed, and the Homeowner shall assure that the renewal includes such change . The amount of such increase in coverage shall be based on current trends in homeowner’s liability insurance coverage in the area in which the Home is located. 9.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOME IS D AMAGED OR DESTROYED. Except as provided below, in the event of fire or other damage to the Home, Homeowner shall take all steps necessary to assure the repair of such damage and the restoration of the Home to its condition Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -15- immediately prior to the damage. All such repairs and restoration shall be completed as promptly as possible. Homeowner shall also promptly take all steps necessary to assure that the Leased Land is safe and that the damaged Home does not constitute a danger to persons or property. If Homeowner, based on professional estimates, determines either (a) that full repair and restoration is physically impossible, or (b) that the available insurance proceeds will pay for less than the full cost of necessary repairs and that Homeowner cannot ot herwise afford to cover the balance of the cost of repairs, then Homeowner shall notify CLT of this problem, and CLT may then help to resolve the problem. Methods used to resolve the problem may include efforts to increase the available insurance proceeds , efforts to reduce the cost of necessary repairs, efforts to arrange affordable financing covering the costs of repair not covered by insurance proceeds, and any other methods agreed upon by both Homeowner and CLT. If Homeowner and CLT cannot agree on a w ay of restoring the Home in the absence of adequate insurance proceeds, then Homeowner may give CLT written notice of intent to terminate the Lease. The date of actual termination shall be no less than 60 days after the date of Homeowner’s notice of intent to terminate. Upon termination, any insurance proceeds payable to Homeowner for damage to the Home shall be paid as follows. FIRST, to the expenses of their collection; SECOND, to any Permitted Mortgagee(s), to the extent required by the Permitted Mortgage(s); THIRD, to the expenses of enclosing or razing the remains of the Home and clearing debris; FOURTH, to the CLT for any amounts owed under this Lease; FIFTH, to the Homeowner, up to an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price, as of the day prior to the loss, less any amounts paid with respect to the second, third, and fourth clauses above; SIXTH, the balance, if any, to the CLT. 9.6 WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME OR ALL OF THE LAND IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. If all of the Leased Land is taken by eminent domain or otherwise for public purposes, or if so much of the Leased Land is taken that the Home is lost or damaged beyond repair, the Lease shall terminate as of the date when Homeowner is required to give up possession of the Leased Land. Upon such termination, the entire amount of any award(s) paid shall be allocated in the way described in Section 9.5 above for insurance proceeds. In the event of a taking of a portion of the Leased Land that does not re sult in damage to the Home or significant reduction in the usefulness or desirability of the Leased Land for residential purposes, then any monetary compensation for such taking shall be allocated entirely to CLT. In the event of a taking of a portion of the Leased Land that results in damage to the Home only to such an extent that the Home can reasonably be restored to a residential use consistent with this Lease, then the damage shall be treated as damage is treated in Section 9.5 above, and monetary compensation shall be allocated as insurance proceeds are to be allocated under Section 9.5. 9.7 IF PART OF THE LAND IS TAKEN, THE LEASE FEE MAY BE REDUCED. In the event of any taking that reduces the size of the Leased Land but does not result in the Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -16- termination of the Lease, CLT shall reassess the fair rental value of the remaining Land and shall adjust the Lease Fee if necessary to assure that the monthly fee does not exceed the monthly fair rental value of the Land for use as restricted by the Lease. 9.8 IF LEASE IS TERMINATED BY DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION OR TAKING, CLT MAY TRY TO HELP HOMEOWNER BUY ANOTHER CLT HOME. If this Lease is terminated as a result of damage, destruction or taking, except if arising from or in connection with an act or omission by Homeowner or Homeowner’s invitee, CLT shall take reasonable steps to allow Homeowner to purchase another home on another parcel of leased land owned by CLT if such home can reasonably be made available. If Homeowner purchases such a home, Homeowner agrees to apply any proceeds or award received by Homeowner to the purchase of the home. Homeowner understands that there are numerous reasons why it may not be possible to make such a home available, and shall have no claim against CLT if such a home is not made available. ARTICLE 10: Transfer of the Home 10.1 INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY: Homeowner and CLT agree that the provisions of this Article 10 are intended to preserve the affordability of the Home for lower income households and expand access to homeownership opportunities for such households. 10.2 HOMEOWNER MAY TRANSFER HOME ONLY TO CLT OR QUALIFIED PERSONS: Homeowner may transfer the Home only to the CLT or an Income -Qualified Person as defined below or otherwise only as explicitly permitted by the provisions of this Article 10. All such transfers are to be completed only in strict compliance with this Article 10. Any purported transfer that does not follow the procedures set forth below, except in the case of a transfer to a Permitted Mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure, shall be null and void. “Income -Qualified Person” shall mean a person or group of persons whose household income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median household income for the applicable Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area or County as calculated and adjusted for household size from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or any successor. 10.3 THE HOME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CERTAIN HEIRS OF HOMEOWNER: If Homeowner dies (or if the last surviving co-owner of the Home dies), the executor or personal representative of Homeowner’s estate shall notify CLT within ninety (90) days of the date of the death. Upon receiving such notice CLT shall consent to a transfer of the Home and Homeowner’s rights to the Leased Land to one or more of the possible heirs of Homeowner listed below as “a,” “b,” or “c,” provided that a Letter of Agreement and a Letter of Attorney’s Acknowledgment (as described in A rticle 1 above) are submitted to CLT to be attached to the Lease when it is transferred to the heirs. a) the spouse of the Homeowner; or b) the child or children of the Homeowner; or Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -17- c) member(s) of the Homeowner’s household who have resided in the Home for at least one year immediately prior to Homeowner’s death. Any other heirs, legatees or devisees of Homeowner, in addition to submitting Letters of Agreement and Attorney’s Acknowledgment as provided above, must demonstrate to CLT’s satisfaction that they are Income -Qualified Persons as defined above. If they cannot demonstrate that they are Income -Qualified Persons, they shall not be entitled to possession of the Home but must transfer the Home in accordance with the provisions of this Article. 10.4 HOMEOWNER MUST GIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO SELL: In the event that Homeowner wishes to sell Homeowner’s Property, Homeowner shall notify CLT, in writing, of such wish (the Intent-to-Sell Notice). This Notice shall include a statement as to whether Homeowner wishes to recommend a prospective buyer as of the date of the Notice. 10.5 UPON RECEIVING NOTICE, CLT HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE HOME. Upon receipt of an Intent-to-Sell Notice from Homeowner, CLT shall have the option to purchase the Home at the Purchase Option Price calculated as set forth below. The Purchase Option is designed to further the purpose of preserving the affordability of the Home for succeeding Income-Qualified Persons while taking fair account of the investment by the Homeowner. If CLT elects to purchase the Home, CLT shall exercise the Purchase Option by notifying Homeowner, in writing, of such election (the Notice of Exercise of Option) within forty -five (45) days of the receipt of the Intent-to-Sell Notice, or the Option shall expire. Having given such notice, CLT may either proceed to purchase the Home directly or may assign the Purchase Option to an Income -Qualified Person. The purchase (by CLT or CLT’s assignee) must be completed within sixty (60) days of CLT’s Notice of Exercise of Option, or Homeowner may sell the Home and Homeowner’s rights to the Leased Land as provided in Section 10.7 below. The time permitted for the completion of the purchase may be extended by mutual agreement of CLT and Homeowner. 10.6 IF PURCHASE OPTION EXPIRES, HOMEOWNER MAY SELL ON CERTAIN TERMS: If the Purchase Option has expired or if CLT has failed to complete the purchase within the sixty-day period allowed by Section 10.5 above, Homeowner may sell the Home to any Income-Qualified Person for not more than the then applicable Purchase Option Price. If Homeowner has made diligent efforts to sell the Home for at least six months after the expiration of the Purchase Option (or six months after the expiration of such sixty-day period) and the Home still has not been sold, the CLT once again retains the right to exercise its Purchase Option as outline in section 10.5 above. If the CLT fails to exercise that right and the Home remains unsold, the Homeowner may then sell the Home, for a price no greater than the then applicable Purchase Option Price, to any party regardless of whether that party is an Income -Qualified Person. 10.7 AFTER ONE YEAR CLT SHALL HAVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT SALE: If CLT does not exercise its option and complete the purchase of Homeow ner’s Property as described above, and if Homeowner (a) is not then residing in the Home and (b) continues to hold Homeowner’s Property out for sale but is unable to locate a buyer and Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -18- execute a binding purchase and sale agreement within one year of the da te of the Intent to Sell Notice, Homeowner does hereby appoint CLT its attorney in fact to seek a buyer, negotiate a reasonable price that furthers the purposes of this Lease, sell the property, and pay to the Homeowner the proceeds of sale, minus CLT’s costs of sale and any other sums owed CLT by Homeowner. 10.8 PURCHASE OPTION PRICE EQUALS LESSER OF APPRAISED VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST OR FORMULA PRICE: In no event may the Home be sold for a price that exceeds the Purchase Option Price. The Purchase Option Price shall be the lesser of (a) the Appraised Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale calculated in accordance with Section 10.9 below or (b) the Formula Price calculated in accordance with Section 10.10 below. If CLT does not choose to commission an appraisal to determine the appraised value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest, then the Purchase Option Price shall be the Formula Price. 10.9 HOW THE VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS DETERMINED: If CLT believes that the value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale may be less than the Formula Price, CLT may, within 15 days of receiving Homeowner’s Notice of Intent to Sell, commission a market valuation of the Leased Land and the Home to be performed by a duly licensed appraiser acceptable to CLT. CLT shall pay the cost of such Appraisal. The Appraisal shall be conducted by analysis and comparison of comparable properties as though title to Land and Home were held in fee simple absolute by a single party, disregarding all of the restrictions of this Lease on the use, occupancy and transfer of the property. Copies of the Appraisal are to be provided to both CLT and Homeowner. CLT and Homeowner agree that, at the time when Homeowner purchased the Home and executed the Lease with the CLT, the appraised market value of the Home and Leased Land was $_______ (the “Initial Value), as documented by the appraiser’s report attached to this Lease as Exhibit INITIAL APPRAISAL. CLT and Homeowner further agree that Homeowner’s Base Price was $ ________, and that this amount equals ___% of the Initial Value (the Ratio of Base Price to Initial Value) The Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale then equals the appraised value of the Home and Leased Land at resale multiplied by the Ratio of Base Price to Initial Value. 10.10 HOW THE FORMULA PRICE IS CALCULATED: The Formula Price shall be equal to the amount of Homeowner’s Base Price (which CLT and Homeowner agree is $_______) plus 1.75% per year, simple interest. As an example, assume the Homeowner paid $170,000 for his or her interest in the Home. Then the resale price would be: Year Value Appreciation Purchase Year 2018 Resale Year 2023 Resale Year 2028 Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -19- Resale Year 2033 10.11 QUALIFIED PURCHASER SHALL RECEIVE NEW LEASE: The CLT shall issue a new lease to any person who purchases the Home in accordance with the terms of this Article 10. The terms of such lease shall be the same as those of new leases issued to homebuyers at that time for land not previously leased by the CLT. 10.12 HOMEOWNER AND PURCHASER PAY LEASE TERMINATION FEE. When the Homeowner sells the home, the Homeowner will pay a Lease Termination Fee of 3% to the CLT, out of the proceeds of the sale of the home. In addition, the price to be paid by the P urchaser shall include , in addition to the Purchase Option Price, a t the discretion of the CLT, an increase of up to 3% to pay for the Purchaser’s portion of the lease termination fee . The purpose of the Lease Termination Fee is to compensate the CLT for carrying out its responsibilities with regard to the transaction. 10.13 HOMEOWNER REQUIRED TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS AT TRANSFER: The Homeowner is required to make necessary repairs when Homebuyer voluntarily tra nsfers the Home as follows: a) The person purchasing the Home (“Buyer”) shall, prior to purchasing the Home, hire at Buyer’s sole expense a certified and licensed (if a license is required by the State of Utah) home inspector with a current Home Inspector certification and license to assess the condition of the Home and prepare a written report of the condition (“Inspection Report”). The Homeowner shall cooperate fully with the inspection. b) The Buyer shall provide a copy of the Inspection Report to Buyer’s lender (if any), the Homeowner, and the CLT within 10 days after receiving the Inspection Report. c) Homeowner shall repair specific reported defects or conditions necessary to bring the Home into full compliance with Sections 4.2 and 7.5 above prior to transferring the Home. d) Homeowner shall bear the full cost of the necessary repairs and replacements. However, upon Homeowner’s written request, the CLT may allow the Homeowner to pay all or a portion of the repair costs after transfer, from Homeowner’s proceed s of sale, if Homeowner cannot afford to pay such costs prior to the transfer. In such event, either (i) 150% of the unpaid estimated cost of repairs or (ii) 100% of the unpaid cost of completed repairs shall be withheld from Homeowner’s proceeds of sale in a CLT-approved escrow account. Also, upon Homeowner’s written request, CLT may, at its discretion, agree to release funds from the Repair Reserve Fund to cover some or all of the cost of such repairs, provided that such use of the Reserve is in full compliance with Section 7.6 above. e) Homeowner shall allow CLT, Buyer, and Buyer’s building inspector and lender’s representative to inspect the repairs prior to closing to determine that the repairs have been satisfactorily completed. f) Upon sale or other trans fer, Homeowner shall either (i) transfer the Home with all originally purchased appliances or replacements in the Home in good working order or (ii) reduce the Purchase Option Price by the market value of any such appliances that are not left with the Home in good working order. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -20- ARTICLE 11: Reserved ARTICLE 12: Default 12.1 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE CLT THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE LEASE: It shall be an event of default if Homeowner fails to pay the Lease Fee or other charges required by the terms of this Lease and such failure is not cured by Homeowner or a Permitted Mortgagee within thirty (30) days after notice of such failure is given by CLT to Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee. However, if Homeowner makes a good faith pa rtial payment of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the amount owed during the 30-day cure period, then the cure period shall be extended by an additional 30 days. 12.2 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER VIOLATES OTHER (NONMONETARY) TERMS OF THE LEASE: It shall be an event of default if Homeowner fails to abide by any other requirement or restriction stated in this Lease, and such failure is not cured by Homeowner or a Permitted Mortgagee within sixty (60) days after notice of such failure is given by CLT to Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee. However, if Homeowner or Permitted Mortgagee has begun to cure such default within the 60-day cure period and is continuing such cure with due diligence but cannot complete the cure within the 60-day cure period, the cure period sha ll be extended for as much additional time as may be reasonably required to complete the cure. 12.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER DEFAULTS AS A RESULT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS: It shall be an event of default if the estate hereby created is taken on execution or by other process of law, or if Homeowner is judicially declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or if any assignment is made of the property of Homeowner for the benefit of creditors, or if a receiver, trustee in involuntary bankruptcy or other similar officer is appointed to take charge of any substantial part of the Home or Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land by a court of competent jurisdiction, or if a petition is filed for the reorganization of Homeowner under any provisions of the Bankruptcy Act now or hereafter enacted, or if Homeowner files a petition for such reorganization, or for arrangements under any provision of the Bankruptcy Act now or hereafter enacted and providing a plan for a debtor to settle, satisfy or extend the time for payment of debts. 12.4 A DEFAULT (UNCURED VIOLATION) GIVES CLT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OR EXERCISE ITS PURCHASE OPTION: a) TERMINATION: In the case of any of the events of default described above, CLT may terminate this lease and initiate summary proceedings under applicable law against Homeowner, and CLT shall have all the rights and remedies consistent with such laws and resulting court orders to enter the Leased Land and Home and repossess the entire Leased Land and Home, and expel Homeowner and those claiming rights through Homeowner. In addition, CLT shall have such additional rights and remedies to recover from Homeowner arrears of rent and damages from any preceding breach of any covenant of this Lease. If this Lease is terminated by CLT pursuant to an Event of Default, then, as provided in Section 7.7 above, upon thus assuming title to the Home, CLT shall pay to Homeowner and any Permitted Mortgagee an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price calculated in accordance with Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -21- Section 10.9 above, as of the time of reversion of ownership, less the total amount of any unpaid Lease Fee and any other amounts owed to the CLT under the terms of this Lease and all reasonable costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by CLT in pursuit of its remedies under this Lease. If CLT elects to terminate the Lease, then the Permitted Mortgagee shall have the right (subject to Article 8 above and the attached Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages) to postpone and extend the specified date for the termination of the Lease for a period sufficient to enable the Permitted Mortgagee or its designee to acquire Homeowner’s interest in the Home and the Leased Land by foreclosure of its mortgage or otherwise. b) EXERCISE OF OPTION: In the case of any of the events of default described above, Homeowner hereby grants to the CLT (or its assignee) the option to purchase the Home for the Purchase Option Price as such price is defined in Article 10 above. Within thirty (30) days after the expiration of any applicable cure period as established in Sections 12.1 or 12.2 above or within 30 days after any of the events constituting an Event of Default under Section 12.3 above, CLT shall notify the Homeowner and the Permitted Mortgagee(s) of its decision to exercise its option to purchase under this Section 12.4(b). Not later than ninety (90) days after the CLT gives notice to the Homeowner of the CLT’s intent to exercise its option under this Section 12.4(a), the CLT or its assignee shall purchase the Home for the Purchase Option Price. 12.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DEFAULTS: CLT shall in no event be in default in the performance of any of its obligations under the Lease unles s and until CLT has failed to perform such obligations within sixty (60) days, or such additional time as is reasonably required to correct any default, after notice by Homeowner to CLT properly specifying CLT’s failure to perform any such obligation. ARTICLE 13: Mediation and Arbitration 13.1 If a dispute arises between CLT and Homeowner, either party may initiate the dispute resolution process by delivering to the other party a written notice of the issue(s) and a proposal to settle the dispute. The recipient shall respond to the proposed solution within 10 days, and shall either agree to the proposed solution or propose an alternative solution. The parties shall continue to correspond until a settlement has been reached or the parties realize that the correspondence will not settle the dispute. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle the dispute. If the initial correspondence does not settle the dispute, the parties or their representatives shall meet on at least one occasion to attempt to resolve the dispute. The time and place, within 14 days of the second party’s response, shall be mutually agreeable to both parties. If the meeting does not produce a resolution, then any and all disputes arising out of or related to this Lease shall be submitted to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable mediator prior to initiating any other resolution process. The mediator shall have expertise in real estate and leases. The parties will be bound to the terms of any mutually agreed upon settlement agreement, which is enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction. 13.2 Homeowner and CLT shall each pay one half (50%) of any costs incurred in carrying out mediation or arbitration in which the parties have agreed to engage , and shall pay their own personal attorneys. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -22- ARTICLE 14: GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 HOMEOWNER’S MEMBERSHIP IN CLT: The Homeowner under this Lease shall automatically be a regular voting member of the CLT. 14.2 NOTICES: Whenever this Lease requires either party to give notice to the other, the notice shall be given in writing and delivered in person, by overnight courier, or mailed, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the party at the address set forth below, or such other address designated by like written notice: If to CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation c/o Director, Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 425 P.O. Box 145487 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5487 With a copy to: If to Homeowner: All notices, demands and requests shall be effective upon being deposited in the United States Mail or, in the case of personal delivery, upon actual receipt. 14.3 NO BROKERAGE: Homeowner warrants that it has not dealt with any real estate broker other than __________________ in connection with the purchase of the Home. If any claim is made against CLT regarding dealings with brokers other than _________________, Homeowner shall defend CLT against such claim with counsel of CLT’s selection and shall reimburse CLT for any loss, cost or damage which may result from such claim. 14.4 SEVERABILITY AND DURATION OF LEASE: If a ny part of this Lease is unenforceable or invalid, such material shall be read out of this Lease and shall not affect the validity of any other part of this Lease or give rise to any cause of action of Homeowner or CLT against the other, and the remainder of this Lease shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. It is the intention of the parties that CLT’s option to purchase and all other rights of both parties under this Lease shall continue in effect for the full term of this Lease and any renewal thereof, and shall be considered to be coupled with an interest. 14.5 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN LIEU OF OPTION: If the provisions of the purchase option set forth in Article 10 of this Lease shall, for any reason, become unenforceable , CLT shall nevertheless have a right of first refusal to purchase the Home at the highest documented bona fide purchase price offer made to Homeowner. Such right shall be as specified in Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL. Any sale or transfer contrary to this Section, when applicable, shall be null and void. 14.6 WAIVER: The waiver by CLT at any time of any requirement or restriction in this Lease, or the failure of CLT to take action with respect to any breach of any such requirement or restriction, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such requirement or restriction with regard to any subsequent breach of such requirement or restriction, or of any other Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -23- requirement or restriction in the Lease. CLT may grant waivers in the terms of this Lease, but such waivers must be in writing and signed by CLT before being effective. The subsequent acceptance of Lease Fee payments by CLT shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Homeowner of any requirement or restriction in this Lease, other than the failure of the Homeowner to pay the particular Lease Fee so accepted, regardless of CLT’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such Lease Fee payment. 14.7 CLT’S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND: CLT shall have the right, but shall have no obligation, to prosecute or defend, in its own or the Homeowner’s name, any actions or proceedings appropriate to the protection of its own or Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land. Whenever requested by CLT, Homeowner shall give CLT all reasonable aid in any such action or proceeding. 14.8 CONSTRUCTION: Whenever in this Lease a pronoun is used it shall be construed to represent the singular or the plural, masculine or feminine, as the case shall demand. 14.9 HEADINGS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS: The headings, subheadings and table of contents appearing in this Lease are for convenience only, and are not a part of this Lease and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms or conditions of this Lease. 14.10 PARTIES BOUND: This Lease sets forth the entire agreement between CLT and Homeowner with respect to the leasing of the Land; it is binding upon and inures to the benefit of these parties and, in accordance with the provisions of this Lease, their respective successors in interest. This Lease may be alt ered or amended only by written notice executed by CLT and Homeowner or their legal representatives or, in accordance with the provisions of this Lease, their successors in interest. 14.11 GOVERNING LAW: This Lease shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of Utah. The language in all parts of this Lease shall be, in all cases, construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against CLT or Homeowner. Any action shall be brought in Salt Lake City, Utah. 14.12 RECORDING: The parties agree, as an alternative to the recording of this Lease, to execute a so-called Notice of Lease or Short Form Lease in form recordable and complying with applicable law and reasonably satisfactory to CLT’s attorneys. In no event sh all such document state the rent or other charges payable by Homeowner under this Lease; and any such document shall expressly state that it is executed pursuant to the provisions contained in this Lease, and is not intended to vary the terms and conditions of this Lease . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease to be effective as of the Effective Date . CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -24- By Director of Housing and Neighborhood Division ATTEST: City Recorder Approved as to Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By Date: Homeowner: [Insert name] [Insert name] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -25- Exhibit LETTER OF AGREEMENT Sample Letter of Agreement To Salt Lake City Corporation, acting as the Community Land Trust program (“the CLT”) Date: ____________ This letter is given to the CLT to become an exhibit to a Lease between the CLT and me. I will be leasing a parcel of land from the CLT and will be buying the home that sits on that parcel of land. I will therefore become what is described in the Lease as a “the Homeowner.” I have had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel to explain to me the terms and conditions of this transaction. I may choose to waive t he right to consult with legal counsel. I understand the terms and conditions of this transaction will affect my rights as a CLT homeowner, now and in the future. In particular I understand and agree with the following points. One of the goals of the CLT is to keep CLT homes affordable for lower income households from one CLT homeowner to the next. I support this goal as a CLT homeowner and as a member of the CLT. The terms and conditions of my Lease will keep my home affordable for future “income - qualified persons” (as defined in the Lease). If and when I want to sell my home, the lease requires that I sell it either to the CLT or to another income -qualified person. The terms and conditions of the lease also limit the price for which I can sell the home, in order to keep it affordable for such income -qualified persons. I understand that this means that the amount of equity I can realize in a sale of my home is limited. It is also a goal of the CLT to promote resident ownership of CLT homes. For this re ason, my Lease requires that, if I and my family move out of our home permanently, we must sell it. We cannot continue to own it as absentee owners. I understand that I can leave my home to my child or children or other members of my household and that, a fter my death, they can own the home for as long as they want to live in it and abide by the terms of the Lease, or they can sell it on the terms permitted by the Lease. As a CLT homeowner and a member of the CLT, it is my desire to see the terms of the Lease and related documents honored. I consider these terms fair to me and others. Sincerely [Insert homeowner name] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -26- Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER Sample Letter of Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment Or Homeowner’s Waiver Option A: Attorney’s Letter I, ___________________________, have been independently employed by _____________________________ (hereinafter “the Client”) who intends to purchase a house and other improvements (the “Home”) on land to be leased from Community Land Trust. The house and land are located at ______________________________________. In connection with the contemplated purchase of the Home and the leasing of the land, I reviewed with the Client the following documents: a) this Letter of Attorney’s Acknowledgment and a Letter of Agreement from the Client; b) a proposed Deed conveying the Home to the Client; c) a proposed Ground Lease conveying the “Leased Land” to the Client; d) other written materials provided by the CLT. The Client has received full and complete information and advice regarding this conveyance and the foregoing documents. In my review of these documents my purpose has been to reasonably inform the Client of the present and foreseeable risks and legal conse quences of the contemplated transaction. The Client is entering the aforesaid transaction in reliance on her /his own judgment and upon her/his investigation of the facts. The advice and information provided by me was an integral element of such investiga tion. Name Date Title Firm/Address Option B: Homeowner’s Waiver I [We], ________________________, understand and acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to have an attorney review this Lease , the Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement, the Deed, and any other materials provided the CLT, and advise me regarding my rights and obligations under these documents, and the present and foreseeable risks and legal consequences of the transaction. I further acknowledges that I am entering into this transaction in reliance on my own judgment and upon my investigation of the facts. I acknowledge that I have read and understand the paragraph above: Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -27- Initials: __________ __________ I have waived my rights to c onsult with an attorney regarding this transaction: Initials: __________ __________ [Insert homeowner name] Date: [Insert homeowner name] Date: Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -28- Exhibit LEASED LAND [Correct legal description of area of Leased Land and appurtenant title rights and obligations.] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -29- Exhibit DEED WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO : Salt Lake City Corporation Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 425 P.O. Box 145487 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5487 Tax Parcel No. _____________ Special Warranty Deed SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation (Grantor), having its principal offices at ____________, ____________, ___________, hereby conveys and warrants against all who claim by, through, or under the Grantor to JOHN AND MARY DOE (Grantees), residing at ______________, ______________, _____ for the sum of one dollar, the following described real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah: THE BUILDINGS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ONLY, as presently erected on the Land described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof. It is the intention of the parties that the real property underlying the buildings and other improvements conveyed herein remain vested in Grantor and that this special warranty deed convey only such buildings and other improvements as are presently erected upon the subject Land. Witness the hand of said Grantor, as authorized agent of Grantor, this _____day of _______________, 20__. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -30- CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation By Director of Housing and Neighborhood Division ATTEST: City Recorder Approved as to Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By Date: STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before me this ______ d ay of ______________, 20__, by __________, ____________ of Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation. __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -31- Exhibit PERMITTED MORTGAGES The rights and provisions set forth in this Exhibit shall be understood to be provisions of Section 8.2 of the Lease. All terminology used in this Exhibit shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Lease. A. OBLIGATIONS OF PERMITTED MORTGAGEE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall be bound by each of the following requirements unless the particular requirement is removed, contradicted or modified by a rider to this Le ase signed by the Homeowner and the CLT to modify the terms of the Lease during the term of the Permitted Mortgage. 1. If Permitted Mortgagee sends a notice of default to the Homeowner because the Homeowner has failed to comply with the terms of the Permitted Mortgage, the Permitted Mortgagee shall, at the same time, send a copy of that notice to the CLT. Upon receiving a copy of the notice of default and within that period of time in which the Homeowner has a right to cure such default (the “cure period”), the CLT shall have the right to cure the default on the Homeowner’s behalf, provided that all current payments due the Permitted Mortgagee since the notice of default was given are made to the Permitted Mortgagee. 2. If, after the cure period has e xpired, the Permitted Mortgagee intends to accelerate the note secured by the Permitted Mortgage or begin foreclosure proceedings under the Permitted Mortgage, the Permitted Mortgagee shall first notify CLT of its intention to do so, and CLT shall then have the right, upon notifying the Permitted Mortgagee within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, to acquire the Permitted Mortgage by paying off the debt secured by the Permitted Mortgage. 3. If the Permitted Mortgagee acquires title to the Home thr ough foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Permitted Mortgagee shall give CLT written notice of such acquisition and CLT shall then have an option to purchase the Home from the Permitted Mortgagee for the full amount owing to the Permitted Mortgagee under the Permitted Mortgage. To exercise this option to purchase, CLT must give written notice to the Permitted Mortgagee of CLT’s intent to purchase the Home within thirty (30) days following CLT’s receipt of the Permitted Mortgagee’s notice. CLT must then complete the purchase of the Home within sixty (60) days of having given written notice of its intent to purchase. If CLT does not complete the purchase within this 60-day period, the Permitted Mortgagee shall be free to sell the Home to another person. 4. Nothing in the Permitted Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as giving Permitted Mortgagee a claim on CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, or as assigning any form of liability to the CLT with regard to the Leased Land, the Home, or the Permitted Mortgage. 5. Nothing in the Permitted Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as rendering CLT or any subsequent Mortgagee of CLT’s interest in this Lease, or their respective heirs, executors, successors or assigns, personally liable for the payment of the debt secured by the Permitted Mortgage or any part thereof. 6. The Permitted Mortgagee shall not look to CLT or CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, but will look solely to Homeowner, Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land, and the Home for the payment of the debt secured thereby or any part thereof. (It is the intention of the parties Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -32- hereto that CLT’s consent to such the Permitted Mortgage shall be without any liability on the part of CLT for any deficiency judgment.) 7. In the event any part of the Security is taken in condemnation or by right of eminent domain, the proceeds of the award shall be paid over to the Permitted Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of ARTICLE 9 hereof. 8. CLT shall not be obligated to execute an assignment of the Lease Fee or other rent payable by Homeowner under the terms of this Lease. B. RIGHTS OF PERMITTED MORTGAGEE. The rights of a Permitted Mortgagee as referenced under Section 8.6 of the Lease to which this Exhibit is attached shall be as set forth below. 1. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall, without further consent by CLT, have the right to (a) cure any default under this Lease, and perform any obligation required under this Lease, such cure or performance being effective as if it had been performed by Homeowner; (b) acquire and convey, assign, transfer and exercise any right, remedy or privilege granted to Homeowner by this Lease or otherwise by law, subject to the provisions, if any, in the Permitted Mortgage, which may limit any exercise of any such right, remedy or privilege; and (c) rely upon and enforce any provisions of the Lease to the extent that such provisions are for the benefit of a Permitted Mortgagee. 2. A Permitted Mortgagee shall not be required, as a condition to the exercise of its rights under the Lease, to assume personal liability for the payment and performance of the obligations of the Homeowne r under the Lease. Any such payment or performance or other act by Permitted Mortgagee under the Lease shall not be construed as an agreement by Permitted Mortgagee to assume such personal liability except to the extent Permitted Mortgagee actually takes possession of the Home and Leased Land. In the event Permitted Mortgagee does take possession of the Home and Leased Land and thereupon transfers such property, any such transferee shall be required to enter into a written agreement assuming such personal liability and upon any such assumption the Permitted Mortgagee shall automatically be released from personal liability under the Lease. 3. In the event that title to the estates of both CLT and Homeowner are acquired at any time by the same person or persons, no merger of these estates shall occur without the prior written declaration of merger by Permitted Mortgagee, so long as Permitted Mortgagee owns any interest in the Security or in a Permitted Mortgage. 4. If the Lease is terminated for any reason, or in the event of the rejection or disaffirmance of the Lease pursuant to bankruptcy law or other law affecting creditors’ rights, CLT shall enter into a new lease for the Leased Land with the Permitted Mortgagee (or with any party designated by the Pe rmitted Mortgagee, subject to CLT’s approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), not more than thirty (30) days after the request of the Permitted Mortgagee. Such lease shall be for the remainder of the term of the Lease, effective as of the date of such termination, rejection or disaffirmance, and upon all the terms and provisions contained in the Lease. However, the Permitted Mortgagee shall make a written request to CLT for such new lease within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such termination, Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -33- rejection or disaffirmance, as the case may be. Such written request shall be accompanied by a copy of such new lease, duly executed and acknowledged by the Permitted Mortgagee or the party designated by the Permitted Mortgagee to be the Homeowner thereunder. Any new lease made pursuant to this Section shall have the same priority with respect to other interests in the Land as the Lease. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination, rejection or disaffirmance of the Lease and shall continue in full effect thereafter to the same extent as if this Section were independent and an independent contract made by CLT, Homeowner and the Permitted Mortgagee. 5. The CLT shall have no right to terminate the Lease during such time as the Permitted Mortgagee has commenced foreclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Lease and is diligently pursuing the same. 6. In the event that CLT sends a notice of default under the Lease to Homeowner, CLT shall also send a notice of Homeowner’s default to Permitted Mortgagee. Such notice shall be given in the manner set forth in Section 14.2 of the Lease to the Permitted Mortgagee at the address which has been given by the Permitted Mortgagee to CLT by a written notice to CLT sent in the manner set forth in said Section 14.2 of the Lease. 7 . In the event of foreclosure sale by a Permitted Mortgagee or the delivery of a deed to a Permitted Mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Lease, at the election of the Permitted Mortgagee the provisions of Article 10, Sections 10.1 through 10.11 shall be deleted and thereupon shall be of no further force or effect as to only so much of the Security so foreclosed upon or transferre d. 8. Before becoming effective, a ny amendments to this Lease must be approved in writing by Permitted Mortgagee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Permitted Mortgagee has neither approved nor rejected a proposed amendment within 60 days of its submission to Permitted Mortgagee, then the proposed amendment shall be deemed to be approved. C. STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE AGREEMENT. A Standard Permitted Mortgage Agreement, as identified in Section 8.4 of this Lease, shall be written as follows, and shall be signed by Mortgagee and Homeowner. This Agreement is made by and among: ___________________________________ (Mortgagee) and ___________________________________ (“Homeowner”), Whereas: a) _______________CLT (the “CLT”) and Homeowner have entered, or are entering, into a ground lease (“the Lease”), conveying to Homeowner a leasehold interest in the Land located at _____________________ (“the Leased Land”); and Homeowner has purchased, or is purchasing, the Home located on the Leased Land (“the Home”). b) The Mortgagee has been asked to provide certain financing to the Homeowner, and is being granted concurrently herewith a mortgage and security interest (the “Mortgage”) in the Leased Land and Home, all as more particularly set forth in the Mortgage, attach ed Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -34- hereto as Schedule A. c) The Ground Lease states that the Homeowner may mortgage the Leased Land only with the written consent of CLT. The Ground Lease further provides that CLT is required to give such consent only if the Mortgagee signs this Standard Pe rmitted Mortgage Agreement and thereby agrees to certain conditions that are stipulated herein (“the Stipulated Conditions”). Now, therefore, the Homeowner/Mortgagor and the Mortgagee hereby agree that the terms and conditions of the Mortgage shall include the Stipulated Conditions stated below. Stipulated Conditions: 1) If Mortgagee sends a notice of default to the Homeowner because the Homeowner has failed to comply with the terms of the Mortgage, the Mortgagee shall, at the same time, send a copy of that notice to the CLT. Upon receiving a copy of the notice of default and within that period of time in which the Homeowner has a right to cure such default (the “cure period”), the CLT shall have the right to cure the default on the Homeowner’s behalf, provided that all current payments due the Permitted Mortgagee since the notice of default was given are made to the Mortgagee. 2) If, after such cure period, the Mortgagee intends to accelerate the note secured by the Mortgage or initiate foreclosure proceed ings under the Mortgage, in accordance with the provisions of the Lease, the Mortgagee shall first notify CLT of its intention to do so and CLT shall have the right, but not the obligation, upon notifying the Mortgagee within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notice, to purchase the Mortgagee loans and to take assignment of the Mortgage. 3) If the Mortgagee acquires title to the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land through foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgag ee shall give the CLT written notice of such acquisition and the CLT shall have an option to purchase the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land from the Mortgagee for the full amount owing to the Mortgagee; provided, however, that the CLT notifies the Mortgagee in writing of the CLT’s intent to make such purchase within thirty (30) days following the CLT’s receipt of the Mortgagee’s notice of such acquisition of the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land; further provided that CLT shall complete such purchase within sixty (60) days of having given written notice of its intent to purchase; and provided that, if the CLT does not complete the purchase within such period, the Mortgagee shall be free to sell the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land to another person; 4) Nothing in the Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as giving the Mortgagee a claim on CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, or as assigning any form of liability to the CLT with regard to the Leased Land, the Home, or the Mortgage. 5) Nothing in the Mortgage shall be construed as rendering CLT or any subsequent holder of the CLT’s interest in and to the Lease, or their respective heirs, executors, successors or assigns, personally liable for the payment of the debt evidenced by such note and such Mortgage or any part thereof. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -35- 6) The Mortgagee shall not look to CLT or CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, but will look solely to Homeowner and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land and the Home for the payme nt of the debt secured by the Mortgage. (It is the intention of the parties hereto that CLT’s consent to the Mortgage shall be without any liability on the part of CLT for any deficiency judgment.) 7) In the event that any part of the Leased Land is taken in condemnation or by right of eminent domain, the proceeds of the award shall be paid over to the Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Lease. 8) Nothing in the Mortgage shall obligate CLT to execute an assignment of the L ease Fee or other rent payable by Homeowner under the terms of this Lease. By: _____________________________ for Mortgagee Date: ____________ _____________________________ for Homeowner/Mortgagor Date: ____________ Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -36- Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL Whenever any party under the Lease shall have a right of first refusal as to certain property, the following procedures shall apply. If the owner of the property offering it for sale (“Offering Party”) shall within the term of the Lease receive a bona f ide third party offer to purchase the property which such Offering Party is willing to accept, the holder of the right of first refusal (the “Holder”) shall have the following rights: a) Offering Party shall give written notice of such offer (“the Notice of Offer”) to Holder setting forth (a) the name and address of the prospective purchaser of the property, (b) the purchase price offered by the prospective purchaser and (c) all other terms and conditions of the sale. Holder shall have a period of forty-five (45) days after the receipt of the Notice of Offer (“the Election Period”) within which to exercise the right of first refusal by giving notice of intent to purchase the property (“the Notice of Intent to Purchase”) for the same price and on the same te rms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Offer. Such Notice of Intent to Purchase shall be given in writing to the Offering Party within the Election Period. b) If Holder exercises the right to purchase the property, such purchase shall be completed within sixty (60) days after the Notice of Intent to Purchase is given by Holder (or if the Notice of Offer shall specify a later date for closing, such date) by performance of the terms and conditions of the Notice of Offer, including payment of the purchase price provided therein. c) Should Holder fail to exercise the right of first refusal within the Election Period, then the Offering Party shall have the right (subject to any other applicable restrictions in the Lease) to go forward with the sale which the Offering Party desires to accept, and to sell the property within one (1) year following the expiration of the Election Period on terms and conditions which are not materially more favorable to the purchaser than those set forth in the Notice. If the sale is not consummated within such one -year period, the Offering Party's right so to sell shall end, and all of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be applied again to any future offer, all as aforesaid. If a sale is consummated within such one -year period, the purchaser shall purchase subject to the Holder having a renewed right of first refusal in said property. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -37- Other Exhibits to be attached as Appropriate SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 1 SALT LAKE CITY SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 2, VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON DISTRICT 3 , CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 2 September 10, 2020 PY 2020 Salt Lake City CARES Act Substantial Amendment TO ADD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (CDBG-CV) EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (ESG-CV) HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AIDS/HIV-CORONAVIRUS (HOPWA-CV) SUMMARY Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan for utilization of CARES HUD-CV funds for coronavirus response and recovery. The requested amendments will allow the award of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) fund ing to Salt Lake City, a total of $7,138,203 for coronavirus (CV) response and recovery. These funds will be used by Salt Lake City for eligible activities and services in accordance with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV) and Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA-CV) HUD regulations and CARES Act waivers. CARES HUD-CV1 funds were allocated to Salt Lake City on April 2, 2020 via notification from HUD Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Plann ing and Development. On June 9, 2020, Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of ESG-CV2 funds. On September 11, 2020, Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of CDBG-CV3 funds.  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), first round $2,064,298, third round $999,551  Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV), first round $1,040,462 and second round $2,946,449  Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA -CV), first round $87,443 Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD -CV allocation process. CARES HUD-CV FUNDING On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (H.R. 748, Public Law 116 -136), which makes available $5 billion in supplemental Community Development Block Grant (CDBG -CV) funding, $1 billion for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV) and $53.7 million for Hous ing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA-CV) grants to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus . SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 3 The CARES Act stipulated that HUD-CV funding must not fund duplicative activities and requires tracking to ensure no other funding source could be utilized for the expense. Grantees may use HUD -CV funds for a range of activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Funds must serve low - to moderate-income individuals or households, underserved communities or populations, and align with HUD National Objectives. PROGRAM YEAR (PY) 2020 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT Due to the City’s allocated CARES HUD-CV funding Substantial Amendments to the City’s most recently adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan are required. These Substantial Amendments has been prepared with the guidance from HUD that has been issued to date. HUD REQUIREMENTS HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for Subst antial Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen Participation Plan the criteria it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial Amendment. It is these Substantial Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.” SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a Substantial Amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial Amendment must be completed. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 146 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The CARES HUD-CV allocations represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. (See the SP-35 Anticipated Resources Appendix) The City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding and eligible uses of the grant funds. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 4 . Substantial Amendments to 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan): #1 Shortened Public Comment Period Citizen Participation, HUD 24 CFR 91.105. Located on page 281 of the 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2024 Consolidated Plan) Substantial Amendments are required to follow the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024, which under normal circumstances, requires a public comment period for the Substantial Amendment of thirty (30) days. However, to quickly implement the funds and activities of the CARES HUD-CV, HUD has waived that requirement with amendment to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, reducing the public comment period to five (5) days. Further, HUD is allowing the Citizen Participation Plan and the Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020 Annual Action Plan to run concurrently. Although the CARES Act has shortened the public comment period to five (5) days, Salt Lake City Ordinance requires a fourteen (14) days public com ment period. Salt Lake City will utilize a fourteen (14) day public comment period for this Substantial Amendment. The City’s current 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan will be amended to reflect this change and accept a fourteen (14) day public comment period. This Shortened Public Comment Period amendment only applies to the CARES HUD - CV allocation, and not to other funding allocated by HUD. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP -15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 33 of the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to accept the CARES HUD -CV. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan. (See the AP-15 Expected Resources Appendix) The City’s current 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding and eligible uses of grant f unds . PUBLIC PROCESS The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2014 Consolidated Plan) specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 5 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from c itizens living throughout the City. The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate provided it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow t he required noticing of fourteen (14) calendar days. An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the City’s official web site during the same period. Due to the current COVID Emergency Declaration for Salt Lake City issued by Mayor Mendenhall on March 10, 2020 and since extended to -date, Salt Lake City facilities may be closed and documents will need to be reviewed electronically and in accordance with City policy. All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff and Housing and Neighborhood Development staff. Comments may be incorporated into the final Substantial Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the Substantial Amendments. A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/HAND. Comments will be accepted from September 10 through September 23, 2020. Prior to making decisions on the Substantial Amendments the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments. Written comments may be submitted to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to the Housing and Neighborhood Development contact at Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801 -535-7654. COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS Salt Lake City has worked closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and other community partners to ensure funds are strategically targeted to reach our most vulnerable residents who are impacted by coronavirus and programs are not duplicative. Community Partners include:  Other regional CARES HUD-CV grantees  Salt Lake City CARES HUD-CV Internal Working Group SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 6  Salt Lake City’s Resident Advisory Group, the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Board  HUD Regional Office  HUD Technical Assistance Representative  National homeless and affordable housing consultants and advocacy groups HUD requires CV grantees to prevent the duplication of benefits, which means grant funds may not be used to pay costs if another source of financial assistance is available to pay that cost. HAND will work with selected community partners and track other funding and community benefits in order to prevent duplication of services. CONTACT INFORMATION Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director Housing and Neighborhood Development Salt Lake City Corporation Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com 801-535-6240 Tony Milner, Policy and Program Manager Housing and Neighborhood Development Salt Lake City Corporation Tony.Milner@slcgov.com (801) 535-6168 TO VIEW THE: 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2020 -2024 CITIZEN PARTCIPATION PLAN, and 2020-2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, please click on the following link, or visit HAND’s main website page at www.slc.gov/HAND/. APPENDICES :  Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-15 Expected Resources 1 | P a g e SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT APPENDIX SP-35, ANTICIPATED RESOURCES HUD CFR 24, 91.215(A)(4), 91.220(C)(1,2) Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily 2 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA 3 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Transitional Housing OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. OT H E R F U N D S – CA R E S H U D -CV HUD and CARES Act Eligible Activities CDBG-CV1 $2,064,298 CDBG-CV3 $999,551 ESG-CV1 $1,040,462 ESG-CV2 $2,946,449 HOPWA-CV1 $87,443 $0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203 CARES HUD- CV allocations to respond to and recovery from COVID- 19. 4 | P a g e AP -15, EXPECTED RESOURCES HUD CFR 24, 91.220(C)(1,2) Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation 5 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing 6 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. OT H E R F U N D S – CA R E S H U D -CV HUD and CARES Act Eligible Activities CDBG-CV1 $2,064,298 CDBG-CV3 $999,551 ESG-CV1 $1,040,462 ESG-CV2 $2,946,449 HOPWA-CV1 $87,443 $0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203 CARES HUD- CV allocations to respond to and recovery from COVID- 19. Summary of Funding $3,063,849 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD Matrix HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Housing Stability Housing Stability: Up to 3 months of mortgage payments (80% AMI). Housing stability resources for vulnerable residents who have been directly impacted by COVID-19. 50% of Salt Lake City residents are in employment sectors that are prone to layoffs and furloughs from COVID-19. Additionally, many Salt Lake City residents are cost burdened or severely cost burdened with housing expenses. A small fraction of loans are covered by the CARES Act forbearance protections and many residents are at risk of slipping into foreclosure. This program will stabilize vulnerable homeowners and ensure they stay in their homes. Subsistence Payments 0GR LMC TBD *10%$300,000 Public Service Agency NPO programs to prepare for and prevent the spread of COVID-19. NPO's can apply for funding to address organization specific needs as it pertains to COVID-1 such as PPE, staff capacity, direct client services, etc. Address organization specific needs and gaps to address COVID-19. Health Services 05M, Other Public Services 05Z LMJP TBD *11%$350,000 Community Stabilization Programs that provide basic needs for the community to respond to COVID-19 such as digital access, food security, or targeted services. Address basic life needs to stabilize and assist residents and youth. Without having basic needs met like food, childcare, and technology individuals and families will continue to struggle to sustain during COVID-19. Food 05W, Child Care 0GL, Tech (Child Care) 0GL, Health Services 05M LMC TBD *16%$500,000 Economic Development - Small Businesses Grants Grant program that provides funding assistance to targeted businesses to be used for payroll, job retention/creation, PPE, etc. This program would strategically target small, minority, or WBE businesses and offer a one- time grant and technical assistance. The program will relieve the financial burden on small businesses. The technical assistance component will assist in addressing technology and/or language barriers so future business needs can be met. Econ Dev Microenterprise Assistance 18C LMCMC TBD *16%$501,438 On September 11, 2020, SLC was notified of a third round of CARES HUD CDBG-CV in the amount of $999,511. These additional funds did not go through the City's previous Internal Working Group recommendation process. 20% of this allocation will be set aside for Administration, with the remaining amount to be determined for a CDBG-CV eligible project / program. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD *$799,641 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (20%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 21A SLC Corp 20%$612,770 $3,063,849 $3,986,911 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD 24 CFR HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Homeless Prevention Housing stability: Up to 6 months rent (50% AMI). Housing stability and homeless prevention resources for vulnerable residents who have been directly impacted by COVID-19 including rental assistance, landlord/tenant mediation, shelter diversion, and arrears. CARES Act safety nets expire in July and forecasters anticipate a cliff that will impact tenant stability and will likely include an increase in evictions. 576.103 LMC TBD *43%$1,700,000 Rapid Rehousing Housing Stability: Deposit, rent, and utilities (30% AMI). Provide permanent supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. These program funds will leverage FEMA investment in non-congregate hotel shelter operations. Currently there are over 120 high risk and vulnerable individuals that are housed in hotels that will be placed in permanent housing with wrap around stability services. 576.104 LMC TBD *17%$688,220 Street Outreach Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19. People experiencing unsheltered homelessness (those sleeping outside or in places not meant for human habitation) may be at risk for infection when there is community spread of COVID-19. Lack of housing contributes to poor physical and mental health outcomes, and linkages to permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness should continue to be a priority 576.101 LMC TBD *13%$500,000 Emergency Quarantine Shelter Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19. Operation expenses for non-congregate shelter/motel placement, increasing shelter capacity with motel placement, support of operating costs for PPE for congregate shelter operators and resident treatment programs. HRC's have seen a considerable increase in expenses to combat the spread of COVID-19 in a congregate shelter setting. Additionally, staff have a high risk of exposure and facility configurations are needed to protect staff. 576.102 LMC TBD *18%$700,000 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (10%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 576.108 SLC Corp 10%$398,691 100%$3,986,911 $87,443 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD CFR 24 HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Housing Stability Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and Utility Assistance (STRMU). Costs for short-term rent, mortgage or hotel/motel stays to provide quarantine space for eligible households who may have been exposed to infectious diseases such as COVID- 19. Stabilize in adequate housing HOPWA eligible households with compromised immune systems to minimize exposure to COVID-19. 574.300 LMC TBD *94%$82,196 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (6%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 574.300 SLC Corp 6%$5,247 100%$87,443 Total $7,138,203 Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD-CV allocation process, which is anticipated to mirror the regular, annual HUD allocation process. This includes a competitive application process, review and recommendation by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program resident advisory board, the Mayor’s recommendations, and the Council’s recommendations. SALT LAKE CITY CARES HUD-COVID FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (as of September 11, 2020) CARES Act Funds Used to Support Coronavirus Response and Recovery Eligible Activities CDBG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $2,064,298 (Round 1), $999.551 (Round 3) ESG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $1,040,462 (Round 1), $2,946,449 (Round 2) HOWPA-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $87,443 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE: October 20, 2020 UPDATED 1:19 PM 10-19-20 RE: Substantial Amendment to 2020-24 Consolidated Plan and 2020-21 Annual Action Plan MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council approve a resolution amending the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan and approve the signing of a grant agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as recommended by the Administration. Staff Note: Following approval of this motion, the Administration would proceed to accept applications in an open and competitive process, the resident advisory board would review applications in public meetings and make funding recommendations, the Mayor would review and make a second set of funding recommendations, then the Council would review all applications and both sets of funding recommendations to make final funding decisions with the $7.1 million CARES Act HUD grants. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. Annual Action Plan 1 SALT LAKE CITY 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: VICE CHAIR, VICTORIA PETRO DISTRICT 2: ALEJANDRO PUY DISTRICT 3: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: CHAIR, DARIN MANO DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING STABILITY DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 3 Annual Action Plan 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................................................................................................ 8 AP-10 CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................... 9 AP-12 PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................................. 21 AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6 AP-20 ANNUAL GOAL & STRATEGIES .................................................................................................... 31 AP-35 PROJECTS (Summary) ................................................................................................................... 34 AP-38 PROJECTS (Table) .......................................................................................................................... 35 AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.3 AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................................................................... 46 AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 48 AP-65 HOMELESS & OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 49 AP-70 HOPWA GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 53 AP-75 ACTION PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING............................................................. 53 AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 56 AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 61 Annual Action Plan 3 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Annual Action Plan outlines the activities and funding priorities for the fourth year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024. Annual Action Plan 4 AP-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 24 CFR 91.200(C), 91.220(B) Introduction The 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) identifies how Salt Lake City intends to leverage the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. These four resources will provide over $8.9 million in support for low- to moderate-income households or areas of the city. Each activity funded under the 2023-24 AAP helps further a goal outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This Year-4 Annual Action Plan addresses several goals and strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. These goals are briefly outlined below. Greater detail is provided in section AP-20. 1) Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies: • Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods • Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing. • Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents. • Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing. • Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness. • Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to, supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation. • Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS. Annual Action Plan 5 2) Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies: • Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas. • Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations. • Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas. 3) Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies: • Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities. • Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs. • Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses. • Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses. • Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty. • Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet. • Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable populations. 4) Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies: • Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness. • Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations. • Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life. Annual Action Plan 6 • Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services. 5) Behavioral Health: Provide support for low-income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies: • Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those in need of mental or behavioral health services, including those with HIV/AIDS. 6) Administration Strategies: • To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs. Salt Lake City's strategy for most effectively utilizing HUD funding is heavily influenced by the City's housing market study, the City’s Five-Year Housing Plan, the annual Utah Comprehensive Report on Homelessness, and the adopted Salt Lake City Master Plans that highlight strategic neighborhood investment opportunities. Evaluation of past performance Salt Lake City deliberately monitors the process of advancing the strategic goals outlined in the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan. This plan was developed with input from many stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to report back to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the residents, the community, and decision makers, the impact of these funds. As we near completion of the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, here is an evaluation of progress during that time. In preparation for development of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability Division (HSD) reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD, as well as point-in-time data for the 2022-2023 CAPER, to be submitted to HUD after July 1, 2023. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s previous Action Plans and CAPERs can be viewed at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated-plan/con-plans-aaps-capers/. Annual Action Plan 7 Salt Lake City has made progress on all the goals outlined under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plans. The 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan shows further progress will be made. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. Salt Lake City will receive final reports regarding program year 2022-2023 funding after the end of the program year. This data will inform future decisions about funding allocations. This data will also be fully reflected in the upcoming Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER). Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of the community’s needs and preferences. In addition, the citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. A comprehensive public engagement process included a city-wide survey (including 2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one-on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, Salt Lake City internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into the Consolidated Plan. The City received input and buy-in from residents, homeless service providers, low-income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For this 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, AAP engagement efforts were combined with efforts to engage the residents of Salt Lake City for the development of a new 5-year Housing Plan. The survey was designed in a way to provide information that was useful for both efforts. A total of 287 paper surveys were completed and 3,542 online surveys were collected. For more information on the citizen participation efforts, refer to the AP-10 Consultation section. The full Engagement Report is also included as an attachment. The City held public hearings at different points in the Annual Action Plan process. The General Needs Hearing is an event open to the public to comment on community needs. HSD accepts all comments and looks to understand how federal funding can address these concerns. The City Council Public Hearing is Annual Action Plan 8 an opportunity for the public and non-profit partners to comment on how federal funding may impact their neighborhoods or the services being provided. More information about these hearings is available in the AP-12 Participation section. Summary of public comments A summary of the public comments for the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan can be found in the appendix of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. All comments received for the Consolidated Plan were considered while creating this 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. On November 16, 2022, Housing Stability staff and members of the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board conducted a hybrid, virtual and in-person, General Needs Hearing to hear from residents. Three residents provided comment, focused on the need for addressing mobility issues for elderly and disabled residents, preventing homelessness, and the need for mental health services. On March 21, 2023, a hybrid, virtual and in-person, City Council Public Hearing was held. In general, the comments were very positive and related to the support of specific agencies. The majority of the comments were related to the specific funding recommendations for the agencies. Topics included: homelessness, housing, supportive services, domestic violence, and behavioral health services. A public comment period for the 2023-24 funding recommendations was held from March 21, 2023, to April 18th, 2023. Additionally, the Draft AAP was made available to the public for comment between April 7, 2023, and May 10, 2023. All public comments were accepted and have been taken into consideration for the draft of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All public comments were accepted. Summary Salt Lake City makes a robust effort towards public participation in the drafting of its Annual Action and Consolidated Plans. PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES – 91.200(B) Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Annual Action Plan 9 Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division CDBG Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division HOPWA Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division HOME Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division ESG Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division Table 1 – Responsible Agencies Narrative (optional) Salt Lake City was the sole agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan and is solely responsible for the subsequent Annual Action Plans. Salt Lake City administers each of the HUD grant programs and the funding sources. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information • Tony Milner, Director of Housing Stability, o Tony.Milner@slcgov.com or 801-535-6168. • Heather Royall, Deputy Director, o Heather.Royall@slcgov.com or 801-535-7273. • Dillon Hase, Community Development Grant Supervisor, o Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com or 801-535-6402. Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division 451 South State Street, Room 445 P.O. Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 AP-10 CONSULTATION – 91.100, 91.200(B), 91.215(L) Introduction The City engaged in an in-depth and collaborative effort to consult with City departments, representatives of low-income neighborhoods, non-profit and for-profit housing developers, service providers, social service agencies, homeless shelter and service providers, supportive housing and service providers, community stakeholders, community partners, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Salt Lake City continues to engage these critical partners regularly as we look to maximize our potential impact on an annual basis. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) Annual Action Plan 10 Salt Lake City is in regular communication with our regional funding partners Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Continuum of Care, and the State of Utah to coordinate about available funding, and gaps in funding and/or services. Additionally, SLC staff communicate regularly with private and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. HSD and other key City staff worked closely with regional planning groups, such as the Utah League of Cities and Towns, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Housing Coalition, and the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, as well as local service providers who provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness and/or behavioral health. The City also coordinates closely with staff from Salt Lake County and the State of Utah Office of Housing and Community Development and Homeless Services Offices. The City is also a key participant in Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and Salt Lake County Continuum of Care. The Coalition helps coordinate the Homeless Resource Centers, homeless supportive services, and affordable housing for homeless individuals in Salt Lake County with the goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. City staff participate with the Coalition’s Steering Committee, and various sub-committees and task groups including the coordinated entry task group. Housing Stability staff also participate with the Utah Homeless Management Information Services (HMIS) Steering Committee and the HOPWA Steering Committee. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system-wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis, and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and fulfill established outcomes. Outcomes focus on ending homelessness particularly that of chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Using these goals, the Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives serve on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and sub-committees, and actively participated in meetings and efforts. Annual Action Plan 11 Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during grant allocations. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Allocate ESG Funds Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make sure services are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Develop Performance Standards and Evaluate Outcomes The Salt Lake Continuum of Care and the three ESG funders share common measures to evaluate service providers. The three entities also share monitoring results of subrecipients. Efforts have been made to standardize data collection among the funding agencies. Develop Funding, Policies and Procedures for the Administration of HMIS The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City staff serve on the HMIS Steering Committee to develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes for all homeless service providers located in the Salt Lake CoC. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY PARTNERS 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Annual Action Plan 12 Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Refugees, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Housing Need Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Inc Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non-Homeless Special Needs, Lead-based Paint Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Advantage Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Veterans, Anti-poverty strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization International Rescue Committee Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Employment, Education, Other – Refugee Services, ESL Services Annual Action Plan 13 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Economic Development, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization The Childrens Center Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Children, Education, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Services – Fair Housing, Services – Legal Aid What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Public Housing Needs, Housing Needs Assessment Annual Action Plan 14 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Health, Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth, Non- Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Veterans, Homelessness Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization The Road Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing, Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth, Homelessness Strategy. Annual Action Plan 15 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing, PHA, Services - Housing, Homeless, Persons with HIV/AIDS What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Public Housing Needs, HOPWA Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Fourth Street Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative Annual Action Plan 16 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing, PHA, Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Public Housing Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government – County, Services – Elderly Persons, Services – Homeless, Planning Organization, Health Agency, Agency – Management of Public Land or Water Resources What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Homeless Needs, Lead- based Paint Strategy, Economic Development, Anti- Poverty Strategy, Public Housing Needs, Community Resiliency How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Local Government Agency that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Families with children, Veterans, Unaccompanied youth Annual Action Plan 17 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Sanctuary Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Victims of Domestic Violence, Housing, Homeless, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Homelessness Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake Community Action Program dba Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless, Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti- Poverty Strategy, HOPWA Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Needs - Annual Action Plan 18 Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homelessness Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 21 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Agency/Group/Organization Type Planning Organization, Local Government, Grantee Department What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Public Housing Needs, Market Analysis, Economic Development, Broadband Access, Digital Divide, Community Resiliency, Anti- Poverty Strategy, Lead-Based Paint Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Local Government Agency that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide Annual Action Plan 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting All agency types were invited to participate in the Annual Action Plan process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan COMMUNITY PLANS 1 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in-Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative to find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliable estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five-year period of this plan will focus on 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long-term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4) stabilizing low-income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitability and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City Annual Action Plan 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for future development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. H utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Continuum of Care Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re- house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs, optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. 6 Name of Plan The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City Lead Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan focuses on the creation of more equitable housing opportunities for Salt Lake City residents. The plan calls for the creation of more affordable housing and retention of existing affordable housing stock. 7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development Department How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. Annual Action Plan 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do about it. 10 Name of Plan ALL IN: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness Lead Organization United States Interagency Council on Homelessness How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Federal strategic plan that outlines the goal to reduce and ultimately end homelessness in the United States. AP-12 PARTICIPATION – 91.105, 91.200(C) Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans that reflect the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation. For the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, between May 2022 and May 2023, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, community-based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The full details of these efforts can be found in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated and 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan. For the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, between July 2022 to November 2022, Housing Stability staff, in coordination with the Community and Neighborhoods Department, conducted a survey to engage Annual Action Plan 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) members of the public and receive input on how federal funding could be prioritized. A total of 3,829 survey responses were received and approximately 4,423 individuals provided feedback including mapping the areas of the City where services should be located. See the attached Community Engagement Summary for additional information. Citizen Participation Outreach The below table outlines Salt Lake City’s citizen participation outreach for the 2023 AAP. Annual Action Plan 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 1 Internet Outreach Minorities; Non-English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 3,542 respondents Respondents ranked new affordable housing as their top housing priority, transit passes as their top transportation priority, affordable medical and dental services as their top community resiliency priority, and housing for persons experiencing homelessness as their top homelessness priority. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 2 Survey – Paper Form Individuals Experiencing Homelessness; Persons with Disabilities; Residents of Public and Assisted Housing, Minorities; Non-English Speaking; Spanish; Non- targeted/Broa d Community 287 respondents Respondents ranked new affordable housing as their top housing priority, transit passes as their top transportation priority, affordable medical and dental services as their top community resiliency priority, and housing for persons experiencing homelessness as their top homelessness priority. All responses were accepted. 3 Public Hearing Non- targeted/broa d community 3 respondents Two respondents spoke about the need for accessibility and mobility improvements for elderly homeowners and persons with disabilities. One respondent spoke for the need for mental health services. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 4 Public Hearing Non- targeted/broa d community 14 respondents. Most comments advocated for a specific organization. Topics included: homelessness, housing, supportive services, HIV/AIDS, and behavioral health services. All responses were accepted. 5 Public Notice / Newspaper Ad Non- targeted/broa d community 1 respondent. The comment was from an agency that received funding thanking the Mayor and City Council for their funding award. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES – 91.220(C)(1,2) Introduction The following table shows the expected resources for the 2023-24 program year. Anticipated Resources Annual Action Plan 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected Amount Available Remainder of Con Plan Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public - Federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services $3,397,763 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $5,597,763 $4,500,000 Funds include $3,397,763 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $1 million in program income and $1.2 million in reallocated funds. Reallocated funding came from several subrecipients who did not fully expend their funding and unspent CDBG administration funding. Annual Action Plan 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) HOME Public - Federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA $1,023,661 $800,000 $200,000 $2,023,661 $1,800,000 Funds include $1,023,661 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $800,000 in program income and $200,000 in reallocated funds. The reallocated funding came from one subrecipient who did not expend their $200,000 award during the previous program year. HOPWA Public - Federal Permanent housing in facilities Permanent housing placement STRMU Short term or transitional housing facilities Supportive services TBRA $932,841 $0 $80,000 $1,012,841 $1,000,000 Funds include $932,841 in annual entitlement award and $80,000 in reallocated funding. Reallocated funds came from unspent funding from all three HOPWA project sponsors. Annual Action Plan 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) ESG Public - Federal Conversion and rehab for transitional housing Financial Assistance Overnight shelter Rapid re-housing (rental assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional housing $303,100 $0 $0 $303,100 $300,000 $303,100 in annual entitlement award. Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied HUD encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds to achieve greater results. Matches require subrecipients to produce a specific amount of funding that will “match” the amount of program funds available. • HOME Investment Partnership Program – Salt Lake City utilizes impact fee waivers to cover the HOME match requirement. • Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subrecipients. Funding sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; City General Fund; in-kind match; and unrestricted donations. Annual Action Plan 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Leveraged funding means other local, state, and federal financial resources used to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following: • Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • New Market Tax Credits • RDA Development Funding • Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund • Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) • Salt Lake City General Fund • Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund • Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding • Continuum of Care Funding • Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners Annual Action Plan 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the redevelopment of City-owned land, strategic land acquisitions, expansion of the Community Land Trust for affordable housing, parcel assembly, and disposition. The Housing Stability Division will work collaboratively with other City Divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. Discussion Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state, and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs. Annual Action Plan 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals Summary Information The below table outlines the Consolidated Plan Goals and Objectives. Annual Action Plan 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Housing City Wide / MSA Affordable Housing $3,333,547 CDBG $98,508 ESG $1,921,295 HOME $877,256 HOPWA 378 – Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 190 – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 127 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 108 – HIV/AIDS Housing Operations 25 – Homelessness Prevention 8 – Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 3 – Homeowner Housing Added 1 – Rental Units Constructed 2 Transportation 2020 2024 Transportation City Wide / West Side Target Area Transportation $0 N/A Annual Action Plan 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 3 Community Resiliency 2020 2024 Economic Development / Public Services City Wide / West Side Target Area Build Community Resiliency $1,119,973 CDBG 609 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 20 – Façade Treatment/Business Building Rehabilitation 4 Homeless Services 2020 2024 Homeless City Wide Homeless Services $333,746 CDBG $181,860 ESG 1,652 - Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 687 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 5 Behavioral Health 2020 2024 Public Services / Behavioral Health City Wide / MSA Behavioral Health Services $130,945 CDBG $107,600 HOPWA 668 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 6 Administration 2020 2024 Administration City Wide N/A $679,552 CDBG $102,366 HOME $27,985 HOPWA $22,732 ESG N/A Table 2 – Goals Summary Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b) Salt Lake City is estimating that 170 LMI households will be served under the HOME program, as defined by 91.215(b), through a combination of addition or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, TBRA and Down Payment Assistance programs. Annual Action Plan 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-35 PROJECTS – 91.220(D) Introduction The goals and strategies outlined in Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan serve as the foundation for program year 2023-2024 projects and activities. The Consolidated Plan also addresses the need to utilize federal funding to further support housing, building community resiliency, homeless services, and behavioral health. Salt Lake City did not receive any applications for the transportation Consolidated Plan goal. However, progress will still be made on this through older activities that will be completed in the 2023-24 year. The Consolidated Plan goals will be supported through the following 2023-2024 efforts: Projects # Project Name 1 CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2023-24 2 CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency 2023-24 3 CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 2023-24 4 CDBG: Housing 2023-24 5 CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 6 CDBG: Administration 2023-24 7 ESG 2023-24 8 HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 2023-24 9 HOME: Down Payment Assistance 2023-24 10 HOME: Development Activities 2023-24 11 HOME: Administration 2023-24 12 HOPWA 2023-2024 Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Priorities include expanding affordable housing opportunities throughout the City, providing critical services for the City’s most vulnerable residents, expanding self-sufficiency for at-risk populations, and improving neighborhood conditions in concentrated areas of poverty. The City and partners are unable to fully address needs due to a lack of funding and resources. To address the lack of resources, the City will continue to engage with community development organizations, housing providers, housing developers, service providers, community councils, City departments, local businesses, residents, and other stakeholders to develop strategies for increasing impacts and meeting gaps in services. Annual Action Plan 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Summary Information 1 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2023-24 Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Homeless Services Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $333,746 Expected Resources: $339,746 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Homeless Services Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 1,649 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $56,249 YWCA Utah – DV & Residential Services $30,489 South Valley Sanctuary – Domestic Violence Shelter $55,450 The Road Home – Homeless Resource Centers $41,090 Catholic Community Services – Weigand Center $50,000 The Road Home – Housing Staffing $50,776 The INN Between – Medical Respite and Hospice $49,692 Salt Lake Donated Dental – Community Donated Dental Project Goal Outcome Indicators: 993 - Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 656 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 2 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training & Educational Programs 2023-24 Annual Action Plan 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Community Resiliency Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $194,973 Expected Resources: $194,973 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Community Resiliency Priority Needs Addressed: Build Community Resiliency Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 609 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $30,000 First Step House – Employment Preparation and Placement $43,995 Neighborhood House – Early Childhood Education $30,000 Legal Aid Society – Domestic Violence Victim Assistance $30,489 International Rescue Committee – Upward Mobility for Refugees $30,489 Wasatch Community Gardens – Green Team Job Training $30,000 Salt Lake American – Survival Services for Refugees Goal Outcome Indicators: 609 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 3 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 2023-24 Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Behavioral Health Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $130,945 Expected Resources: $130,945 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Behavioral Health Priority Needs Addressed: Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity Annual Action Plan 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 582 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $30,000 First Step House – Peer Support Services $40,456 Fourth Street Clinic – Health and Housing Transition Team $30,489 The Childrens Center Utah – Therapeutic Preschool $30,000 Odyssey House, Utah – Safety and Trauma Support Services Goal Outcome Indicators: 582 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 4 Project: CDBG: Housing 2023-24 Description: CDBG funding for Housing Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $3,333,547 Expected Resources: $3,333,547 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 470 low- to moderate-income households to be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $926,766 ASSIST Inc. – Emergency Home Repair & Accessibility and Community Design $379,703 First Step House – Recovery Residence Improvements $462,389 ICAST – Trolley Lane Rehabilitation and Decarbonizing Annual Action Plan 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) $406,267 NeighborWorks Salt Lake – Salt Lake Housing Services $41,142 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Small Repair Program $711,027 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Rehabilitation and Targeted Repair Program $406,253 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Shared Equity Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 89 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 3 – Homeowner Housing Added 378 – Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 5 Project: CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 Description: CDBG funding to support the Community Resiliency Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $925,000 Expected Resources: $925,000 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Community Resiliency Priority Needs Addressed: Build Community Resiliency Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates serving 20 businesses with these funds. Location Description: West Side Target Area Planned Activities: $925,000 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Neighborhood Business Improvement Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 20 - Facade Treatment/Business Building Rehabilitation 6 Project: CDBG: Administration 2023-24 Description: Salt Lake City CDBG Administration funding Estimated Amount: $679,552 Expected Resources: $679,552 in CDBG funding Annual Action Plan 40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Annual goals Supported: Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Affordable Housing Build Community Resiliency Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: No families will directly benefit from these funds since they are for the administration of the CDBG program. Location Description: City Wide / West Side Target Area Planned Activities: $679,552 Salt Lake City Housing Stability - CDBG Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: N/A 7 Project: ESG 2023-24 Description: ESG funding to support the Homeless Services and Housing Consolidated Plan Goals Estimated Amount: $303,100 Expected Resources: $303,100 in ESG funding Annual goals Supported: Homeless Services Housing Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 688 homeless individuals/families will be served with these funds. Annual Action Plan 41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Location Description: City Wide / Salt Lake Continuum of Care Planned Activities: $50,000 Catholic Community Services – Weigand Homeless Resource Center $40,636 First Step House – Resource Center Program $30,408 Family Promise Salt Lake – Community-Based Family Shelter $30,408 Volunteers of America, Utah – Youth Resource Center $30,408 Volunteers of America, Utah – Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $34,337 The Road Home – Rapid Re-Housing $32,318 Asian Association of Utah – Homeless Prevention $31,853 Utah Community Action – Diversion Program $22,732 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – ESG Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: 659 – Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 4 – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 25 – Homelessness Prevention 8 Project: HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 2023-24 Description: HOME funds for TBRA activities. Estimated Amount: $796,399 Expected Resources: $796,399 in HOME funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 125 low- to moderate-income individuals/households will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $138,431 South Valley Services – DV Survivor Housing Assistance Annual Action Plan 42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) $99,372 Volunteers of America, Utah – YRC Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $208,757 Utah Community Action – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $349,839 The Road Home – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Goal Outcome Indicators: 125 - Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 9 Project: HOME: Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 2023-24 Description: HOME funds for direct financial assistance to homebuyer activities Estimated Amount: $563,026 Expected Resources: $563,026 Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 8 low- to moderate- income households will be served with the funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $213,950 Community Development Corporation of Utah – Down Payment Assistance $349,076 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Salt Lake City Homebuyer Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 8 – Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 10 Project: HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund 2023-24 Description: Funding, including the HOME CHDO Set-Aside, for eligible development activities. Estimated Amount: $561,870 Expected Resources: $561,870 Annual goals Supported: Housing Annual Action Plan 43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 38 low- to moderate-income households will benefit and 1 low-to moderate-income rental unit will be constructed with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $408,320 First Step House – Stratford Apartments $153,550 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOME CHDO Set-Aside Goal Outcome Indicators: 38 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 11 Project: HOME: Administration 2023-24 Description: Funding for the Administration of the HOME Investment Partnership Program. Estimated Amount: $102,366 Expected Resources: $102,366 in HOME funding Annual goals Supported: Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: No families will directly benefit from these funds since they are for the administration of the HOME program. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $102,366 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOME Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: N/A 12 Project: HOPWA23: Salt Lake City Description: Funding for eligible activities under the Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) program. Annual Action Plan 44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Estimated Amount: $1,012,841 Expected Resources: $1,012,841 in HOPWA funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Behavioral Health Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunities Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 255 low- to-moderate individuals/families with HIV/AIDS will benefit from these funds. Location Description: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Planned Activities: $75,319 Utah AIDS Foundation – Supportive Services Program $107,600 Utah AIDS Foundation – Mental Health Services $626,102 Housing Connect – Tenant Based Rental Assistance $172,835 Utah Community Action – STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services $27,985 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOPWA Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: 108 – HIV/AIDS Housing Operations 61 - Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 86 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit AP-50 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION – 91.220(F) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Locally defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighborhoods with the most severe needs. Annual Action Plan 45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designed to allow for a locally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the entirety of the associated Consolidated Plan period, will be identified as, “West Side Target Area”, as shown on the map below. CDBG and other federal funding will be concentrated, but not necessarily limited to, the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximize community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. During this Annual Action Plan period, infrastructure projects such as transportation projects and commercial façade improvements will be limited to this target area. Housing activities will happen city wide, however, a more concentrated marketing strategy for rehabilitation efforts will be deployed in the West Side Target Area as an opportunity to expand housing stability. SLC also uses the most current ACS Summary Data from HUD to determine eligible areas for LMA activities. Annual Action Plan 46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds CDBG Eligible Areas 0% City Wide 64% Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 5% West Side Target Area 31% Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic activities to persons of low- and moderate-income. To support the CDBG program’s primary objectives, Salt Lake City is taking a two-pronged approach to the distribution of funding: Direct funding to local target areas to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. Utilize funding city wide, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to support the city’s most vulnerable populations. This includes the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, persons with disabilities, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. ESG funding is distributed within the Salt Lake Continuum of Care to support emergency shelter, day services, resource centers, rapid re-housing, and homeless prevention activities. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care spans the entirety of Salt Lake County. The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income households. HOME funding is distributed city wide to provide direct financial assistance to homebuyers, tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation. The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funding is distributed throughout the Salt Lake City MSA, which is comprised of two counties, Salt Lake and Tooele, to provide project-based rental assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, and supportive services. Annual Action Plan 47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The majority of funding is utilized in Salt Lake County, as most HIV/AIDS services are located in the Salt Lake area. The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low-and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources. Salt Lake City allows service providers to utilize their funds according to governing regulations of the grants. CDBG and HOME funds can be used city wide. Salt Lake City did not receive any LMA applications this year, which are limited to CDBG Eligible Areas. ESG funds can be used within the Salt Lake CoC and HOPWA funds can be used in the Salt Lake MSA. Discussion The City’s west side and central corridor areas continue to have economic disparities that can be addressed through investments of CDBG and other funding. While not limited to the target area, housing rehabilitation and other services will be heavily marketed in the target area. Throughout this plan period and beyond, the City will leverage and strategically target funding for neighborhood improvements, transportation improvements, and economic development to maximize impact within targeted neighborhoods. AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.220(G) Introduction The Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability Division is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, as in all U.S. cities, through a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 29 Non-Homeless 275 Special-Needs 420 Total 724 Annual Action Plan 48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 215 The Production of New Units 1 Rehab of Existing Units 505 Acquisition of Existing Units 3 Total 724 Discussion Salt Lake City utilizes a data-driven strategy for ensuring long-term affordability and preservation, while balancing the unique need of the City’s neighborhoods. The City will support affordable housing activities through use of all four CPD grant programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Activities will be targeted to individuals and families from 0-80% AMI and will include: • Tenant-based rental assistance • Short-term rental/utility assistance • Rapid re-housing • Rental housing rehabilitation • Homeowner housing rehabilitation and • Direct financial assistance for eligible homebuyers. An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reasonable range of low-income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance: • US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2021: o The median home value was $380,200. o The median household income was $65,880. • HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2022, Salt Lake City Metro Area, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $81,900 • ACS data, Salt Lake City, 2022: o The percentage of households under the poverty line: 14.7% of total population o The median monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,739 • According to UtahRealEstate.com, the median home price in Salt Lake City in April 2023 was $570,000 with an average price of $666,718. Between July 2022 to March 2023, 35 Salt Lake City homes sold for between $100,000-$299,999. Annual Action Plan 49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING – 91.220(H) Introduction The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units, and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. HASLC strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low-income families (50% of area median income and below). This program provides rental subsidies to 2,777 low-income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients through this and other voucher programs. 1,518 of these vouchers are located within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional qualified program participants. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing HASLC has goals that include an increased focus on assisting local leaders and agencies respond to homelessness in the City, as well as developing and attaining more capacity for additional living units through real estate activities, rehabilitation, pursuing new SRO projects, developing increased relationships and services targeting and attracting landlords. HASLC also utilizes HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) to preserve and improve their many properties. HASLC continues to look for ways Annual Action Plan 50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) to expand their portfolio by identifying challenging properties and continuing to develop catalytic and transformative projects and programming. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Both HASLC and Housing Connect, previously Salt Lake County Housing Authority, have active monthly tenant meetings and encourage participation in management decisions related to the specific housing communities. Housing Connect has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing, Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appointed to the Housing Connect’s Board of Commissioners. HASLC operates Family Self-Sufficiency programs that address areas of improving personal finances and homeownership preparation for voucher recipients. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Housing Connect and HASLC are both designated as high performers. Discussion Public housing is a vital tool for Salt Lake City’s goal of affordable housing and ending homelessness. The City will continue to work with the Housing Authorities and other partners in this area. AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL N EEDS ACTIVITIES – 91.220(I) Introduction Salt Lake City works with a large homeless services community to reduce the number of persons experiencing homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness, increase successful transitions out of homelessness, and reduce the number of instances that clients may return to homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Salt Lake County Continuum of Care’s (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care’s priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. The three local ESG funders also meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to ensure an accurate level of funding is provided to match the community’s service needs and goals. Additionally, the City participates in Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the State Homelessness Coordinating Committee to further coordinate efforts. Annual Action Plan 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The Salt Lake County CoC contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Utah Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Representatives from Salt Lake City sit on the HMIS Steering Committee. HMIS data allows Salt Lake City and its partners to track the effectiveness of programs and gauge the continuing service needs of the community. The State of Utah, in coordination with local service providers and volunteers, conducts an annual Point- In-Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI-SPDAT assessment tool to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street and into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Personalized and persistent one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services, Volunteers of America, the Department of Veterans Affairs, The Road Home, and others. Housing Stability’s Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART) coordinates a wide array of efforts designed to engage and meet the needs of unsheltered persons residing in Salt Lake City. These efforts include regularly scheduled resource fairs that bring service providers directly to areas where unsheltered individuals are residing. Annual Action Plan 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Salt Lake City provided paper surveys to the Homeless Resource Centers as part of the engagement efforts. Housing Stability Staff also attended a homeless resource fair that was coordinated by the HEART Team. See the attached Engagement Report for additional details. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First model. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First model has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non-supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is continuing to work to meet the needs of all persons experiencing homelessness, including with CDBG, ESG, and HOPWA funds. There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting homeless resource centers, day services, and providing a free storage program. These centers also provide essential services to the homeless population, including food, storage, case management and behavioral health services. Our goal is that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Salt Lake City will continue aiming to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living. Salt Lake City has been working with service partners and other governmental agencies through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH). This includes work on various subgroups that focus on specific areas of service, including housing and coordinated entry. Salt Lake City has the goal to help Annual Action Plan 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) streamline service delivery to the homeless community with the express purpose of shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness. Salt Lake City has also funded the creation of new permanent supportive housing units and programs which serve the most vulnerable members of our community. Progress is being made on both goals. Through the City’s Funding Our Future efforts, the City has funded a variety of housing programs that aim to fill in gaps in services in our community. These programs include a shared housing program and housing programs which target families with children, individuals with substance abuse disorders, refugees, and victims of domestic violence. Salt Lake City also received approval from HUD for its HOME ARP Allocation Plan on May 11, 2023. This plan includes over $1.5 million for the development of new affordable housing units targeted towards persons and families experiencing homelessness. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care, works to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short-term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Utah Community Action also conducts Diversion at all the Homeless Resource Centers and the Weigand Day Center for homeless individuals, which is partially funded by Salt Lake City ESG Homelessness Prevention funds. Housing Stability has also created a new staff position that will be focused on providing tenant support and legal rights information to reduce evictions, which can often lead to homelessness and become a barrier to obtaining new housing. This position was filled in April 2023. The Salt Lake Coalition to End Homelessness, along with Salt Lake City, coordinates regularly with health care facilities, mental health facilities, and other institutions to ensure that those exiting those facilities have access to resources to help prevent homelessness. Annual Action Plan 54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Discussion Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from entering homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and families experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness. Increased housing and rental costs continue to be a challenge for these efforts, but the City and its partners are working diligently with the limited funding available to make strides towards making homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring. AP-70 HOPWA GOALS– 91.220 (L)(3) One-year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA for: Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance Payments: 38 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: 61 Units Provided in Permanent Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 Units provided in Transitional Short-Term Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 TOTAL: 99 AP-75 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.220(J) Introduction: As discussed in sections MA-40 and SP-55 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, several barriers to the development and preservation of affordable housing exist within Salt Lake City, including the following: • Land costs • Construction costs • Housing and transportation costs • Development and rehabilitation financing • Housing rehabilitation complexities • Foreclosures and loan modifications • Neighborhood market conditions Annual Action Plan 55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Economic conditions • Land use regulations • Development fees and assessments • Permit processing procedures • Environmental review procedures • Lack of zoning and development incentives • Complicated impact fee waiver process • Competition for limited development incentives • Landlord tenant policies • "NIMBYism” While not all of these barriers can be addressed with federal funding, during the 2023-2024 program year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing through the following planning efforts and initiatives: • Development of a new 5-year housing plan, Housing SLC. • The creation of an anti-displacement plan, Thriving in Place. • Working to affirmatively further fair housing with the help of partner agencies such as the Disability Law Center. • Work collaboratively with service providers and the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, to improve and strengthen our homelessness response system. • Continue to provide affordable home ownership opportunities through federal and nonfederal funding sources. • Leverage City-owned land in the creation of new affordable housing • Coordinate with the Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency and their efforts to increase affordable housing. • More responsive zoning policies that help meet the needs of a growing City and a difficult housing market. Annual Action Plan 56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing through the following efforts: • Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following: o Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. o An Affordable Housing Overlay zone that allows for and provides incentives for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. o A Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance that allows for SROs in neighborhoods throughout the City. o Off-Street Parking Ordinance update to improve pedestrian-scale development and amenities. o Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning amendments to remove local zoning barriers to housing density and types of housing. o ADU ordinance to allow for the creation of additional units in single family neighborhoods. • Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including city- owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development. • Funding Targeting: The Housing Stability Division is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc.). • Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s Fair Housing Action Plan as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Annual Action Plan 57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, and rapid re- housing. Discussion: Housing Stability, other city divisions, and policy makers will continue to work towards removing or ameliorating the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS – 91.220(K) Introduction: This section outlines Salt Lake City’s efforts to carry out the following: • Address obstacles to meeting underserved needs • Foster and maintain affordable housing • Reduce lead-based paint hazards • Reduce the number of poverty-level families • Develop institutional structure • Enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies • Radon Mitigation Policy Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The most substantial impediment in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding and resources. Strategic shifts identified through Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide a framework for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations on underserved needs. Underserved needs and strategic actions are as follows: Underserved Need: Affordable housing • Actions: Salt Lake City is utilizing federal and local resources to expand both rental and homeownership opportunities. In addition, the City is utilizing public land to leverage private capital for the development of affordable housing. These efforts will work to address the affordable housing gap in Salt Lake City. Annual Action Plan 58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Underserved Need: Homelessness • Actions: Salt Lake City is working with housing and homeless service providers to coordinate and streamline processes for service delivery. The State of Utah and Utah Homeless Management Information System are working to create a screening survey for prioritization of vulnerable and homeless individuals. These efforts will assist in addressing unmet needs by utilizing resources more effectively. Underserved Need: Special needs individuals. • Actions: Salt Lake City is working to address underserved needs for refugees, immigrants, the elderly, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and persons with a disability by providing resources for basic needs, as well as resources to expand self-sufficiency. For example, federal funding is utilized to provide early childhood education for refugees and other at-risk children; create accessibility improvements for elderly or disabled residents; improve immediate and long-term outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS; provide job training for vulnerable populations; and provide medical services for at risk populations. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City is committed to fostering and maintaining affordable housing throughout our City. This is evident through identifying specific gaps that exist in the community, and then designing affordable housing efforts specifically to address these needs. The City aims to target households earning 80% AMI and below, with emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Through the housing initiatives and efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City aims to: • Address the City’s affordable housing shortage for those most in need. • Address housing needs for Salt Lake City’s changing demographics. • Address neighborhood specific needs, including the following: o Protect affordability in neighborhoods where affordability is disappearing. o Promote affordability in neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing. • Preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock. • Strengthen the City’s relationship with our housing partners, financial institutions, and foundations. Annual Action Plan 59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Support those who develop and advocate for affordable housing. Toward this end, Salt Lake City will foster and maintain affordable housing during the 2023-2024 program year through the following actions: • Utilize CDBG funding to support owner-occupied rehabilitation for households at 80% AMI and below. • Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated and blighted housing. • Utilize ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to create housing opportunities for individuals and households at 30% AMI and below through Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and Rapid Re- Housing. • Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for direct financial assistance to homebuyers at 80% AMI and below. • Promote the development of affordable housing with low-income housing tax credits, Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s HOME Development Fund and other funding sources. • Leverage public resources, including publicly owned land, with private capital for the development of affordable housing. • Work to ameliorate and/or eliminate housing impediments for protected classes as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan’s Fair Housing Action Plan. • Work to leverage other city resources such as Redevelopment Agency funding/strategies, maximize sales tax housing funding, and other sources as they are identified with federal funding where applicable. • Salt Lake City launched a Community Land Trust that currently has sixteen properties, with plans to increase the number of properties in the next program year. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards Because of the high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City that were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in- Annual Action Plan 60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. During the 2023- 2024 program year, the City will work in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, to include the following: • Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils. • Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead-based paint hazard awareness in minority communities. • Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as having elevated blood levels. • Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation. • Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households at risk of moving towards poverty from doing so, the City is focusing on a two-pronged approach: 1. Creating neighborhoods of opportunity to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Support the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in several socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, school-readiness of young children, employment skills of at-risk adults, access to transportation for low-income households, and access to fresh foods for food-insecure families. Efforts will focus on the following objectives: • Assist low-income individuals to maximize their incomes. • Reduce the linkages between poor health and poverty. • Expand housing opportunities. Annual Action Plan 61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Reduce the impacts of poverty on children. • Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services. Federal entitlement funds allocated through this 2023-2024 Action Plan will support the City’s anti- poverty strategy through the following efforts: • Provide job training for vulnerable populations. • Provide early childhood education to limit the effects of intergenerational poverty. • Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations. • Provide housing rehabilitation for low-income homeowners. • Expanded affordable housing opportunities. • Improved neighborhood and commercial infrastructure in West Side Target Area. • Enhance support for small businesses and micro-enterprise businesses. • Reduce food insecurities for low-income households. Actions planned to develop institutional structure As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is building upon the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and continuing to take a coordinated and strategic shift in allocating federal entitlement funds to place a stronger emphasis on community needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes. This includes the following efforts to strengthen and develop institutional structure: • Geographically target infrastructure and economic development funding to areas of the city with higher poverty rates, lower incomes, and/or reduced access to transportation. • Increase coordination between housing and supportive service providers to reduce/eliminate duplicative efforts, encourage partnerships, increase transparency, and standardize processes. • Strengthen support for the City’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, individuals with disabilities, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. • Support housing efforts that connect residents with supportive services and programs that improve self-sufficiency. Annual Action Plan 62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Offer technical assistance to agencies implementing projects with CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding to ensure compliance and support of program objectives. • Support employee training and certifications to expand the internal knowledge base on HUD programs, as well as housing and community development best practices. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of coordination between supportive service and housing providers in meeting priority needs. Stakeholders have been working towards developing and implementing a streamlined and effective delivery system to include the following efforts: • Created and implemented a no wrong door approach to accessing housing and other services. • Increased coordination through the Salt Lake County’s Continuum of Care, Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, the Utah Homeless Management Information System, and State Homeless Coordinating Council. • Coordinated assessments to help individuals and families experiencing homeless move through the system faster. • Coordinated diversion and homeless prevention resources to reduce new entries into homelessness. • Coordinated efforts to house the highest users of the homeless services and provide trauma informed case management. • Improved weekly “housing triage” meetings that provide a format for developing a housing plan for homeless individuals and families with the most urgent housing needs. Discussion: Salt Lake City will continue to work on the above and other efforts to improve the health, safety, stability, prosperity, and opportunities for its residents. AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS – 91.220(L)(1,2,4) Introduction: Salt Lake City’s program specific requirements for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA are outlined as follows. Annual Action Plan 63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $0 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 90% HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2) A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: Salt Lake City does not utilize HOME funding beyond those identified in Section 92.205. Subrecipients for HOME funded projects are selected in the same manner as the other CPD grants. Competitive applications are given an administrative score and scored by a resident advisory board. The board makes funding recommendations that are sent to the mayor, and then the Council, who finalize the award decisions. During this process there are two public hearings that are conducted, one in the fall and another in the spring at a public City Council meeting. Additional public feedback is also gathered throughout the year through surveys and at public events. This process is outlined in further detail in Appendix C Citizen Participation Plan in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and AP-12 Participation of this Action Plan. Annual Action Plan 64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: When Salt Lake City awards HOME funds for homebuyer activities, the following will apply if a sale or transfer of the property is made during the period of affordability: 1) Recapture provisions will apply when a homebuyer or subrecipient receives direct HOME assistance to purchase the affordable home (i.e., for a downpayment, closing costs, or other HOME assistance). 2) Resale provisions will apply when HOME assistance is provided for development subsidies, acquisition of existing units by housing organizations, and homes placed in community land trusts. Definitions DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY: A development subsidy is generally financial assistance given to the developer, who can then offer the home at a lower sales price and reduce the homebuyer’s housing costs. While the subsidy does not go directly to the homebuyer, it helps make development of an affordable home feasible. DIRECT HOMEBUYER SUBSIDY: A direct subsidy consists of any financial assistance that reduces the purchase price from fair market value to an affordable price, or otherwise directly subsidizes the purchase (i.e., downpayment or closing cost assistance, subordinate financing). HOMEBUYER INVESTMENT: The homebuyer’s investment consists of the portion of initial downpayment paid by the homebuyer combined with the value of any capital improvements made with the homebuyer’s funds, and any loan principal paid down during the homebuyer’s period of ownership. NET PROCEEDS: The sales price minus loan repayment (other than HOME funds) and closing costs. Under no circumstances can the City recapture more than is available from the net proceeds of the sale (i.e., voluntary sales including short sales, and involuntary sales including foreclosures). NONCOMPLIANCE: Failure to comply with the resale or recapture requirements means that: The HOME-assisted homebuyer no longer occupies the unit as their principal residence (i.e., unit is rented or vacant); or the home is voluntarily or involuntarily transferred in a transaction changing ownership without proper notice and the appropriate provisions were not enforced. Annual Action Plan 65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) PERIOD OF AFFORDABILITY: The number of years that resale and recapture policies will be in effect when HOME funds are used. The minimum number of years is determined by the amount of the investment. HOME Funds Provided for Homebuyer Activity subject to Recapture of HOME Funds Minimum years of Affordability Under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 15 Years SUBRECIPIENT: A subrecipient is a public or private nonprofit agency, authority, or organization that receives HOME funds to undertake eligible HOME activities (e.g., provide downpayment or closing costs assistance, or homeowner rehabilitation). RECAPTURE PROVISIONS Used when HOME assistance is provided to a homebuyer purchasing a regular market home. Homebuyers/subrecipients who are awarded HOME funds for direct homebuyer assistance (downpayment assistance, closing costs, interest subsidies, or other HOME assistance) must follow the recapture guidelines if the property is sold or transferred during the affordability period. Depending on the level of homebuyer assistance provided, the affordability period may be five years (less than $15,000 in direct assistance), ten years ($15,000 or more but less than $40,000), or fifteen years ($40,000 or more). When the home is sold or transferred during the period of affordability, the homebuyer/subrecipient must repay the City the full amount of HOME funds received through downpayment assistance, closing costs, or other HOME assistance provided directly to them, and any financial assistance that reduced the purchase price from fair market value to an affordable price. Example The City provides $75,000 in HOME development funds to a developer who sells the property for fair market value at $60,000. The homebuyer is also provided HOME down payment Annual Action Plan 66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) assistance in the amount of $5,000. The City uses the recapture option to ensure affordability. The period of affordability for this property is five years because the property was sold for fair market value and the direct assistance to the homebuyer is therefore $5,000. Alternately, if the fair market value of this same property was $75,000, and the developer sold the property to the homebuyer for $60,000, the period of affordability would be ten years because the assistance that enables the homebuyer to purchase the unit is $20,000 ($15,000 subsidy to write down the purchase price plus the $5,000 down payment assistance). The HOME-assisted homebuyer is allowed to sell the home to any willing buyer at any price as long as the HOME debt remaining on the property is repaid. If the net sales proceeds are inadequate to fully repay the City’s HOME loan, the City accepts the net proceeds as full and final payoff of the note. The City is never permitted to recapture more than is available from net proceeds of the sale (i.e., voluntary sales including short sales, and involuntary sales including foreclosures). The net proceeds of a sale are the sales price minus non-HOME loan repayments and any closing costs. When the net sales proceeds exceed the City assistance, the HOME-assisted homebuyer retains all remaining net proceeds after repaying the HOME loan balance. The City reserves the right to determine that the sales price reflects fair market value. If the City receives payment, the City for other HOME-eligible activities. Or the City may agree to a written agreement that specifies that the subrecipient keeps the recaptured funds for use for other HOME-eligible activities. Any time recaptured funds are reused to assist a subsequent homebuyer, a new period of affordability will start. Lien documents, deed restrictions, covenants that run with the land, or other similar mechanisms will be used to impose recapture provisions. Documents containing these provisions will be executed at the closing of the home purchase and will be recorded at that time. In addition, the City will execute a written agreement between the homebuyer and the City, which will clearly explain: amount and use of the loan; length of the affordability period based on the dollar amount of City funds invested; • requirement that the property be the primary residence of the household throughout the period of affordability; • recapture provisions based on net proceeds available from sale, transfer or foreclosure of the home. Annual Action Plan 67 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Only those grantee users with administrative privileges can edit grantee program contact information. Users with these privileges will see an additional “Admin” module in the blue, top bar. Each organization is required to list a first contract, and is encouraged to list a second contact if possible, for each of the CPD programs where the organization is the direct recipient of HUD funding. To edit program contact information, the Local Grantee Administrator should: 1. Click the Grantee/PJ tab to display the View Grantee screen. On the navigation bar (left-hand side of the screen), click on the “Edit Contacts” link. 2. The “Chief Elected Official” section and each program area has a set of links including “Update,” New,” and “Change to Another.” Select “Update” to edit the information for the existing program contact and select “New” to add a new program contact. The “Change to Another” link can be used to search for and select a different contact as the new program contact. In order to preserve the number of affordable housing units for continued benefit to low-income residents, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds used to assist homeownership be recaptured whenever assisted units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of affordability. Homeownership Resale: When HOME funding is provided directly to a developer to reduce development costs, thereby making the price of the home affordable to the homebuyer, the funds are not repaid by the developer to the City but remain with the property for the length of the affordability period. This keeps HOME-assisted units affordable over the entire affordability period. Under the resale option, if the homeowner decides to sell the home during the period of affordability: Annual Action Plan 68 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • The sale price must be affordable to a range of subsequent low-income owner-occupied households. • Subsequent homebuyers must be income-qualified under the HOME program and must occupy the home as their principal residence. • The homeowner must be provided a fair return on investment when applicable (i.e., the downpayment plus capital improvements made to the house), while ensuring that the home is sold to another income qualified household. o In some cases, it may be necessary for the City to provide HOME assistance to the subsequent homeowner to ensure that the original homeowner receives a fair return and the unit is affordable to the defined low-income population. The resale price cannot be set based upon what is affordable to a specific homebuyer. FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT. The homeowner may receive the money they invested into the property back from the sale proceeds. The value of the homeowner investment is calculated by adding: • The homeowner’s investment (i.e. downpayment and/or closing costs) at the time of initial purchase, • The principal paid on the senior debt during the period of ownership, and • Capital improvements (any individual improvements made specifically to the structure or major system of the HOME assisted housing unit in which the cost was more than $3,000.00 and where applicable, the work was properly permitted, inspected locally, and documented with third party receipts). The homeowner’s fair return on investment is measured using: • A formula that allows 1.5% annum simple interest for the number of years of ownership -OR- (whichever is the lessor of the two calculations) • The Consumer Price index, calculated from the month and year of purchase of the home to the month and year of the Intent-to-Sell Notice or other event triggering the Resale Option. The calculation shall be derived from the Bureau of Labor statistics online calculator or any successor: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl Annual Action Plan 69 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The total return at sale, assuming the price at sale permits the homeowner to realize a full return on the investment, would be the lesser of the two calculations. Note: that in certain circumstances, such as a declining housing market where home values are depreciating, the homeowner may not receive a return on their investment because the home sold for less or the same price as the original purchase price. RESALE PROCESS: When a Resale is triggered during the Period of Affordability, the HOME-assisted homeowner must notify the City in writing no less than 60 days prior to such sell or transfer -to- . In order to ensure that all resale requirements are met, the City will • agree to the new sale price with consultation from the contracted agency and written third party appraisal. • confirm the Fair Return calculation to the HOME-assisted homeowner, and equity amounts to the homeowner, developer and the City. • review the income eligibility of the subsequent homebuyer. o Subsequent homebuyer must be low-income as defined by HOME o Sales price must be affordable to the subsequent homebuyer; affordable is defined as limiting the Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance (PITI) amount to no more than 30% of the subsequent homebuyer’s gross monthly income. • ensure the subsequent homebuyer will use the property as their principal residence. • determine whether the subsequent homebuyer will continue the Period of Affordability in effect. HOME PROGRAM QUALIFIED. Once the City determines that all resale process requirements are met, a written agreement will be executed between the subsequent homebuyer and the City, which will clearly explain: • amount and use of the loan; • length of the affordability period based on the dollar amount of City funds invested; • requirement that the property be the primary residence of the household throughout the period of affordability; Annual Action Plan 70 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • conditions and obligations of the subsequent homebuyer should they wish to sell before the end of the affordability period. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: See the below table for the affordability period for HOME funding projects. Rental Housing Activity Minimum years of Affordability Rehab or acquisition of existing housing per unit amount of HOME funds under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 or rehab involving refinancing 15 Years New construction or acquisition of newly constructed housing 20 Years CONTINUED AFFORDABILITY. To provide continued affordability of the property, the City will ensure that the sales price not exceed what is affordable to households below 80% of area median income (AMI). The City defines “affordable price” as a price that is at or below an amount that will allow a low- income family to pay no more than 30% of their monthly income to pay for mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and insurance. In no case will the price exceed the HOME Program purchase price limits as defined by HUD. ENFORCEMENT OF RESALE PROVISIONS. The HOME-assisted homeowner will be responsible for notifying the City to ensure that resale provisions are followed if properties are sold or transferred during the period of affordability. To accomplish this, lien documents, deed restrictions, covenants running with the land, or other similar mechanisms will be used to guarantee the period of affordability. Documents containing these provisions will be executed at the closing of the home purchase and will be recorded at that time. REPAYMENT Annual Action Plan 71 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) If homebuyer violates compliance requirements during the period of affordability, the City may enforce a Repayment provision in which homebuyer is responsible for repaying to the City the entire HOME investment. The HOME Resale and Recapture policies are intended to implement the HUD HOME program requirements concerning resale, recapture and repayment. In the event there is ambiguity in this policy, or in the event this policy does not address a specific question, the City will look to HUD regulations, guidance documents, and program notices as persuasive authority on such questions. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows: Not applicable. Salt Lake City does not intend to use HOME funds to refinance multifamily housing debt. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 91.220(l)(4) Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment) The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Policies include written standards for providing ESG assistance. Salt Lake City’s updated ESG policies and procedures are attached to this Annual Action Plan. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care has developed a collaborative, written coordinated assessment plan. Consensus exists for a coordinated assessment plan that covers the entire Continuum of Care with a multi-access entry point quick assessment method for any homeless individual or family in need of emergency shelter or service. Our 2-1-1 system, service providers, government agencies, and others publicize all existing access points, as well as a central phone number that assists those who express a housing related emergency. The phone number is staffed by Utah Community Action and guides the caller to the one or many resources can serve the caller, The CoC is striving to do everything we can to ensure individuals and families in need have clear direction for accessing appropriate services. After entry into an emergency service, individuals are tracked as they progress toward housing and/or support interventions. All homeless families and those individuals prioritized for permanent supportive Annual Action Plan 72 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) housing placements are guided toward this centralized process and placed into one of several housing programs depending on assessment. Standardized assessments include a quick assessment for emergency services and eligibility and enrollment materials for housing placements. Representatives of the City worked with the CoC, ESG funders, and service providers to improve the coordinated assessment system to meet requirements set forth in Notice CPD-17-01. Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations). Granting sub-awards is an intensive, months-long process. It begins with applications being made available and workshops held to explain different federal grant programs and eligible activities under each. SLC staff also reach out to potential applicants through the Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Council, the local Continuum of Care, the Utah Housing Coalition, and others. After the application period closes, a general needs hearing is conducted to help guide how ESG monies should be spent. Applications are discussed with a resident advisory board in a public forum. Applicants are invited to meet with the resident advisory board to answer final questions or provide additional information regarding their programs and their role in the larger homeless services system structure. The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP Board) reviews the ESG applications and makes a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Mayor based on federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. The Mayor then makes a recommendation on funding to the City Council based on the CDCIP board recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. The City Council holds a public hearing to receive comments on the program applications and recommendations. The City Council then makes a funding decision based on public comments, the Mayor’s recommendations, CDCIP Board recommendations, federal guidelines, the 5-Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR Annual Action Plan 73 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG. Before the Salt Lake City Council makes the final funding decisions for ESG funds, there are multiple venues for public outreach including two public hearings. Efforts are made to include participation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals. Emergency Solutions Grant funds, along with other public and private monies, are used by Salt Lake City to implement our short- and long-term homeless service goals. Individuals experiencing homelessness often help the city craft and implement short-term and long- term service plans. Specific outreach for the development of the Annual Action Plan is done at homeless resource centers and at resource fairs, which are targeted towards those experiencing unsheltered homelessness. ESG subrecipients and other homeless service providers routinely consult with current and formerly homeless individuals to make programming and service delivery decisions. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG. Salt Lake City scores programs receiving Emergency Solutions Grant funding using the performance metrics required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local priorities. To increase transparency, leverage resources, and maximize efficiencies, Salt Lake City does the following: • All applications undergo a risk analysis prior to the awarding of funds. • Standardized quarterly reporting is reviewed for compliance, timeliness, and accuracy. • Monitoring and technical assistance risk analyses are performed on all subgrantees to determine which organization would benefit from monitoring or technical assistance visits. • Collect information that supports the required performance measurement metrics and provides context on local initiatives. Annual Action Plan 74 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) To ensure consistent performance metrics, the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer Utah’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City reviews HMIS data to ensure grantees are properly using funds as promised in their contracts and meeting larger City, Continuum of Care, and State goals. Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) Identify the method of selecting project sponsors and describe the one-year goals for HOPWA funded projects: Project Sponsors for HOPWA projects are selected in the same manner as the other CPD grants. Competitive applications are given an administrative score and scored by a resident advisory board. The board makes funding recommendations that are sent to the mayor, and then the Council, who finalize the award decisions. During this process there are two public hearings that are conducted, one in the fall and another in the spring at a public City Council meeting. Additional public feedback is also gathered throughout the year through surveys and at public events. This process is outlined in further detail in Appendix C Citizen Participation Plan in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and AP-12 Participation of this Action Plan. Our one-year goals are outlined in AP-20 and AP-35 and include providing supportive services to 156 households, STRMU and PHP to 38 households, and TBRA services to 61 households. These services will help to support our Consolidated Plan goals for Housing and Behavioral Health services. Discussion: Salt Lake City appreciates its partnership with HUD and the services that are made possible by the funding provided through the annual entitlement programs. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 SALT LAKE CITY SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: VICTORIA PETRO, VICE CHAIR DISTRICT 2: ALEJANDRO PUY DISTRICT 3: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO, CHAIR DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: SARAH YOUNG Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING STABILITY DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT 1 EXHIBIT 4 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 August 2023 PY 2023 Salt Lake City CDBG & HOME Program Income Substantial Amendment SUMMARY As an Entitlement City, Salt Lake City (the “City”) annually receives federal block grant funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), including through the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) and Home Investment Partnerships (“HOME”) programs. In addition to being an Entitlement City, the Housing Stability Division (“Division”) receives CDBG and HOME funds, through the annual allocation process, for City-administered direct-delivery programs to preserve and expand affordable housing opportunities. On an annual basis, the Division deploys millions of dollars to address the critical needs of residents and neighborhoods. Some of these projects and program generate revenue, known as Program Income (PI). PI is gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds. This may include, but is not limited to, proceeds from the disposition or sale of real property purchased or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; income from the use or rental of real property acquired, constructed, or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; and payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG or HOME funds. The Division’s two largest programs in scope and scale are the Home Repair and Homebuyer programs (the “Housing Programs”). The Housing Programs have generated PI from the disposition of property and payments of principal and interest on loans made with CDBG and HOME funds. Approximately $1 to $1.5 million in PI generated from the Housing Programs has historically been included in the Division’s annual budget and has been used for operating capital for the programs. However, more PI has been generated than was being budgeted annually, leaving a surplus in unused and allocated PI (the “Dormant PI”). Program Income generated as a result of activities originally funded through CDBG and HOME programs retain their federal identity in perpetuity and are subject to all federal requirements. On February 7, 2023, the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and the Division briefed the City Council on Program Income funds that have been received and retained by the City, and the availability of these funds for housing and community development activities. On June 1, 2023, CAN and the Division also submitted an informational transmittal, outlining the updated PI amounts, providing funding recommendations to consider during the FY24 budget process, and outlining the HUD Consolidated Plan framework that would be required. On August 15, 2023, CAN and the Division held a briefing with City Council to review the transmittal and proposed funding allocations for consideration. The following proposals and corresponding amendments are the result of those transmittals and briefings. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Recognize Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 148 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The HUD Program Income represents additional allocations of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, for projects in Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. #2 Add New Goals Eligible for Funding Considerations Section SP-45, The Strategic Plan, Goals. HUD 24 CFR 91.215(a). Located on page 159 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. An allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, would be an addition to the list of adopted goals, for projects considered under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. Substantial Amendment to 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP-15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 27 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to recognize the unallocated HUD Program Income. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The City’s current 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding expected to be available during the program year. #2 Add New Projects to be Funded Under the Annual Action Plan Section AP-35, Projects. HUD 24 CFR 91.220(D). Located on page 35 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to provide an allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, as an eligible project to be funded under the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan) specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City. The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan, announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to the Housing Stability Division’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on the Housing Stability Division’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing; AND 5. Published in a newspaper of general circulation. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate, provided it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. Public notices and public comment periods will also be published in both English and Spanish. Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of thirty (30) calendar days. An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan will be posted on the Division’s official web site during the same period. All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff and the Housing Stability Division staff. Comments may be incorporated into the final Substantial Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the Substantial Amendments. A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/housingstability. Comments will be accepted from XXX, 2023 through XXX, 20203 A 30-day public comment period will begin following the initial City Council briefing, specifically for the above-mentioned Substantial Amendment components. At least one public hearing, to be scheduled at City Council’s discretion, will also be held during the 30-day public comment period. Prior to making decisions on the Substantial Amendments the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments. Written comments may be submitted to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to the Housing Stability Division contact at Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 CONTACT INFORMATION Tony Milner, Director Housing Stability Division Salt Lake City Corporation Tony.Milner@slcgov.com 801-535-6168 Dillon Hase, Community Development Grant Supervisor Housing Stability Division Salt Lake City Corporation Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com 801-535-6402 TO VIEW THE: 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTCIPATION PLAN, and 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, please click on the following link, or visit Housing Stability’s main website page at https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/, to obtain additional contact information, directions to our office and office hours. APPENDICES: • Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources, SP-45 Goals, AP-15 Expected Resources, and AP-35 Projects 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan - SP-35 and SP-45 SP-35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s funding year 2020-2024 CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA allocations are estimated to be a total of $25,000,000 estimating an average of $5,000,000 per year. In addition, Salt Lake City anticipates having program income of $7.5 $23.5 million during the same time period, with an estimated average of $1.5 million of program income earned and available to spend each year, and one-time unallocated program income in the amount of $16,073,220.90. HUD allocations will be utilized to address the growing housing and community development needs within Salt Lake City. However, funding has declined over the past decade, making it more difficult to address needs and overcome barriers. Over the course of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City will coordinate and leverage HUD allocations to assist the City’s most vulnerable populations, increase self-sufficiency and address needs in the geographic target area. TABLE SP-35.1 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 $19,733,510.71 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. An additional $6,133,510.71 in CDBG PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA EXHIBIT 5 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 $14,539,710.23 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. An additional $9,890,743.13 in HOME PI and $48,967.10 in ADDI PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re- Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re- Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R P R O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N F U N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. SP-45: GOALS In consideration of priority needs and anticipated resources, Salt Lake City has defined the following five- year goals: TABLE SP-45.1 GOALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $ 6,000,000 ESG $343,750 HOME $2,500,000 HOPWA $1,940,000 5075 Households assisted 2 – Transportat ion Improve access to transpor tation 2020 2024 Transportati on Target Areas/City Wide Transportati on CDBG $4,000,000 100,300 Households assisted. Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 99000 Persons Assisted Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1300 Persons Assisted Sidewalk Improvement in low/moderate income neighborhoods: 82,575 Persons Assisted Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economi c and/or housing stability 2020 2024 Economic Developmen t/Public Services Target Areas/City Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $1,250,000 325 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homeles sness is brief, rare, and non- recurrin g 2020 2024 Public Services/Ho meless Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $1,000,000 ESG $825,000 2050 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerab le populati ons experien cing substanc e abuse and mental health challeng es 2020 2024 Public Services/Beh avioral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $500,000 400 households assisted 6 – Administrat ion Administ ration 2020 2024 Administrati on Citywide Administrati on CDBG $3,200,000 ESG $103,125 HOME HOPWA $60,000 N/A TABLE SP-45.2 GOAL DESCRIPTIONS Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. • Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods • Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents • Support programs that provide access to home ownership • Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness • Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs • Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS Goal Name Goal Description 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. • Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit • Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation • Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations • Within eligible target areas, improve sidewalk infrastructure to promote safety and accessibility to the public as well as encourage alternate modes of transportation. 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability • Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility • Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area • Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses • Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses • Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty • Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet • Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring • Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness • Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations • Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life • Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low-income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. • Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration To support the administration, coordination and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs 2023 Annual Action Plan - AP-15 and AP-35 AP-15, EXPECTED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 4 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,397,763 $1,000,000 $7,133,510.71 $1,200,000 $5,597,763 $11,731,273.71 $4,500,000 Funds include $3,397,763 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $1 million in program income and $1.2 million in reallocated funds. An additional $6,133,510.71 in CDBG PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $1,023,661 $800,000 $10,739,710.23 $200,000 $2,023,661 $11,963,371.23 $4,600,000 Funds include $1,023,661 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $800,000 in program income and $200,000 in Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 4 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Construction Multifamily reallocated funds. An additional $9,890,743.13 in HOME PI and $48,967.10 in ADDI PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $303,100 $0 $0 $303,100 $300,000 $303,100 in annual entitlement award. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re- Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $932,841 $0 $80,000 $1,012,841 $1,000,000 Funds include $932,841 in annual entitlement award and $80,000 in reallocated funding. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA AP-35, PROJECTS CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 CDBG $925,000 $1,175,000 Goal Outcome Indicators Façade treatment/business building rehab 20 25 CDBG: Sidewalk and Infrastructure Improvements CDBG $0 ($250,000) Goal Outcome Indicators Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit ~ 30,000-60,000. (TBD, dependent upon the type of sidewalk or infrastructure improvements and the census tracts). The number will be the number of people living in the eligible census tracts that benefit from these activities. CDBG: Housing 2023-24 CDBG $3,333,547 $8,967,057.71 Goal Outcome Indicators Rental units rehabilitated 89 Homeowner housing added 3 17-200 (TBD, dependent upon nature of acquisition) Homeowner housing rehabilitated 378 HOME: Development Activities 2023-24 HOME $561,870 $10,501,580.23 Goal Outcome Indicators Rental units rehabilitated 38 Rental units constructed 1 620 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 An appropriations resolution to authorize project allocations for unallocated Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funding Program Income and adopt 3rd Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City (City) le under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24, Part 91, et. al., received allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds; and WHEREAS, in order to utilize said CDBG and HOME funds, the City adopted the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan by Resolution 9-2020 on May 5, 2020, which was amended by the 1st Substantial Amendment to include new HUD-COVID funding by Resolution 8-2021 on February 16, 2021, and was further amended by the 2nd Substantial Amendment to include HUD HOME-ARP funding by Resolution 8-2023 on March 21, 2023 (collectively, the “Consolidated Plan”), and the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (the “Annual Plan”) by Resolution 9-2023 on April 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City has expended those funds pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the CFR, and the Funding Agreements and, those funds have generated Program Income; and WHEREAS, “Program Income” is defined in 24 CFR 570.489 (e) and 24 CFR 92.2 as gross income received by the jurisdiction that has been directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds; and WHEREAS, the City will allocate CDBG Program Income funds in the amount of $6,133,510 and HOME Program Income funds in the amount of $9,939,710; and WHEREAS, in order to utilize said Program Income funds, the City is required to substantially amend the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan, per the regulatory requirements outlined in HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section in 24 CFR 91.505 (b), HOME Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 92.503, CDBG Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 570.504, and the City’s approved 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan; and WHEREAS, the public notices and other pre-submission requirements as set forth in 24 CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including holding a public comment period on the substantial amendments _______ through _________, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet on this day of _______________, 2023 to adopt substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 2 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the substantial amendments to the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for the use of CDBG and HOME Program Income funds as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee, is hereby authorized to submit the substantial amendments described above with such additional information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR Part 91 to HUD. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of _______________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _____________________________ CHAIR Approved as to form: __________________________ Kimberly K. Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER September 11, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” Funding Allocations for CDBG and HOME Program Income, and Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. See attached. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: October 3, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number 2 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the October 3 briefing, the Council discussed items A-1 through A-7, D-5, E-3, and G-1. Additional details and updates are listed by item below. The Council is scheduled to continue discussing the remaining items on October 10. - A-1 and E-3 both relate to the annual Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant. The Council requested information about how the Administration tracks where the two police squads spend time around the shelters and any performance metrics / outcomes that could be shared. - For item A-2 the Council indicated support to use a sole source approach partnering with the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for administering and dispersing emergency rental assistance funds from the U.S. Treasury. - Council Member Dugan mentioned during the briefing that an updated list of projects at Miller Park was being prepared for item A-4 to rescope remaining capital improvements funding. The Public Lands Department provided the below projects list which is supported by the constituent who submitted the CIP application and other residents near the park. The updated list of projects to be included in the rescope are: o Repairing and protecting the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability. Note that limited work for relocation and improvements to irrigation heads near the historic walls could also be included in this project. o Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with adjacent properties. o Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects. - The City Attorney clarified after the briefing that a legal best practice is for divisions and associated responsibilities to be listed by department in City Code Chapter 2.08 Administrative Organization. The Budget Amendment #2 transmittal did not include an ordinance amendment to Chapter 2.08. The Attorney’s Office is already working on an update to that chapter. If the Council adopts item A-5 to create the new division in the Public Lands Department, then the Attorney’s Office will add that to the ordinance update for the Council’s consideration likely next year. - The Council discussed item A-7 requesting a new FTE for business district support including special assessment areas (SAA). There is a single existing SAA in the downtown and several potential new SAAs at business districts around the City. The Council requested that new SAAs and renewal of the existing SAA incorporate reimbursement to the City for administrative costs such as consultant studies, annual financial management, collections, and staff time. Project Timeline: Set Date: September 19, 2023 1st Briefing: September 19, 2023 2nd Briefing: October 3, 2023 Public Hearing: October 3, 2023 3rd Briefing: October 10, 2023 Potential Action: October 17, 2023 - For item D-5 first issuance of the Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond, Council Member Young Council Member Young requested to change McClelland Trail to Fairmont Park safety improvements as the reimagine neighborhood parks project for Council District Seven. She stated this is the highest open space need she is hearing from constituents. She described the project as potentially including lighting fields and other activity areas at night, lighting walking and biking paths, crime prevention through environmental design or CPTED review and resulting project recommendations, and restroom changes among other items. The Council was supportive of this change. - The Council took a unanimous straw poll to support item G-1 a $1 million EPA grant funding a new FTE and creation of a climate change mitigation plan. The straw poll allows early advertising of the new job.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the first briefing on September 19, the Council discussed the chart tracking new potential ongoing costs to the General Fund, updated Fund Balance projections (the City’s rainy-day fund / savings account), and item G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position which is a four-year EPA grant. The Council also took straw polls indicating support for the following time sensitive items: - D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP Fund) - E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants) - E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants) - I-1: Placeholder - Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($1 Million) o The Council discussed potentially using General Fund Balance as the funding source for this item. In a future budget opening, the Council could consider backfilling General Fund Balance from a deeply affordable housing City grant provided to a development that is no longer expected to proceed. The Council is scheduled to continue discussing the remaining items in Budget Amendment #2 at the second briefing on October 3.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Two includes 28 proposed amendments, $41,675,718 in revenues and $42,576,118 in expenditures of which $233,050 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to six funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of eight FTE’s. Five of the eight FTEs are being requested in Items A-1 & E-3 - State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant for FY2024 ($3,107,201). The Council will be holding a public hearing for this grant on September 19th, the same night as the Budget Amendment No. 2 public hearing. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 13.96% which is $4,263,736 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the fund balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023. The annual audit is typically completed in December. This updated 13.96% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,501 above the 13% minimum target. Two Straw Poll Requests The Administration is requesting straw polls for two items due to impending reimbursement deadlines: E-1 TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Capacity Building Grant Adult Education Program for $1,229,681, and E-2 TANF Capacity Building Grant – Youth Development $1,391,672. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant $53,544 0.5 FTE Community Development Grant Specialist for Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART) This position is proposed to be half funded from the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully loaded annual cost for the FTE. #2 Item A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division $11,139 Reclassify an existing FTE to a higher pay grade and director of new division. Request position be appointed in a future budget opening. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division in the Public Lands Department. #2 A-6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager Budget Neutral (see note to the right) 1 Senior Community Programs Manager This item requires amending an existing interlocal agreement with the County. At the time of publishing this report, staff is checking whether the amendment could result in additional funding needs to maintain current levels of service. The item might not be budget neutral depending on the agreement changes. #2 A-7: Economic Development Project Manager Position $122,000 1 Economic Development Project Manager Would be focused on the creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts and renewal every three to five years. #2 A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses $6,500 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget #2 A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses $55,750 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Award $3,107,201 13 Existing FTEs: - 2 Police sergeants - 10 police officers - 1 Business & community liaison 4.5 New FTEs: - 1 Sequential Intercept Case Manager in the Justice Court - 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN (half grant funded and half by the General Fund in item above) - 1 Police sergeant - 2 police officers Admin expects to apply for grant funding annually to cover these costs. General Fund would not need to cover costs if the State grant is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs. Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s contribution towards implementation of the “Miami Model” of diversion out of the homelessness system. #2 G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position $482,915 (funding is to cover four years of new FTE) 1 Coordinator Four years of salary and benefits. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and achievement. TOTALS $3,356,134 21 FTEs of which 8 are New Does not include the cost of item G-1 Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #2. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 13.96%. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $41,675,718 in revenue and $42,576,118 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with eight increases in FTEs. The proposal includes 27 initiatives for Council review and a potential Council-added item. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A.New Budget Items B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources C.Grants for New Staff Resources D.Housekeeping Items E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F.Donations G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I.Council Added Items Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 7/20/23 and has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $273,684 More than two years away - Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items. A-1: 50% Cost Share for a New FTE Community Development Grant Specialist in the Housing Stability Division (Budget Neutral – Shifting $44,620 in the General Fund from Street Ambassador Program to New FTE) See item E-3 for the FY2024 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant write-up which is proposed to fund 50% of the new FTE The Administration is requesting a new FTE Community Development Grant Specialist to improve contract management of City funding for homeless services. The new FTE is 50% eligible for the state homeless grant funding which reflects the proportion of work related to the State grant. The other half of the position would be funded from the General Fund. This item proposes to shift $44,620 in the General Fund’s for Street Ambassador to instead go to the new FTE. An equivalent $44,620 from the State grant would go to the Street Ambassador program to maintain current service levels. The total $1,384,101 funding for the Street Ambassador program would remain unchanged. The Downtown Alliance is aware of and supports this proposed funding source change. The total $89,240 for the new FTE would cover 10 months. If the State grant is not available next fiscal year, then the next annual budget would need $107,088 to cover the fully loaded annual cost (salary and benefits). A-2: U.S. Treasury Emergency Rent Assistance Program Funding ($2,339,009 to Misc. Grants Fund) In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023 the Council appropriated $2 million for rental assistance distributed in partnership with the State through the Utah Rent Relief portal. The State has since closed the portal and gradually ended the program. At the briefing, the Council stated a preference to also use the remaining funding from the Treasury for direct rental assistance. The funding could be awarded to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as the sole source provider. A potential advantage of this approach is simpler tracking and compliance reporting to the federal government. Another option is an open and competitive process for interested organizations to apply. The Council could request the Administration (the mayor and/or an advisory board) make funding recommendations based on the applications and then the Council would decide final funding awards. Eligible expenses per federal guidance are security deposits, rent, past due rent, utilities, past due utilities, and some other housing related costs such as application fees. September 30, 2025 is the deadline to spend these funds or return them to the U.S. Treasury. Federal guidance requires the funds be awarded to recipients negatively impacted by covid, recipients are limited to 18 months of rental assistance total, and the application process must be open to all eligible households. The City has received and distributed $20,867,592 through the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rent Assistance Program. The Treasury reallocated funding from low performing to high performing jurisdictions like Salt Lake City. Earlier this year, the Administration requested additional funding and the Treasury released another $339,009 in addition to the $2 million the City has yet to budget for use. No additional funding is anticipated to be made available by the Treasury through this program. Policy Question: ➢Housing Authority Sole Source Provider Approach or Open and Competitive Process? The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of the two approaches or discuss other options before selecting how to distribute the funds. A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Donation from Utah Jazz ($100,000 to CIP Fund) In FY2022 CIP, the Council approved $99,680 for a constituent application to resurface the basketball court in the center of Liberty Park and replace the two basketball hoops. The court has deteriorated to an extent where resurfacing is no longer a recommended option. The Utah Jazz offered a $100,000 donation to reconstruct the court in honor of their 50th anniversary season. The total project budget of nearly $200,000 would also allow fencing and seating to be installed. The Utah Jazz logo would be included on the court. A-4: Rescope Miller Park Trail ADA Access Improvements and Historic Structure Preservation (Budget Neutral in the CIP Fund) See Attachment 1 for the Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023 In FY2024 CIP, the Council approved $425,000 for a constituent application Miller Park trail ADA access improvements and historic structure preservation. This item would rescope the remaining $365,012. This proposal would not close any informal or “social” trails that exist in the park. The original goals of the project included expanding ADA accessibility, eliminating hazardous steep trail sections, protecting, and restoring historic structures such as the Works Progress Administration walls, and installing a walking bridge. The Public Lands Department hired a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determined that the recommended projects in the original scope would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects that would fulfill the stated goals. The Department is requesting a rescope to use the remaining funds on the new projects recommended by the engineers. Attachment 1 includes a summary of engagement for this item. Some of the organizations that were included in that process were the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City’s Risk Management Attorney, a national trail-building firm, American Trails, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Mayor’s ADA coordinator, and the Disability and Accessibility Commission. While some stakeholders expressed support for the department’s proposed way forward, other stakeholders prefer to find ways to make the original scope work. The Department provided the below list of projects (#1 being the highest priority) based on the results of public engagement. Rescoped funds would first be used for project #1 and then proceed down the list until funding runs out. If projects could be done more efficiently in tandem, then they might not strictly follow the priority order. 1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability 2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with adjacent properties 3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage 4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects 5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance and explore adding stairs and a handrail 6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety 7.Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division (Transfer $543,144 and Four FTEs from the Engineering Division) Staff note: Council and Administrative Staff are working on additional clarification on this item. New information may be available for the briefing on Tuesday. The following write-up is based on the transmittal originally sent to the Council, but a revised/clarified proposal may be forthcoming: The Administration is proposing to create a new division in the Public Lands Department. The request has three parts: 1. Creating the Planning & Design Division 2. Transfer four existing landscape architect FTEs from the Engineering Division in the Public Services Department to the new division in Public Lands a. The four FTEs are one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27) b. The landscape architects would join two project managers currently in the Public Lands Department. 3. Reclassify an existing Planning Manager FTE in Public Lands to be the director of the new division at a higher pay grade (from 33 to 34 and then 35 in the next annual budget) and as a merit, non-appointed position. The Administration intends to request this position be appointed in the next annual budget. Vacancy savings would be used to cover the increased compensation for the new division director. The next annual budget would need to include $12,113 for the position. The Department stated the need for this new division is caused by the increase in the number and complexity of capital improvement projects for parks, trails, and open spaces from the voter-approved parks bond (first issuance is item D-5 in this budget amendment), the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond, annual CIP funding, and a growing number of grants and donations. Closer coordination and operational savings are potential benefits of the FTE transfer is that the positions planning and designing new capital assets would work in the same department as the employees responsible for maintenance of the assets. The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and stakeholder engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going maintenance of every project. Policy questions: ➢Timely Completion of Capital Projects – The Council may wish to ask the Administration are existing resources and system sufficient to deploy capital projects in a timely manner and meet the policy goal of completing CIP projects within three years? ➢Merit vs Appointed Policy Guidance for Division Directors – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to provide police guidance on the employment status (merit vs appointed) for division directors. Appointed positions are as such to give the Mayor maximum flexibility to implement his/her policy goals, which means merit positions have employment protections that appointed positions do not. Most division directors in the City are appointed but there are a few in a merit status. It’s unclear why there is a mix, although it is likely due to historical practices and evolving policy goals. Staff is clarifying with HR. Department directors and deputy directors are appointed. Legally a merit employee cannot be forced into an appointed status. For this reason, it’s easier to make a position appointed before hiring the employee. Historically, the City has provided increased compensation to appointed positions in recognition that certain employment rights available to merit positions are unavailable to appointed positions. Some options might be placing policy guidance into the annual compensation ordinance for non-represented employees and/or in City Code. ➢Amending City Code to Create New Division – The Council may wish to ask the Attorney’s Office to clarify whether Section 2.08.130 Administrative Organization of the Public Lands Department needs to be amended to formally create the new division. The section currently lists the four divisions of the Public Lands Department: Parks, Golf, Trails & Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry. The Budget Amendment #2 transmittal did not include an ordinance amendment. ➢Parks Bond Reimburse General Fund for Landscape Architect Work – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to explore whether the Parks Bond could reimburse the General Fund for eligible work on bond project implementation by the landscape architects. The first issuance of the bond includes reimbursing the General Fund for two planner positions work on bond projects in the Public Lands Department and a senior project manager in Engineering (currently vacant). New Project Delivery Process See Attachment for a graphic of the Double Diamond project delivery process The Public Lands Department and the Engineering Division shared the following information about two tenets of the new project delivery process that is being developed. (1) “One Project Manager: Currently, every public lands project has two project managers, with tasks divided between at least the Engineering Division’s PLACES Team (landscape architects) and the Public Lands Department’s Planning Team (planners). Project ownership and accountability have been unclear. This requested structural change and the new project delivery process will help rectify that by allowing the Public Lands Department to identify the best project manager for each project (whether a landscape architect or a planner). They will lead each project from start to finish and ultimately manage the staff and consultants that will assist during each phase. This will improve accountability, predictability, and equitable outcomes.” (2) “Double Diamond: The new project delivery process is based on the “double diamond” design process model. It encourages public engagement in the most impactful phases of the project, preventing feedback from being collected too early or too late. It allows for sufficient time for everyone involved in each project to “diverge”, or engage in expansive, creative thinking, and the development of several design alternatives. But it also requires projects to “converge” (at least twice), to synthesize and to move forward once enough information has been collected. Ultimately, the project manager will lead projects from start to finish and depend on project team members for their expertise (e.g., construction managers, designers, civic engagement specialists, etc.). Specifics of the Public Lands Department’s process can be shared with the Council once it has been refined by all project managers within the next few months.” A-6: New FTE Senior Community Programs Manager (Budget Neutral – Shifting $113,798 from County Contract for Sorenson Center Services to New Position) The Administration is requesting a new FTE senior community programs manager at pay grade 26 in the Youth and Family Division of the Community and Neighborhood Department. The total budget for County contracted services at the Sorenson center will be reduced from $1,014,800 to $901,002. The difference of $113,798 would pay for the new FTE. The City Council and County Council would need to amend the existing interlocal agreement to reflect this new budget. The County has requested that the City take on child care and custodial services at the Sorenson Campus. The new FTE will help maintain existing levels of services for childcare functions. The Public Services Department expects to contract with a third party for cleaning and maintenance at existing frequencies at the same or lower cost. In March of 2018, the City and County entered an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned by the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and the County is responsible for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so that responsibility for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such, this is a revenue neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA to modify terms relating to childcare programming and custodial responsibilities. A-7: New FTE Economic Development Project Manager to Facilitate Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) ($128,000 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting a new FTE project manager at pay grade 29 in the Economic Development Department. The position would facilitate creation of SAAs for business districts and renewal of SAAs every three to five years. The position may also assist with other business districts support efforts managed by the Economic Development Department. The City’s only current SAA is the Central Business Improvement Area which is authorized until April 2025. The City is currently exploring the creation of an SAA in the Sugar House Business District. The Council also funded $60,000 in the last annual budget for a study of a potential SAA in the Granary District. The new position would facilitate these two new potential SAAs and do outreach to other business districts that may be interested in exploring SAAs too. The Administration stated that the Economic Development Department would be the lead for the potential creation and renewal of SAAs. Initial facilitation of discussions with property owners would be handled by the new FTE and the required consultant study of boundaries and assessment methods (note: consulting studies for future SAAs may require additional budget). Then responsibility could be transferred to another department such as Engineering for public infrastructure improvement SAAs. SAAs are a flexible financing tool where property owners agree to tax themselves in exchange for collective benefits. SAAs are allowed to address several types of activity under state law including economic promotion (like the current Central Business Improvement Area), public infrastructure improvements, enhanced maintenance or operation services, environmental remediation, and utilities. State law has many requirements for creating an SAA. There are approximately 50 steps that can take a year to complete based on the last renewal of the Central Business Improvement Area. It should be noted that an SAA cannot be formed without the support of 60% of the property owners, and that the last SAA the City attempted to implement along North Temple did not meet that threshold (the General Fund covered those improvements). The Attorney’s Office, Finance Department, and sometimes Engineering Division also have important roles for the creation and renewal of SAAs. The Finance Department has an ongoing role in the administration of funds for an SAA (not just creation and renewal every three to five years) including annual invoices, payments, tracking, and collections. Some of the steps to authorize an SAA include the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management. Policy questions: ➢One-time vs Ongoing Workload between Departments Supporting SAAs – The Council may want to ask the Administration are existing resources and systems sufficient to handle the ongoing workload in the Finance Department for administering SAAs compared to the one-time workload in other departments for creating and renewing SAAs every three to five years? Is the potentially increasing number of SAAs in the City anticipated to need additional resources? ➢Policy Guidance for SAAs – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether policy guidance would be helpful to identify SAAs and activities the City supports (promotion, infrastructure, utilities, etc.), preferred terms, and best practices. A-8: Central Business Improvement Area Assessment Funds to the Downtown Alliance ($664,294 from Special Assessment Fund) This is a legally required financial true up, that would transfer one-time funds from remaining cash balances to the Downtown Alliance as the contract holder for the Central Business Improvement Area (a type of SAA downtown renewed every three years since 1991). The funds accrued over multiple years from late payments by property owners in previous three-year cycles of the downtown SAA dating from 2000 to 2018. It’s important to note that the City passthrough payments of property owner assessments were made to the contract holder as required in prior years. Some of the funds may also have been a result of greater than expected property owner assessments such as higher collection rates. Financial true ups for 2019 and after will be handled in a future budget opening. Policy Question: ➢Resources to Provide More Frequent SAA Financial True-ups – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what resources and/or system changes could help provide more frequent SAA financial true- ups to prevent a similar situation from happening again. A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses ($6,500 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are: - $2,000 for Dues & Publications – Volunteer Sign-up Platform, Canvas - $2,000 for Language Services, Transportation, Child Care, Brand Development - $1,500 for Printed Materials, Advertising, and Promotional Items/Swag - $500 for Food/Refreshments - $500 for Material and Supplies A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses ($55,750 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are: - $25,000 for Mini-Grants - $12,000 for Neighborhood Cleanup Trailer - $6,000 for Training - $3,000 for Food/Refreshments - $2,500 for Materials & Supplies - $2,000 for Equipment and Tools - $2,000 for Specialty Contracts, Dues and Publications - $1,500 for Printing and Promotion - $1,000 for Phones/Other - $750 for Uniforms A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023- 2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non- Represented Employees (Budget Neutral) Note that the transmittal includes a separate ordinance to amend the annual compensation plan for non- represented employees. The votes on Budget Amendment #2 and amending the compensation plan will be listed separately on a Council formal meeting agenda. The Administration provided the below summary of some changes to the plan. These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay specifically and will also make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. - Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Snowfighter Pay. In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City Council, comments stated the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known. There wasn’t enough time to update the specific amounts in the Plan between adoption of the annual budget and the conclusion of negotiations and ratification of a new agreement with AFSCME. This also applied to additional items listed below. - Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance. - Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) – New rates indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums for salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday without fiscal impact. - Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) – Corrects pay levels shown for certain job titles to match those included in the plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the Appointed Pay Plan intended only to show the addition of the new Safety & Security Director for Public Services, but inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and the Justice Court Administrator. - Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2023-2024”) – Specific edits include adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City Council. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset ($65,472 from Special Revenue Fund) This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its original budget of $200,000 The fund has been working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property owner has reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition. D-2: 300 North Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Passthrough ($500,000 from Union Pacific to the CIP Fund) Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N pedestrian bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City. Since this contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming revenue from Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the contractor. D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous Grants ($6,476,014 to Misc. Grants) Funding was transferred in the FY2024 annual budget to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better track according to federal guidelines. Note that the Administration’s transmittal inadvertently listed $6.4 million even. The dollar amount has been updated to match the funding transfer from the last annual budget. D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP Fund) In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight Parks, Trails, and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the first issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds. There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. •One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project. •The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project. •The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South). •The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Completion & Landscaping projects. •The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project. •The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive) project. •The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various Locations with at least one in each Council District) projects. •The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project. •There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated $3,332,000. •There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000. •There will be an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25. •There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the General Fund. The timing and actual amounts of these reimbursements will be according to tracking of permitted expenses. Policy Question: ➢Reimbursing the General Fund for FY2023 Costs – Note that this funding does not reimburse the General Fund for fronting the $302,600 in FY2023 to hire the three FTEs dedicated to implementing the bond projects. The Council may wish to request that the Administration explore the option for the bond to reimburse the General Fund for those FY2023 expenses. It’s worth noting that one of the three positions, a senior project manager in Engineering, has not been filled nine months after it was authorized and funded. D-6: RV Enforcement Team Budget to Non-departmental for Transfer to IMS and Fleet ($45,800 from Non-departmental) In Budget Amendment #1, funds were redirected from the Compliance Mitigation team funding to be transferred to IMS and Fleet for various related one-time costs. The funds were moved from Compliance but were not moved to Non-departmental to be transferred to IMS and Fleet. This amendment adds that budget to Non-departmental for the transfer to happen. Funding for the FTEs will remain in the Public Services Department. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants) The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants) The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 ($3,107,201 to the Misc. Grants Fund) This item is to recognize the annual State grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for eligible costs associated with homeless resource centers within the City. This is a formula grant subject to annual appropriations by the State Legislature. The City was not required to apply but submitted proposed uses and was awarded by the State. This grant requires no local matching funds. The total award is $357,201 more than last year. The Administration provided the below details of the five new FTEs proposed to be paid by the State grant. At the time of publishing this report, it appears that 13 existing FTEs would continue to be paid from the State grant (two police sergeants, 10 police officers, and a business & community liaison). Five New FTEs - Job Title: Sequential Intercept Case Manager o Pay grade: 26 o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Homeless Strategies Outreach Coordinator o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088 o Mitigation grant covers 100% of effort for 10 months o This position will work to implement the Sequential Intercept model (Miami model) with the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The case manager will coordinate access to community resources with high utilizers of the Justice Court. - Job Title: HEART Grant Program Specialist o Pay grade: 26 o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Grant Specialist o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 50% of the cost of this position. General funds are sought to cover the other 50% (see item A-1 in this budget amendment), which is offset by increasing Mitigation award to the Downtown Alliance for the Expanded Ambassador Program. o This position will manage all aspects of contracting, invoicing, reporting, performance monitoring, and will serve as liaison for all grantees of City homeless services general funds, as well as the State Office of Homeless Services and Mitigation subawardees. This work is currently spread out among several members of the HEART team, and the team's ability to monitor contractors for performance is very limited. - Job Title: Police Officer o Pay grade: 25 o Annual fully loaded cost: $117,854 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position. o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15. - Job Title: Sergeant o Pay grade: 29 o Annual fully loaded cost: $184,995 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position. o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15. Policy Questions: ➢Grant Briefing and Additional Details – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to learn more and discuss the annual Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant. The FY2023 grant was $2.75 million of which $2.2 million was ongoing for 13 FTEs. The FY2024 grant is $3,107,201. At the time of publishing this report, staff was trying to clarify how the $272,322 used for one-time expenses in the FY2023 grant is proposed to be used in the FY2024 grant such as for new vehicles, equipment, and other one-time supplies. ➢Homeless Services Funding Needs vs Available Funding – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether any excess funding related to homeless resource centers and homeless services exists, and how the funding need compares to available funding. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1 million from Misc. Grants) This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000 for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan in collaboration with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalities statewide and tribal governments that will support actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to the $1,000,000 award. 1 New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement. A Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023. G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($50,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands an extra $50,000 in funding for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. Since the City did not apply for this funding, this item appeared on the September 5, 2023 Consent Agenda during the Council’s formal meeting. G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing was held May 16,2023. G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. G-5: Backman Community Open Space ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) Salt Lake City's Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities, watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open space area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community. The current conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk to school. An analysis by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide children and their families greater access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making the site an unprecedented public asset for hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is required. The Public Hearing was held May 16, 2023. G-6: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants ($92,846 from Misc. Grants) Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim advocate. This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two years by a previous VOCA award. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. The other portion of the Victim Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match. G-7: YouthCity Summer Food Service Program - Utah State Board of Education ($11,000 from Misc. Grants) This grant will be used to pay for snacks for the Youth & Family locations throughout the City. No FTEs are paid for by the grant. Employee staff time is being used as a match. The Public Hearing was held September 5, 2023. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Placeholder - Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($TBD) The Council may wish to hold further discussions regarding the potential need for additional one-time funding for the pilot sanctioned campground, related public safety, and cleaning expenses. Staff is working with the Administration to identify potential sources should additional funding be necessary. Given that this project will need to move quickly, and that it is an important policy goal for the Mayor and Council to demonstrate the viability of this idea, the Council could choose to appropriate a dollar amount (for example $1 million) to an account that is subject to final Council release of funds, but available as needed on a more immediate basis. The Council appropriated one-time $500,000 as part of the FY2024 annual budget into a holding account for a sanctioned campground. ATTACHMENTS 1. Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023 2. Double Diamond Project Delivery Process Graphic ACRONYMS AFSCME – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund EMS – Emergency Medical Services EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERAP – Emergency Rental Assistance Program FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund FOF – Funding Our Future IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous MOU – Memorandum of Understanding RDA – Redevelopment Agency RFP – Request for Proposals SAA – Special Assessment Area TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TBD – To Be Determined UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation VOCA – Victims of Crime Act DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 31, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #2 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $187,250.00 CIP FUND $25,485,893.25 $25,485,893.25 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND $62,416.00 $65,472.00 IMS FUND $6,000.00 $6,000.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND $0.00 $664,293.70 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $16,131,437.00 $16,131,437.00 TOTAL $41,685,746.25 $42,540,345.95 rachel otto (Aug 31, 2023 10:55 MDT) Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 31, 2023 11:02 MDT) 08/31/2023 08/31/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24. Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available. The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#2. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.09%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,874,345 111,007,097 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 58,403,398 65,998,855 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.89%14.85% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 56,145,652 63,741,109 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.32%14.34% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483) BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 204,200 204,200 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - (754,483) BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 187,250 187,250 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,530,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 55,782,619 62,623,593 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%14.22%14.09% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $41,685,746.25 in revenue and $42,540,345.95 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with nine increases in FTEs. The proposal includes 26 initiatives for Council review. Among the amendments is a proposed ordinance change that would amend the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees. These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay specifically and will make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. Further details on the changes are contained in the amendment documents. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Second amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - (44,620.00)Ongoing - 1 Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF - 44,620.00 Ongoing 1.00 2 Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants 2,339,009.00 2,339,009.00 One-time - 3 Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz Donation CIP 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 4 Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation CIP - - One-time - 5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - (543,144.00)Ongoing (4.00) 5 Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF - 543,144.00 Ongoing 4.00 6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager GF - (113,798.00)Ongoing - 6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager GF - 110,798.00 Ongoing 1.00 6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager GF - 3,000.00 One-time - 6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time - 7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 122,000.00 Ongoing 1.00 7 Economic Development Project Manager Position GF - 3,000.00 One-time - 7 Economic Development Project Manager Position IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time - 8 SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 One-time - 9 Know your Neighbor Program Expenses GF - 6,500.00 One-time - 10 Love Your Block Program Expenses GF - 55,750.00 One-time - 11 Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY z2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees NA - - - - Ongoing - 1 Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 One-time - 2 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass-through CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn prior to transmittal 4 RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Misc Grants Misc Grants 6,400,000.00 6,400,000.00 One-time - 5 GO 2023 Parks Bond CIP 24,885,893.25 24,885,893.25 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability Misc Grants 1,229,681.00 1,229,681.00 Ongoing - 2 TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development Misc Grants 1,391,672.00 1,391,672.00 Ongoing - 3 State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants 3,107,201.00 3,107,201.00 Ongoing 5.00 4 Marathon Community Investment Fire Department Misc Grants 5,000.00 5,000.00 One-time - 5 Utah Department of Health & Human Services - EMS Grant Misc Grants 8,014.00 8,014.00 One-time - - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Consent Agenda #1 1 Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 Ongoing 1.00 2 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands Misc Grants 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time - 3 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time - 4 State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time - 5 Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 6 Utah Department of Health & Human Services Misc Grants 8,014.00 8,014.00 One-time - 7 Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants 92,846.00 92,846.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 41,685,746.25 42,540,345.95 - - 9.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF - 187,250.00 - - 3.00 Special Revenue Fund Special Rev 62,416.00 65,472.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 25,485,893.25 25,485,893.25 - - - IMS Fund IMS 6,000.00 6,000.00 - - - Special Assessment Fund Spec Assessment - 664,293.70 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 16,131,437.00 16,131,437.00 - - 6.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 41,685,746.25 42,540,345.95 - - 9.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 (754,483.23) - 447,760,434.77 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 32,145,769.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 36,269,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,131,437.00 25,051,354.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 (1,430,715.00) 25,485,893.25 54,254,934.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 (2,139,398.23) 41,685,746.25 - - - 1,663,177,799.02 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 187,250.00 448,906,368.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 46,960,543.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 38,717,171.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,131,437.00 25,051,354.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 42,540,345.95 - - - 1,826,347,347.95 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant GF ($44,620.00) GF $44,620.00 Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker This Budget Amendment is requesting a shift in funding to allow the Housing Stability Division to recruit a Community Development Grant Specialist FTE for the Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART). The City sought to fully cover the cost of this FTE with the State's FY24 Cities Mitigation Grant; however, since the position will fulfill administrative duties, the State is only allowing a partial billing for this position based on the hours the position works o n the Cities Mitigation Grant itself. In order to provide holistic, active contract management for all recipients of City homeless services funds, City General Funds are being sought to supplement the full cost of the position by moving award money from an existing City General Fund grant recipient and backfilling that cost with Cities Mitigation Grant dollars. This request is budget neutral to the City. The Downtown Alliance Street Ambassador program is set to receive both Cities Mitigation Grant and City General Fund awards in FY24. This request seeks to move $44,620 from the Downtown Alliance's FY24 Homeless Services General Fund award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620 would be added to the amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive from the Cities Mitigation Grant, which is an allowable expense under the grant. The amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its total of $1,384,101; this request will only change the funding source a portion of the award comes from. General Fund award to Housing Stability staffing. An increase of $44,620.00 has been added to the amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive from Cities Mitigation, which is an allowable expense under the Mitigation grant. The amount of funding the Street Ambassador program will receive will remain at its total of $1,384,101.00, this request will only change the funding source a portion of the award come from. This position would be a Grade 26 Community Development Grant Specialist. The annual cost for this position is $107,088. This Budget Amendment contemplates covering the cost of 50% of the position's effort for 10 months or $89,240. In summary, $44,620 for the position is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's FY24 Street Ambassador award to Housing Stability, and the remaining $44,620 will be funded by the City's FY24 Cities Mitigation Grant from the State Office of Homeless Services is requested to be moved from the Downtown Alliance's F Y24 Street Ambassador award to Housing Stability and the remaining $44,620.00 will be funded by SLC's FY24 Cities Mitigation award from the State Office of Homeless Services. A-2: Treasury ERAP 2 Additional Allocations Misc Grants $2,339,009.00 Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions, please include Tony Milner, Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker This budget amendment is to recognize the City's additional allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury Emergency Rent Assistance Program 2 (ERAP 2) funds, in the amount of $2,339,009, for the purpose of assisting in the stabilization and recovery of COVID-affected, low-income residential renters in Salt Lake City. This budget amendment is separate from previous Council-approved City ERAP allocations: ERAP 1 Initial Award ($6,067,033), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($3,000,000), ERAP 1 Additional Allocation ($5,000,000), ERAP 2 Initial Award ($4,800,559.40), and ERAP 2 Additional Allocation ($2,000,000). Past ERAP 1 & 2 funds were disbursed in partnership with the State Department of Workforce Services through the unified Utah Rent Relief portal. The Utah Rent Relief portal closed in March 2023 after ERAP funds at the State level were exhausted and will not open to new applicants. At the time Council last reviewed remaining ERAP 2 funds in March 2023, Council partially approved $2,000,000 for rental assistance through the Utah Rent Relief portal and requested additional information regarding eligible uses for the Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 remaining funds and directed the administration to explore the potential for using these funds for direct client rental assistance. Treasury defines direct client rental assistance as: deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, utility arrears, and oth er housing related costs (e.g. applications fees). The administration is seeking direction from Council regarding the preferred process for disbursing these funds to a sole source provider or through public competitive process that would receive applicati ons from multiple providers. Note: All ERAP 2 funds must be obligated by September 30, 2025. A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Utah Jazz Donation CIP $100,000.00 Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Makaylah Maponga For questions, please include Makaylah Maponga, Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a $100,000 donation from the Utah Jazz to the Liberty Park Basketball Court project PRJ-230295. This project had significant funding constraints due to the failed condition of the court. With this donation, Public Lands will be able to fully execute the project which will completely reconstruct the court as well as install additional amenities to promote the court as a community gathering space. The Liberty Basketball Court project was funded as a Constituent CIP project cost center 83 -22405 in FY2021-22 for resurfacing. After initial evaluation of the court, it was determined that the cracks were too significant, and the court needed complete reconstruction. Public Lands initially reached out to the Utah Jazz to partner on this project in the fall o f 2022. The Jazz followed up in Spring 2023 with interest in donating funds to the reconstruction in honor of their 50th anniversary season. With this donation, Public Lands is able to cover the funding deficit and expand the scope to include the addition of fencing and new seating areas. This is in line with the constituent's vision for the court as a host location for an annual community tournament. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2023. This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2023. Public Lands will be recognizing the donation by including the Jazz Logo on the final court. Public Lands has done due diligence and finds no reason to reject this donation proposal and specifically allocate the funding to the Liberty Park Basketball Court project. A-4: Scope Change for Miller Park Trail Access Improvements & Historic Structures Preservation CIP $0.00 Department: Public Lands-Trails & Natural Lands Prepared By: Kat Maus For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Kat Maus and Gregg Evans The Public Lands Department is requesting a scope change for the remaining $365,012.40 in the CIP cost center 83-18048 (PRJ-230184) (CC30004) to amend the project implementation list to accomplish proposed goals. This proposal to revise the Miller Park capital project and associated funds do not close any informal or "social" trails that may exist. In FY 2017 - 18, a constituent submitted an application for funding to address the following goals at Miller Park: preserve the historic structures, such as the WPA masonry walls, foot bridge, and stairways constructed during the Great Depression; and improve accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. To achieve these goals, the constituent proposed three projects: restore a trail alignment (creekside) that was rerouted in 2014, install a bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabilize the WPA walls. Public Lands hired a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determined that the recommended projects in the original proposal would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects that would fulfill the stated goals. Public Lands is requesting a scope change for the remaining funds to remove the original three projects proposed from the scope of work, and add the new projects recommended by the engineers. Public Lands engaged extensively with community organizations and subject -matter experts to confirm the projects recommended in the new scope, and confirm that the originally-proposed projects would not in fact fulfill the stated goals, including Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City's Risk Management Attorney, a national trail - building firm, American Trails, the State's Historic Preservation Officer, and the Mayor's Office ADA Coordinator and Disability and Accessibility Commission. In addition, Public Lands conducted several periods of public engagement in Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 2021 and 2023 to determine the community's priorities for the new proposed projects. Please see the attached report for the full synopsis and overview of the engagement and project recommendations. While the budget is not expected to be able to complete all twelve projects, Public Lands is proposing starting from the highest-priority recommended project, and working through the list (top-down) until the funding has been spent. The full description of the prioritized list of recommended projects and justification for selection is included in the engagement report. Anticipated projects, beginning with the highest priority, t o be completed include: 1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability 2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with adjacent properties 3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage 4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects 5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance, and explore adding stairs and a handrail. 6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety 7. Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive Completing these projects would make nearly 75% of the park accessible to wheelchair access, far exceeding the ADA requirements for natural areas, and would protect a majority of the historic walls for years into the future. Some pro jects may be completed out of order if there are efficiencies with other projects. A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division GF ($543,144.00) GF $543,144.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker For questions, please include Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans This cost-neutral budget amendment request will transfer the landscape architecture design and project management functions from the Engineering Division to the Public Lands Department. This request is three-fold: 1. Create a new Planning & Design Division within the Public Lands Department. 2. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division within the Public Lands Department. The FTEs include: one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27). 3. Reclassify the Public Lands Department's Planning Manager position (Grade 33) as the Planning & Design Division Director (Grade 34; merit, non-appointed). This position's appointment will be requested with the general budget request in the following fiscal year (FY 24/25). Past and Current Realities: - In the past, the City's Public Lands Department and Engineering Division (Public Services Department) managed $1M to $2M in parks, trails, and open space projects each year. They are now fortunate to be tasked with delivering nearly $200M in new projects from various funding sources (i.e., Sales Tax Revenue Bond, GO Bond, CIP, and ot hers) over the next 10 years. - Currently, each of the City's 100+ parks, trails, and open space projects essentially has two project managers. Their responsibilities overlap significantly. This requested change and new process would help rectify that. Solutions: - Our departments propose that the currently separate teams become one Planning & Design Division within the Public Lands Department. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 - The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and st akeholder engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going maintenance of every project. - The Engineering Division of the Public Services Department would be responsible for the construction and contractor management, and many of the most technical details of each project. Even this work will still be overseen by each project's manager. - These staffing changes will be combined with a new project delivery process (drafted by staff and leadership from bot h departments) as well as even stronger, more effective coordination for each public lands project between the new Public Lands Planning & Design Division and the Engineering Division. A-6: Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager GF ($113,798.00) GF $110,798.00 GF $3,000.00 IMS $3,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tammy Hunsaker / Kim Thomas For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker, Blake Thomas, Kim Thomas and Brent Beck In March of 2018, the City and County entered into an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned by the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and t he County is responsible for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so that responsibi lity for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such, t his is a revenue neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA to modify terms relating to child care programming and custodial responsibilities. If the budget rescope is approved, County and City staff will finalize a draft amendment to the ILA and will coordinate an adoption process pursuant to state and city code. Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract current budget $1,014,800, reduced by the FTE $901,002 – Note: this budget will be used to pay both the County contract and for custodial services procured by Public Services. The split between the two is currently unknown right now, but the total will not exceed this budget amount. Senior Community Programs Manager FTE, grade E26: $113,798 fully loaded A-7: Economic Development Project Manager Position GF $122,000.00 GF $3,000.00 IMS $3,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jolynn Walz For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jacob Maxwell, Jolynn Walz Since the creation of the Department of Economic Development (DED), the Division of Business Development has seen a significant increase in program administration. This increase comes from the transfer of existing programs (i.e., the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) and Special Assessment Areas (SAAs)) and being charged with the creation of new programs for the business community such as the Construction Mitigation Grant Pro gram and the Outdoor Dining Grant Program. Currently, DED manages the Special Assessment Area (SAA) in the Central Business Improvement District (Downtown SAA) and is administering the creation of a second SAA in Sugarhouse. Phase 1 of the Sugarhouse SA A creation has extended to almost two-years, and completion of the due diligence is expected to finalize in 2024. The second phase of the Sugarhouse SAA will entail extensive administrative work required by state statute that governs the SAA process that Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 includes: the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management. In 2023, DED received a request from property owners in the Granary District to begin the due diligence investigatory process to establish a third SAA. Salt Lake City Council has allocated funding for the consultant to conduct the due diligence work for the Granary SAA. DED is charged with this initial phase that requires management of the consultant (that provides the valuation numbers and tax scenarios) and due diligence reporting to the City Council. In addition to the creation of two more SAAs, Sugarhouse and the Granary District, DED every three years is required to manage the renewal of the Central Business Improvement District SAA (Downtown). The steps in renewal process are similar to the process listed above to create an SAA (the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management). Should additional areas be approved for assessment, and the renewal of the contract for each SAA is every 3 to 5 years which is required by state statute; the demands of managing the SAAs will require significant administration and full-time support. In addition to the management of the Special Assessment Areas in the City, this position would support Salt Lake City’s commercial corridors that host formal and informal business communities. The manager would work with the business communities and corridors on outreach and engagement to create new districts while also providing ongoing support to existing districts. Examples of these include the Midtown District, Granary District Alliance, River District Business Alliance, and North Temple Community Improvement Group. To s upport these efforts, DED will partner with the RDA to provide a community grants program that would make funds available to support emerging business districts and thus increase their chance of success and long-term viability. This work would translate to more vibrant, active, and thriving business districts/commercial corridors in Salt Lake City. The impact of this position to further bolster Salt Lake City’s business and commercial corridors would benefit the City’s residents and visitors while also contributing to the tax base. The Special Assessment Area is an important economic development tool that can transform a neighborhood by bolstering business development, improving a commercial area’s quality of life, and has proven to increase the commercial property values. As the City continues to grow, there will be further opportunities and interest for various types of business district support. This will ultimately lead to more dynamic neighborhoods and destinations for residents and visitors to enjoy. A-8: SAA Funds to the Downtown Alliance Spec Assessment $664,293.70 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson Remaining cash balances in previous SAAs which are now being remitted back to the Downtown Alliance. A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expeses GF $6,500.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your Neighbor Program. During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Know Your Neighbor Program was presented to the City Council with the total required expenses. Ho wever, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24 presented Key Changes. A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses GF $55,750.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Sandee Moore / Tracy Patillo For questions, please include Sandee Moore and Tracy Patillo Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Love Your Block Program. During the FY24 Budget Development and Budget Presentations, the Love Your Block Program was presented to the City Council with the total required expenses. However, the expenses were inadvertently not recognized on the FY24 presented Key Changes. A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023- 2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non- Represented Employees NA No Budgetary Impact Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar / Jonathan Pappasideris For question, please include David Salazar and Jonathan Pappasideris The ordinance is attached to the transmittal. Further details on the reasons for the change are listed below. - Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Snowfighter Pay. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in th e new AFSCME MOU were known.) - Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) - Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance. (NOTE: In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City Council, comments alerted city council the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known.) - Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) - New rates indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums f or salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday without fiscal impact. - Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) - Corrects pay levels shown for certain job titles to match those included in the Plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the Appointed Pay Plan transmitted to city council intended only to show addition of the new Safety & Security Director for Public Services, but inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and Justice Court Administrator. - Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2022 -2023”) – Specific edits include adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City Council. These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay specifically and will also make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset Special Rev $65,472.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its orig inal budget of $200,000 The fund has been working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property owner has reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition. D-2: 300 N Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Pass- through CIP $500,000.00 Department: Public Services-Engineering Prepared By: JP Goates / Josh Willie For question, please include JP Goates, Josh Willie Jorge Chamorro Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N pedestrian bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City. Since this contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming revenue from the Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the contractor. D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants $6,400,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson Funding was transferred to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better track according to federal guidelines. D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Bonds CIP $24,885,893.25 Department: Finance-Treasurer Prepared By: Gaby Ewell / Marina Scott For questions, please include Gaby Ewell, Marina Scott and Samantha Kenney In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight Parks, Trails and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the first issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds. There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. • One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project. • The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project. • The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South). • The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Conpletion & Landscaping projects. • The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project. • The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive ) project. • The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various locations) projects. • The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project. • There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated $3,332,000. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 • There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000. • There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the general fund. These reimbursements will be according to tracking of permitted expenses. • Finally, there will an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability Misc Grants $1,229,681.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey For question, please include Amy Dorsey The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending reimbursement deadlines. E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development Misc Grants $1,391,672.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey For question, please include Amy Dorsey The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. The Administration is requesting that the Council conduct a straw poll due to impending reimbursement deadlines. E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 Misc Grants $3,107,201.00 Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Michelle Hoon For question, please include Amy Dorsey and Michelle Hoon This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for the purpose of deferring costs associated with having an eligible homeless shelter within the City. This is a formula grant the City was not required to apply, but was awarded by the State. This grant requires no match and would require three new positions in the Police Department, one new position in CAN (that would be half funded by the grant) and one new position in the Justice Court. E-4: Marathon Community Investment Fire Department Misc Grants $5,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey For questions, please include Amy Dorsey, Clint Rasmussen This grant will be used to pay for materials needed for the Fire Department's swift water rescue program. No FTE's are associated with this grant. E-5: Utah Department of Health & Human Services – EMS Grant Misc Grants $8,014.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey For questions, please include Amy Dorsey This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $8014 for the purpose of reimbursements for expenditures related to the provision of Emergency Medical Services. No new FTEs. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Misc Grants $1,000,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000 for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan in collaboration with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalitie s statewide and tribal governments that will support actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to the $1,000,000 award. 1 New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement. Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023 G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands Misc Grants $50,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a $50,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands Misc Grants $150,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Misc Grants $150,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. G-5: Backman Community Open Space Misc Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City's (City) Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities, watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open space area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community. The current conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk to school. An analysis by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide children and their families greater Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making the site an unprecedented public asset for hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is required. Public hearing was held on May 16,2023. G-6: Utah Department of Health & Human Services Misc Grants $8,014.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Utah Department of Health and Human Services is awarding the Salt Lake City Fire Department $8,014 for FY24. The purpose of this grant is to award the annual EMS Per Capita grant funds. No match is required. G-7: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants $92,846.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim advocate. This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two years by a previous VOCA award. Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. The other portion of the Victim Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees) An ordinance amending the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non- Represented Employees. PREAMBLE The City Council, in Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29B of 2023, approved the FY 2023- 2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation. However, the City Council, in order to meet the operational needs of Salt Lake City Corporation, wishes to amend the FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non- Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation by: i) revising Subsection II (“Employee Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) to increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an additional half-percent; ii) revising Subsection IV(B)(2) (“Wage Differentials & Additional Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to reduce the amount of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve- hour period to thirty (30) minutes per twelve-hour period; iii) revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to provide a pay differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay; iv) revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00 to $15.00; v) removing Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday Exceptions”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”); 2 vi) revising Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or Personal Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) to provide that eligible employees shall receive personal leave hours on November 1 of each calendar year and clarify how such hours may be used and converted; vii) revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) to reflect the correct pay rates and rectify rounding error; viii) revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) to reflect changes to certain job titles and grades and to add the new appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the Public Services Department; ix) revising Appendix C (“Elected Officials Salary Schedule”) to reflect the correct annual salary amount; x) revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2022-2023”) to reflect required changes; and xi) making other technical and conforming changes. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to approve the attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation. Three copies of the attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall be maintained in the City Recorder’s Office for public inspection. SECTION 2. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. Subsection II (“Employee Compensation for Fiscal Year 2023”) of Section II (“Employee Wages, Salaries & Benefits”) is hereby amended to increase employee base pay and elected official salaries by an additional half- percent. SECTION 3. STANDBY PAY FOR POLICE SERGEANTS. Subsection IV(B)(2) (“Wage Differentials & Additional Pay; Standby Pay; Standby for Police Sergeants”) of Section 3 III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to reduce the amount of straight time compensation from two hours per twelve-hour period to thirty (30) minutes per twelve-hour period. SECTION 4. SNOWFIGHTER PAY. Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to provide a pay differential equal to fifteen percent of an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay. SECTION 5. MEAL ALLOWANCE. Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) is hereby amended to increase the meal allowance amount from $10.00 to $15.00. SECTION 6. HOLIDAY EXCEPTIONS. Subsection I(E) (“Holidays; Holiday Exceptions”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby removed. SECTION 7. PLAN “B.” Subsection III(B) (“Sick and Other Related Leave or Personal Leave; Plan ‘B’”) of Section IV (“Holiday, Vacation & Leave Accrual”) is hereby amended to provide that eligible employees shall receive personal leave hours on November 1 of each calendar year and clarify how such hours may be used and converted. SECTION 8. GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN. Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct pay rates and rectify rounding error. SECTION 9. APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT. Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) is hereby amended to reflect changes to certain job titles and grades and to add the new appointed position of “Safety & Security Director” in the Public Services Department. 4 SECTION 10. ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARY SCHEDULE. Appendix C (“Elected Officials Salary Schedule”) is hereby amended to reflect the correct annual salary amount. SECTION 11. UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2022-2023”) is hereby amended to reflect required changes. SECTION 12. OTHER REVISIONS. The FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation is hereby amended to reflect other technical and conforming changes. SECTION 13. APPLICATION. The attached amended FY 2023-2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation shall not apply to non-represented employees of Salt Lake City Corporation whose employment terminated prior to the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________. Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 5 ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _____ of 2023. Published: ____________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form Date: _______________ By: ____________________ Jonathan Pappasideris Division Chief Senior City Attorney August 29, 2023 Jonathan Pappasideris ANNUAL COMPENSATON PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FY2023-2024 i FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Table of Contents EFFECTIVE DATE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN ................................................................................................ 1 AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR ................................................................................................................. 1 APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS .................................................................................................................... 1 MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS ........................................... 1 SECTION I: DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2 SUBSECTION I - DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................. 2 SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS ............................................................ 2 SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES ....................................... 2 A. Determination ................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Salary Schedules ............................................................................................................................... 2 C. Other Compensation ......................................................................................................................... 3 SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 ..................................... 3 SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE ........................................................................................ 3 SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ................................................................................ 3 SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE ....................................... 4 SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT ............................................................................................................ 4 SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES ................................. 4 SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS ............................................................................................................. 4 SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION ................................................................................... 4 SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY ..................................................................................................... 5 SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY ................................................... 6 SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY ........................................................................ 9 SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES .................................................................................. 9 SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT ......................................................................................... 11 SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL ............................................................ 13 SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS ................................................................................................................. 13 SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE .................................................................................................. 14 SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE ....................... 17 A. Plan “A ” ............................................................................................................................................ 17 1. Sick Leave .......................................................................................................................................... 17 ii 2. Hospitalization Leave ......................................................................................................................... 19 3. Dependent Leave ................................................................................................................................ 20 4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A” ........................................................................................................... 21 5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A” ................................................................................................................. 21 B. Plan “B” .................................................................................................................................................. 21 SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE ................................................................................................ 24 SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ......................................................................................... 25 SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE .................................................................................................. 26 SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES .......................................................... 26 SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY)............ 27 SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE ................................................................. 28 SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE .............................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX A – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP) ............................................................. 29 APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT ....................................................... 31 APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE .......................................................... 34 APPENDIX D- UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2021-2022 ............................. 35 DISCLAIMER City employment is subject to City ordinances, policies, practices and procedures as well as state law, federal law, and constitutional limitations on the City as a governmental entity. The policies, procedures, and practices of the City and its departments and workgroups do not limit, affect, or alter any legal or constitutional rights the City or its employees may have. The City’s policies, procedures, and practices do not create any contractual rights, either express or implied, or any other obligation or liability on the City. The City also expressly reserves the right to amend or change its policies, procedures, and practices at any time, with or without notice, and to amend or change its ordinances, with the notice required by law. 1 FY 2024 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this plan shall be effective commencing June 25, 2023, unless otherwise noted. EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN This plan applies to all full -time city employees. This plan does not apply to employees classified as: seasonal, hourly, temporary, part-time or those covered by a memorandum of understanding. AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR Employees covered by this compensation plan may be appointed, classified, and advanced under rules and regulations promulgated by the mayor within budget limitations established by the city council. Furthermore, the mayor may authorize leave not specified in this compensation plan to provide for operational flexibility, so long as the additional leave does not exceed the equivalent of eight hours of leave per employee, per year. However, with the exception of a benefit created or expanded pursuant to Section IV, Subsection X (“Emergency Leave”), the mayor may not otherwise create a new benefit or expand an existing benefit for employees covered by this compensation plan if doing so will result in a direct, measurable cost. A direct, measurable cost includes a circumstance where the total cost of the new benefit or expansion of an existing benefit exceeds appropriated funds. Further, city council input and approval is required if the creation of a new benefit has policy implications or is already addressed in this compensation plan. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS All provisions in this compensation plan are subject to the appropriation of funds by the city council. MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS If a local emergency is declared, any provision in this compensation plan may be temporarily modified, suspended, or revoked for the duration (or any portion thereof) of the period of local emergency, if so authorized by the mayor and/or city council . 2 SECTION I: DEFINITIONS SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES The city’s compensation system and program, in conjunction with this plan, is intended to attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel necessary to effectively meet public service demands. A. Determination 1. The mayor shall develop policies and guidelines for the administration of the pay plans. 2. To the degree that funds permit, employees shall be paid compensation that: a. Is commensurate with the skills and abilities required of the position; b. Achieves equal pay for equal work; c. Attains comparability and is competitive with the compensation paid by other public and/or private employers with whom the city compares and/or competes for personnel recruitment and retention. 3. To the extent possible, market surveys shall be used to assess and evaluate the city’s competitiveness with a cross section of organizations with whom the city competes for personnel recruitment and retention. This may include one or more of the following: a. Compensation surveys, including actual pay and other cash allowances paid to employees. b. Benefits surveys, including paid leave, group insurance plans, retirement, and other employer-provided and voluntary benefits. c. Regular review of the city’s compensation plans and pay structures to ensure salary ranges and regular pay practices provide for job growth and encourage employee productivity. B. Salary Schedules 1. All Employees covered under this plan (except for those designated as “Elected Officials”) shall be paid base wages or salaries according to the General Employee Pay Plan attached as Appendix “A.” Wages and salaries shall not be less than the established range minimum or higher than the range maximum, unless otherwise approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee. 3 2. Appointed Employees: The specific pay level assignments for Appointed Employees are shown in Appendix “B.” 3. Elected Officials: Elected officials shall be paid annual compensation according to schedule attached as Appendix "C." C. Other Compensation The mayor or the city council may distribute appropriated monies to city employees as discretionary retention incentives or retirement contributions, or special lump sum supplemental payments. Retention incentives or special lump sum payments are subject to the mayor’s or city council’s approval. SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 For employees covered under this plan, the city will increase each employee’s base pay by five percent. Salaries for elected officials will, also, be increased by five percent. The city’s living wage for regular, full-time employees is set and shall be no less than $15.11 per hour. SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE The city will make available group medical, health and flex savings plans, dental, life, accidental death & dismemberment, long-term disability insurance, voluntary benefits and an employee assistance program (EAP) to all eligible employees and their eligible spouse, adult designee, dependents and dependents of adult designee pursuant to city policy. A. Employer-Paid Contributions. Effective July 1, 2023, the city’s contribution toward the total premium for group medical will be 95% for the high -deductible Summit Star Plan. For employees enrolled in the high-deductible Summit Star Plan, the city will also contribute a one-time total of $750 into a qualified health savings account (HSA) or a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for those enrolled for single coverage and $1,500 for those enrolled for double or family coverage per plan year. Health savings account or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) contributions will be pro-rated for any employee hired after July 1, 2023. B. 501(c) (9) Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Account. The city will contribute $24.30 per bi-weekly pay period into each employee’s Post Employment Health Reimbursement Account. For any year in which there are 27 pay periods, no such contribution will be made in the 27th pay period. SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION The city will provide workers’ compensation coverage to employees as required by applicable law. 4 SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE All sworn employees in the Police and Fire departments covered under this plan are exempt from the provisions of the federal Social Security System unless determined otherwise by the city or required by applicable law. SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT A. Retirement Programs. The city hereby adopts the Utah State Retirement System for providing retirement benefits to employees covered by the plan. The city may permit or require the participation of employees in its retirement program(s) under terms and conditions established by the mayor and consistent with applicable law. Such programs may include: 1. The Utah State Public Employees (Contributory and Non-Contributory); Public Safety Retirement Systems; or, the Utah Firefighters Retirement System; or, 2. Deferred compensation programs. B. The 2023-2024 fiscal year retirement contribution rates for employees, including elected officials, are shown in Appendix “D.” SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS A. The city’s standard work week begins Sunday at 12:00am and ends the following Saturday at 11:59pm. Alternatives to the standard work week may be authorized and adopted for specific work groups, such as: 1. The standard work schedule for combat Fire Battalion Chiefs, which includes two consecutive 24-hour shifts immediately followed by 96 hours off. SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION A. Overtime Compensation. The city will pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The city will pay overtime hours at 1 ½ times the employee’s regular hourly rate or, at the employee’s request and with their department director’s approval, provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1½ hours for each overtime hour in lieu of overtime compensation. 1. Employees may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum amount as determined by their department director. 5 2. The city may elect at any time to pay an employee for any or all accrued compensatory hours. 3. The city will includ e only actual hours worked and holiday leave hours when calculating overtime. 4. When used, personal leave and compensatory time will not be included in the calculation of overtime. 5. The city will pay out all accrued compensatory hours whenever an employee’s status or position changes from FLSA non-exempt to exempt. B. Labor Costs— Declared Emergency— Overtime Compensation for FLSA Exempt Employees. The city may pay exempt employees overtime pay for any hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek at a rate equivalent to their regular base hourly rate of pay during periods of emergency. The city shall only make such payment when all of the following conditions occur: 1. The mayor or the city council has issued a “Proclamation of Local Emergency” or the city responds to an extraordinary emergency; and, 2. Exempt employees are required to work over forty (40) hours for one or more workweek(s) during the emergency period: and, 3. The mayor and/or the city council approve the use of available funds to cover the overtime payments. The city shall distribute any overtime payments consistently with a pre-defined standard that treats all exempt employees equitably. Hours worked under a declared or extraordinary emergency must be paid hours and cannot be accrued as compensatory time. SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY A. Eligibility. With the exception of elected officials, the city will pay a monthly longevity benefit to full-time employees based on the most recent date an employee began full -time employment as follows: 1. Employees who have completed six (6) consecutive years of employment with the city will receive $50; 2. Employees who have completed ten (10) consecutive years of employment with the city will receive $75; 3. Employees who have completed sixteen (16) full years of employment wit h the city will receive $100; and, 6 4. Employees who have completed twenty (20) full years of employment with the city will receive $125. B. Pension Base Pay. Longevity pay will be included in base pay for purposes of pension contributions. C. Longevity While on an Unpaid Leave of Absence. Employees do not earn or receive longevity payments while on an unpaid leave of absence. When an employee returns from an approved unpaid leave of absence, longevity payments will resume. SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY Eligible employees receive certain wage differentials as follows: A. Call Back and Call Out Pay. Non-exempt employees will be paid Call Back or Call Out pay based upon department director approval and the following guidelines: 1. Call Back Pay: Non-sworn, non-exempt employees who have been released from normally scheduled work and standby periods, and who are directed by an appropriate department head or designated representative to return to work prior to their next scheduled normal duty shift, will be paid for a minimum of three (3) hours straight-time pay and, in addition, will be guaranteed a minimum four (4) hours work at straight-time pay. 2. Call Out Pay for Police Sergeants. Sergeants who have been released from their scheduled work shifts and have been directed by an appropriate division head or designated representative to perform work without at least 24 hours advance notice or scheduling, shall be compensated as follows: a. Sergeants who are directed to report to work shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours compensation at one and one -half times their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater. b. Sergeants who are assigned to day shift, and who are directed to perform work within eight (8) hours prior to the beginning of their regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater. c. Sergeants who are assigned to afternoon or graveyard shifts, and who are directed to perform work within eight (8) hours following the end of their regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater. 7 B. Standby Pay : Non-exempt employees are eligible to receive Standby pay based upon the following guidelines. 1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees: Non-exempt, non-sworn employees who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not been released from standby status will be paid either two (2) hours of straight time pay for each 24 hour period of limited standby status; or two (2) hours straight time pay for each 12- hour period of standby status if they are Department of Airports or Public Utilities Department employees. a. First Call to Work. An eligible employee who is directed to return to his or her normal work site during an assigned Standby period by a department head or designated representative without advanced notice or scheduling will be paid a guaranteed minimum of four (4) hours, which may include any combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay. b. Additional Calls to Work. An eligible employee will be paid an additional guaranteed minimum of two (2) hours, which may include any combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time pay, for each additional occasion he or she is called to work during the same twenty-four (24) or twelve (12) hour standby period. c. Exclusion for Snow Fighters. Any employee on standby as a member of the Snow Fighter Corps shall not receive standby/on-call pay or shift differential when on standby or called back to fight snow. 2. Standby for Police Sergeants: Police Sergeants directed by their division commander or designee to keep themselves available for city service during otherwise off-duty hours shall be compensated 30 minutes of straight time for each 12-hour period of standby status. This compensation shall be in addition to any callout pay or pay for time worked the employee may receive during the standby period. C. Extra-Duty Shifts for Police Sergeants. "Extra-duty shifts" are defined as scheduled or unscheduled hours worked other than the sergeant's normally scheduled work shifts. "Extra-duty shifts" do not include extension or carry over of the sergeant's normally scheduled work shift. 1. Any sergeant required by the city to work extra-duty shifts shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours compensation at one and one -half times their regular base hourly rate, or time worked paid at one and one-half times their regular hourly base wage rate, whichever is greater. D. Shift Allowance, not including Police Sergeants & Lieutenants. Only non- exempt employees who perform afternoon/ swing or evening shift work are eligible to receive a shift allowance. 8 1. The city will include all shift allowance when computing overtime. An employee who receives Snow Fighter Corps differential pay is not eligible to also receive shift allowance. 2. Day Shift: No allowance will be paid for work hours which are part of a regular day shift. 3. Eligible Hours: For each non-day shift hour worked between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the city will pay an eligible non-exempt employee a differential of $1.00 per hour. E. Shift Differential for Police Sergeants & Lieutenants: The city will pay Police sergeants & lieutenants shift differentials according to the shift actually worked. Actual shift differential rates are determined as follows: 1. Day Shift: No differential pay for hours worked during day shift, which begins at 0500 hours until 1159 hours. 2. Swing Shift: A differential of 2.5% in addition to the regular day rate shall be paid for swing shift, which begins at 1200 hours until 1759 hours. 3. Graveyard Shift: A differential of 5.0% in addition to the regular day rate shall be paid for graveyard shift, which begins at 1800 hours until 0459 hours. F. K-9 Squad Allowance: Police sergeants assigned to the K-9 squad will be compensated as follows: 1. Police sergeants shall be allowed ten (10) hours per month to care for the police service dog. Such hours shall be counted as part of the Police sergeant's regular work shift(s). 2. Police sergeants shall be provided ten (10) hours per month while off duty, at the rate of one-and-one-half (1 ½) times their wage rate, to care for the police service dog. No more than ten (10) hours per month shall be spent off duty to care for the police service dog unless authorized by the Police Chief or designee. G. Acting/Working out of Classification. A department head may elect to grant additional compensation to an employee for work performed on a temporary basis, whether in an acting capacity or otherwise, beyond the employee’s regular job classification for any period lasting 20 or more working days. Unless approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee, acting pay shall be limited to no more than 90 calendar days from the start date and paid separately from regular earnings on each employee’s wage statement. Compensation adjustments may be retroactive to the start date of the temporary job assignmen t. Exceptions may be approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee. 1. Acting pay shall be excluded when calculating any leave payouts, including vacation, holiday, and personal leave. 9 H. Snowfighter Pay. The city will pay employees designated by the department head, or designee, as members of the Snow Fighter Corps a pay differential equal to 15% of an eligible employee’s regular weekly base pay for work related to snow removal. This pay shall be separate from regular earnings on each employee’s wage statement. SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY A. Education Incentives. The mayor may adopt programs to promote employee education and training, provided that all compensation incentives are authorized within appropriate budget limitations established by the city council. 1. Police Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains are eligible for a $500 per year job- related training allowance. 2. Fire Battalion/Division Chiefs are eligible for incentive pay following completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or university and submission of evidence of a diploma. The city will pay monthly allowances according to the educational degree held, as follows: Doctorate………….. $100.00 Masters………..…... $75.00 SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES A. Meal Allowance. When approved by management, employees may receive meal allowances in the amount of $15.00 when an employee works two or more hours consecutive to their normally scheduled shift. Employees may also be eligible to receive $15.00 for each additional four-hour consecutive period of work which is in addition to the normally scheduled work shift. 1. Fire and police department employees shall be provided with adequate food and drink to maintain safety and performance during emergencies or extraordinary circumstances. B. Business Expenses. City policy shall govern the authorization of employee advancement or reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred while performing city business. Advance payment or reimbursement for expenses shall be approved only when the amounts are documen ted and within the budget limitations established by the city council. C. Automobiles 1. The mayor may authorize, subject to the conditions provided in city policy, an employee to utilize a city vehicle on a take-home basis and may require an employee to reimburse the city for a portion of the take -home vehicle cost as provided in city ordinance. 10 2. Employees who are authorized to use privately-owned automobiles for official city business will be reimbursed for the operation expenses at the rate specif ied in city policy. 3. The city will provide a car allowance to department directors, the mayor’s chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, up to three additional employees in the mayor’s office, and the city council Executive Director at a rate not to exceed $400 per month. A car allowance may be paid to specific appointed employees at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as recommended by the mayor and approved by the city council. D. Uniform Allowance. The city will provide employees who are required to wear uniforms in the performance of their duties a monthly uniform allowance as follows: 1. Non-sworn Police and Fire Department employees—$65.00 2. Watershed Management Division employees—$65.00 3. Fire: Battalion Chiefs will be provided with uniforms and other job -related safety equipment, as needed. Employees may select uniforms and related equipment from an approved list. The total allowance provided shall be $600 per year, or the amount received by firefighter employees, whichever is greater. Appointed employees shall be provided uniforms or uniform allowances to the extent stated in Fire department policy. a. Dangerous or contaminated safety equipment shall be cleaned, repaired, or replaced by the Fire department. 4. Police: Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in uniform assignments, as determined by their bureau commander, will be enrolled in the department’s quartermaster system. a. The quartermaster system will operate as follows: i. Necessary uniform and equipment items, including patrol uniforms, detective uniforms, duty gear, footwear, cold- weather gear, headwear, etc. will be provided to Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains by the department’s quartermaster pursuant to department policy. ii. A full inventory of items that the quartermaster will provide to Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains within the quartermaster system and the manner in which they will be distributed will be stated in department policy. iii. Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the quartermaster system will be paid the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100) each fiscal year for the purpose of independently purchasing any incidental uniform item or 11 equipment not provided by the quartermaster system. Payment will be made each year on the first day of the pay-period that includes August 15. b. The city will provide for the cleaning of uniforms as described in Police department policy. c. Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in plainclothes assignments, as determined by their bureau commander, are provided a clothing and cleaning allowance totaling $39.00 per pay period. Sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who are transferred back to a uniform assignment will return to the quartermaster system upon transfer. d. Uniforms or uniform allowances for appointed Police employees will be provided to the extent stated in Police department policy. E. Allowances for Certified Golf Teaching Professionals. The mayor may, within budgeted appropriations and as business needs indicate, authorize golf lesson revenue sharing between the city and employees recognized as Certified Golf Teaching Professionals as defined in the Golf Division’s Golf Lesson Revenue Policy. Payment to an employee for lesson revenue generated shall be reduced by: 1) a ten (10%) percent administrative fee to be retained by the Golf division, and 2) the employee’s payroll tax withholding requirements in accordance with applicable law. F. Other Allowances. The mayor or the city council may, within budgeted appropriations, authorize the payment of other allowances in extraordinary circumstances (as determined by the mayor or the city council). SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT Subject to availability of funds, any current appointed employee who is not retained, not terminated for cause and who is separated from city employment involuntarily shall receive severance benefits based upon their respective appointment date. A. Severance benefits shall be calculated using the employee’s salary rate in effect on the employee’s date of termination. Receipt of severance benefits is contingent upon execution of a release of all claims approved by the city attorney’s office. 1. Employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989 and before January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one months’ base salary for each continuous year of city employment in an appointed status before January 1, 2000. Severance shall be calculat ed on a pro-rata basis for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six m onths. 2. Current department heads, along with the mayor’s chief of staff and the executive director of the city council office, appointed on or after January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to two month’s base salary after one full year of continuous city employment in an appointed status; four months’ base salary 12 after two full years of continuous city employment in an appointed status; or, six months’ base salary after three full years or more of continuous city employment in an appointed status. 3. Current appointed employees who are not department heads, and who were appointed on or after January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one week’s base salary for each year of continuous city employment in an appointed status, calculated on a pro-rata basis, for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six weeks. B. Leave Payout: Appointed employees with leave hour account balances under Plan A or Plan B shall, in addition to the severance benefit provided, receive a severance benefit equal to the “retirement benefit” value provided under the leave plan of which they are a participant (either Plan A or Plan B), if separation is involuntary and not for cause. C. Not Eligible for Benefit. An appointed employee is ineligible to be paid severance benefits under the following circumstances: 1. An employee who, at the time of termination of employment, has been convicted, indicted, charged or is under active criminal investigation concerning a public offense involving a felony or moral turpitude. This provision shall not restrict the award of full severance benefits should such employee subsequently be found not guilty of such charge or if the charges are otherwise dismissed. 2. An employee who has been terminated or asked for a resignation by the mayor or department director under bona fide charges of nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office. 3. An employee who fails to execute a Release of All Claims approved by the city attorney’s office, where required as stipulated above. 4. An employee who is hired into another position in the city prior to their separation date. In the event an employee is hired into another position in the city after their separation date and prior to the expiration of the period of time for which the severance benefit was provided, the employee is required to reimburse the City (on a pro-rata basis) for that portion of the severance benefit covering the period of time between the date of rehire and the expiration of the period of time for which the severance benefit was provided. 13 SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL Benefits-eligible employees shall receive pay for holidays, vacation and other leave as provided in this section. Employees do not earn or receive holiday and vacation benefits while on unpaid leave of absence. However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the restoration of such leave benefits, as r equired by applicable law. SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS A. The following days are recognized and observed as holidays for covered employees. Eligible employees will receive pay for non-worked holidays equal to their regular rate of pay times the total number of hours which make a regularly scheduled shift. Except as otherwise noted in this subsection, an employee may not bank a worked holiday. 1. New Year's Day, the first day of January. 2. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Human Rights Day), the third Monday of January. 3. President's Day, the third Monday in February. 4. Memorial Day, the last Monday of May. 5. Juneteenth National Freedom Day, June 19 a. If June 19 is on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the holiday will be observed on the immediately preceding Monday. If June 19 is on a Saturday or Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the immediately following Monday. 6. Independence Day, July 4. 7. Pioneer Day, July 24. 8. Labor Day, the first Monday in September. 9. Veteran's Day, November 11. 10. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November. 11. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day 12. Christmas Day, December 25. 13. One personal holiday per calendar year, taken upon request of an employee and as approved by a supervisor. 14 B. When any holiday listed above falls on a Sunday, the following business day is considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on a Saturday, the preceding business day is considered a holiday. In addition to the above, any day may be designated as a holiday by proclamation of the mayor or the city council. C. All holiday hours, including personal holidays, must be used in no less than regular full day or shift increments. 1. A Fire battalion/division chief may be allowed to use a holiday in less than a full shift increment only when converting from a “support” to “operations” work schedule results in the creation of a half-shift. D. No employee will receive more than the equivalent of one workday or a regular scheduled shift as holiday pay for a single holiday. Employees must either work or be in an authorized paid leave status a working day before and a working day after the holiday to qualify for holiday pay. 1. An employee who is off work and in a paid status covered by short-term disability or parental leave receives regular pay as a benefit and, therefore, is not entitled to bank a holiday while off work. E. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Holiday Hours Worked: When a day designated as a holiday falls on a scheduled workday, a Police sergeant, lieutenant, or captain may elect to take the day off work, subject to the approval of their supervisor, or receive their regular wages for such days worked and designate an alternate day off work to celebrate the holiday. For a Police sergeant whose assignment requires staffing on either the graveyard shift prior to, or the day and afternoon shift on Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day, all hours worked will be compensated at a rate of one-and-one- half (1 ½) times the employee’s regular base wage rate. F. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Accrued Holiday Leave Payout: Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who retire or separate from city employment for any reason shall be compensated for any holiday time accrued and unused during the preceding 12 months. Employees will not be compensated for any unused holiday time accrued before the 12 months preceding the employee’s retirement or separation. 1. Any Police sergeant, lieutenant, or captain who is transferred or promoted to a higher-level position within the department, including Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, or Police Chief, or to a position in another city department will be paid out at their current base pay rate for any holiday time accrued and unused during the preceding 12 months. SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE The city will pay eligible employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and taken in accordance with the following provisions. Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or this plan, vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total 15 number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a pay period. Vacation hours may be used on the first day of the pay period following the period in which the vacation hours are accrued. A. Full-Time employees and appointed employees (except for those noted in paragraphs B and C of this subsection) accrue vacation leave based upon years of city service as follows: Years of Hours of Vacation Accrued City Service Per Bi-Weekly Pay Period 0 to end of year 3 3.73 4 to end of year 6 4.42 7 to end of year 9 4.81 10 to end of year 12 5.54 13 to end of year 15 6.15 16 to end of year 19 6.77 20 or more 7.69 B. Department directors, the mayor’s chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, up to two additional senior positions in the mayor’s office as specified by the mayor, the executive director of the city council, and justice court judges will accrue 7.69 hours each bi-weekly pay period. C. Fire battalion chiefs in the Operations division of the Fire department will accrue vacation leave according to the following schedule: Years of Accrued Hours of Vacation City Service Per Pay Period 0 to end of year 3 5.54 4 to end of year 6 6.46 7 to end of year 9 7.38 10 to end of year 12 8.31 16 13 to end of year 14 9.23 15 to end of year 19 10.15 20 or more 11.54 D. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no vacation leave hours will be awarded in the 27th pay period. E. Years of city service are based on the most recent date the person became a full- time salaried employee. F. Full-time employees re-hired by the city are eligible to receive prior service credit for previous full-time city employment and time worked with other public jurisdictions without a break in service. Prior service credit is applicable for vacation accrual, personal leave accrual, short-term disability benefits, layoff, and awarding of employee service awards and service certificates only. Prior service credit does not apply to longevity pay. G. Full-time and appointed employees (except those listed in Paragraph B of this subsection) may accumulate vacations, according to the length of their full-time years of city Service, up to the following maximum limits: Up to and including 9 years Up to 30 days/ 15 shifts/ 240 hours After 9 years Up to 35 days/ 17.5 shifts/ 280 hours After 14 years Up to 40 days/ 20 shifts/ 320 hours For purposes of this subsection, "days" means "8-hour" days and “shifts” means “24-hour” combat shifts. H. Department directors and those included in Paragraph B of this subsection may accumulate up to 320 hours of vacation without regard to their years of employment with the city. I. Any vacation accrued beyond the allowable maximums, including any Plan A sick leave hours converted to vacation, will be deemed forfeited unless used before the end of the pay period in which an employee’s designated longevity date occurs. However, in the case of an employee’s return from an unpaid military leave of absence, leave hours may be restored according to requirements under applicable law. J. Vacation Payout at Termination: An employee separating from employment may not exhaust more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked (holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. Employees shall be paid at their base hourly rate for any unused accrued vacation leave time following termination of employment, including retirement. 17 K. Vacation Allowance: As a recruiting incentive, the mayor or t he city council may provide a one-time allowance of up to 120 hours of vacation leave. SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE Benefits in this section are for the purpose of income replacement for employees during absence from work due to illness, accident, or personal reasons. Some of these absences may qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Although the city requires use of accrued paid leave prior to taking unpaid FMLA leave, employees will be allowed to reserve up to 80 hours of non-lapsing leave as a contingency for future use by submitting a written request to Human Resources. Employees are not eligible to earn or receive leave benefits while on an unpaid leave of absence. However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the restoration of such leave benefits, as provided by applicable law. Employees hired on or after November 16, 1997 receive personal leave benefits under Plan B. All other employees receive personal leave benefits pursuant to the plan they participated in as of November 15, 1998. Employees hired before November 16, 1997 shall receive personal leave benefits under Plan B if they elected to do so during any city - established election period occurring in 1998 or later. A. Plan “A ” 1. Sick Leave a. Sick leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan “A” as insurance against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of illness or injury. The mayor may e stablish rules governing the interfacing of sick leave and workers’ compensation benefits and avoiding, to the extent allowable by law, duplicative payments. b. Each full-time employee accrues sick leave at a rate of 4.62 hours per pay period. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no sick leave hours will be awarded in the 27th pay period. Authorized and unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year, subject to the limitations of this plan. 1. Sick Leave Accrual for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Each covered employee shall be entitled to 15 days of sick leave each calendar year, except for members of the Operations division who shall be entitled to 7.5 shifts of sick leave each calendar year. The City shall credit a covered employee’s sick leave account in a lump sum (either 15 days or7.5 shifts) during the first month of each calendar year. Authorized and unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year subject to the limitations of this plan. c. Under this Plan “A,” Full-Time employees who have accumulated 18 240 hours of sick leave may choose to convert up to 64 hours of the sick leave earned and unused during any given year to vacation. Any sick leave used during the calendar year reduces the allowable conversion by an equal amount. 1. Sick Leave Conversion for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Fire Battalion Chiefs who have accumulated 15 shifts (for Operations employees), or 240 hours (for non-Operations employees) may choose to convert a portion of the year sick leave grant from any given year to vacation, as follows— Number of Sick Leave Shifts Used During Previous Calendar Year (Operations Only) Number of Sick Leave Shifts Available for Conversion (Operations Only) No shifts used 5 shifts One shift used 4 shifts Two shifts used 3 shifts Three shifts used 2 shifts Four shifts used 1 shift Five or more shifts used No shifts Number of Sick Leave Shifts Used During Previous Calendar Year (Support Only) Number of Sick Leave Shifts Available for Conversion (Support Only) No days used 9 days One day used 8 days Two days used 7 days Three days used 6 days Four days used 5 days Five or more days used 0 days d. Conversion at the maximum allowable hours will be made unless the employee elects otherwise. Any election by an employee for no conversion, or to convert less than the maximum allowable sick leave hours to vacation time, must be made by notifying the employee’s department timekeeper or the city payroll administrator, in writing, not later than the second pay period of the new calendar year (or the November vacation draw for Fire Battalion Chiefs). Otherwise, the opportunity to waive conversion or elect conversion other than the maximum allowable amount will be deemed waived for that calendar year. In no event may sick leave days be converted from other than the current year's sick leave allocation. e. Any sick leave hours, properly converted to vacation benefits as above described, must be taken before any other vacation hours to which the employee is entitled; however, in no event is an employee, upon the employee’s separation from employment, entitled to any pay or compensation for any sick leave converted to vacation. An employee 19 forfeits any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date of separation from employment. f. Sick Leave Benefits Upon Layoff. Employees who are subject to layoff because of lack of work or lack of funds will be paid at 100% of their hourly base wage rate as of the date of termination for each accumulated unused sick leave hour. 2. Hospitalization Leave a. Hospitalization leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan “A,” in addition to sick leave authorized hereunder, as insuran ce against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of scheduled surgical procedures, urgent medical treatment, or hospital inpatient admission. b. Employees are entitled to 30 days of hospitalization leave each calendar year. Hospitalization leave does not accumulate from year to year. Employees may not convert hospitalization leave to vacation or any other leave, nor may they convert hospitalization leave to any additional benefit at time of retirement. c. Employees who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due to preparations (such as fasting, rest, or ingestion of medicine), for a scheduled surgical procedure, may report the absence from the affected shift as hospitalization leave, with the prior approval of their division head or supervisor. d. An employee who must receive urgent medical treatment at a hospital, emergency room, or acute care facility, and who is regularly scheduled for work or unable to perform their duties during a shift (or work day) due to urgent medical treatment, may re port the absence from the affected shift as hospitalization leave. Similarly, an employee who is absent from work while on approved leave is also allowed to claim hospitalization leave. 1. An employee who wishes to claim hospitalization leave is responsible to report the receipt of urgent medical treatment to the employee’s division head or supervisor as soon as practical. 2. For purposes of use of hospitalization leave, urgent medical treatment includes at-home care directed by a physician immediately after the urgent medical treatment and within the affected shift. e. Employees who, because they are admitted as an inpatient to a hospital for medical treatment, are unable to perform their duties, may report the absence from duty while in the hospital as hospitalization leave. 20 f. Medical treatment consisting exclusively or primarily of post -injury rehabilitation or therapy treatment, whether conducted in a hospital or other medical facility, shall not be counted as hospitalization leave. g. An employee requesting hospitalization leave under this section may be required to provide verification of treatment or care from a competent medical practitioner. 3. Dependent Leave a. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may be requested by a full-time employee for the following reasons: 1. Becoming a parent through birth or adoption of a child. 2. Placement of a foster child in the employee’s home. 3. Due to the care of the employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult designee, adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or parent with a serious health condition. b. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may also be requested by a full- time employee to care for an employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult designee, an adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or a parent who is ill or injured but who does not have a serious health condition. c. The following provisions apply to the use of dependent leave by a full- time employee: 1. Dependent leave may be granted with pay on a straight time basis. 2. If an employee has available unused sick leave, sick leave may be used as dependent leave. 3. An employee is required to give notice of the need to take dependent leave, including the expected duration of leave, to his or her supervisor as soon as possible. 4. Upon request of a supervisor, an employee will be required to provide a copy of a birth certificate or evidence of child placement for adoption, or a letter from the attending physician in the event of hospitalization, injury, or illness of a child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult designee, adult designee’s child, or parent within five calendar days following a return from leave. 5. An employee’s sick leave shall be reduced by the number of hours 21 taken by an employee as dependent leave. 4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A” Full-Time employees, who have been in continuous full-time employment with the city for more than 20 years, and who have accumulated to their credit 1500 or more sick leave hours, may make a one-time election to convert up to 160 hours of sick leave into 80 hours of paid Career Incentive Leave . Career Incentive Leave must be taken prior to retirement. Sick leave hours converted to Career Incentive Leave will not be eligible for a cash payout upon termination or retirement even though the employee has unused Career Incentive Leave hours available. This leave can be used for any reason. Requests for Career Incentive Leave must be submitted in writing to the appropriate department director and be approved subject to the department’s business needs (e.g., work schedules and workloads). 5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A” a. Employees who meet the eligibility requirements of the Utah State Retirement System and who retire from the city will be paid at their base hourly rate for 50% of their accumulated sick leave hours balance based on the schedule below: Retirement Month 50% sick leave will be: January 1st – June 30th Contributed to 501(c)9 Health Reimbursement Account Plan (premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree B. Plan “B” 1. . Under Plan “B,” paid personal leave is provided for employees as insurance against loss of income when an employee needs to be absent from work because of illness or injury, to care for a dependent, or for any other emergency or personal reason. Each eligible employee will receive personal leave on November 1st of each calendar year. P e r s o n a l l e a v e h o u r s a r e i n e l i g i b l e t o b e u s e d t o e x c e e d t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f w o r k h o u r s f o r w h i c h a n e m p l o y e e i s r e g u l a r l y c o m p e n s a t e d d u r i n g a w o r k w e e k o r a p a y p e r i o d. Where the leave is not related to the employee’s own illness or disability—or an event that qualifies under the FMLA— a personal leave request is subject to supervisory approval based on the operational requirements of the city and any policies regarding the use of such leave adopted by the department in which the employee works. Accrued personal leave hours may be used on the same day the hours are received. 2. Each full-time employee under Plan “B” is awarded personal leave hours based on the following schedule: 22 Months of Consecutive Hours of City Service Personal Leave Less than 6 40 Less than 24 60 24 or more 80 Employees hired during the plan year are provided paid personal leave on a pro- rated basis. 3. Not later than October 15th of each calendar year, employees covered by Plan “B” may elect, by notifying their department timekeeper or the city payroll administrator in writing, to: a. Convert any unused personal leave hours availab le as of October 31st to a lump sum payment equal to the following: For each converted hour, the employee will be paid 50 percent of the employee’s regular hourly base wage rate (not including acting pay) in effect on the date of conversion. In no event will total pay hereunder exceed 40 hours of pay (80 hours at 50%); or b. Carryover to the next calendar year up to 80 unused personal leave hours; or c. Convert a portion of unused personal leave hours, to a lump sum payment as provided in subparagraph (3)(a), above, and carry over a portion as provided in subparagraph (3)(b), above. 4. Maximum Accrual. A maximum of 80 hours of personal leave may be carried over to the next plan year. Any personal leave hours unused at the end of the plan year in excess of 80 will be converted to a lump sum payment as provided in subparagraph 3(a) above. 5. Termination Benefits. An employee separating from employment may not exhaust more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked (holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. At termination of employment for any reason, accumulated unused personal leave hours, minus any adjustment necessary after calculating the “prorated amount,” shall be paid to the employee at 50 percent of the regular hourly base wage rate (not including acting pay) on the date of termination for each unused hour. For purposes of this paragraph, “prorated amount” shall mean the amount of personal leave credited at the beginning of the plan year, multiplied by the ratio of the number of pay periods worked in the plan year (rounded to the end of the pay period which includes the separation date) to 26 pay periods. If the employee, at the time of separation, has 23 used personal leave in excess of the prorated amount, the value of the excess amount shall be reimbursed to the city and may be deducted f rom the employee’s paycheck. 6. Conditions on Use of Personal Leave include: a. Minimum use of personal leave, with supervisory approval, must be in no less than quarter-hour increments. b. Except in unforeseen circumstances, such as emergencies or the employee’s inability to work due to illness or accident or an unforeseen FMLA-qualifying event, an employee must provide their supervisor with prior notice to allow time for the supervisor to make arrangements necessary to cover the employee’s work. c. For leave due to unforeseen circumstances, the employee must give their supervisor as much prior notice as possible. d. Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or this plan, personal leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a pay period. 7. Career Enhancement Leave, Plan “B”: A full-time employee covered under this Plan “B” is eligible, after 15 years of full-time service with the city, to be selected to receive up to two weeks of career enhancement leave. This one -time leave benefit could be used for formal training, informal course of study, job-related travel, internship, mentoring or other activity that could be of benefit to the city and the employee’s career development. Selected employees will receive their full regular salary during the leave. Request for this leave must be submitted in writing to the appropriate department head, stating the purpose of the request and how the leave is intended to benefit the city. The request must be approved by the department head and by the Human Resources director (who will review the request to ensure compliance with these guidelines). 8. Retirement/Layoff (RL) Benefit, Plan “B” a. Full-Time employees currently covered under Plan “B” who were hired before November 16, 1997, and who elected to be covered under Plan “B,” shall have a retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to sixty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 16, 1997, minus any hours withdrawn from that account since it was established. b. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and who elected in 1998 to be covered under Plan “B,” shall have a retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to fifty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 14, 1998, minus any hours withdrawn after the account is established. 24 c. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and who elected in 2007 or later during any period designated by the city to be covered under Plan “B,” shall have a retirement /layoff (RL) account equal to forty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on the date that Plan B participation began, minus any hours withdrawn after the account is established. d. Payment of the RL Account. 1. All hours in an employee’s RL account shall be payable upon retirement or as a result of layoff. In the case of layoff, 100% of R/L hours shall be paid to the employee according to the employee’s base hourly rate of pay on date of layoff. Any employee who quits, resigns, is separated, or is terminated for cause is not eligible to receive payment for RL account hours. 2. In cases of retirement, an eligible employee shall be paid at their base hourly rate for 100% of their RL account balance based on the schedule below: Retirement Month 100% RL hours will be: January 1st – June 30th Contributed to 501(c)9 Health Retirement Account Plan (premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree e. Hours may be withdrawn from the RL account to cover an employee’s absence from work due to illness or injury, need to care for a dependent, any emergency or to supplement Workers’ Compensation benefits after all Personal Leave hours are exhausted. RL account hours, when added to the employee’s workers’ compensation benefit, may not exceed the employee’s regular net salary. 9. Short-Term Disability Insurance, Plan “B”: Protection against loss of income when an employee is absent from work due to short -term disability shall be provided to full-time employees covered under Plan “B” through short-term disability insurance (SDI). There shall be no cost to the employee for SDI. SDI shall be administered in accordance with the terms determined by the city. SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE A. Full-time employees who become parents through birth, adoption, or foster care may take up to six consecutive weeks of paid parental leave to care for and bond with the child. An employee may be allowed to take parental leave up to one year from the date of a child’s birth or, in the case of adoption or foster care, the date a child is placed in the employee’s home. Parental leave may be taken during a new employee’s 25 probationary period. The probationary period will be extended by an amount of time equivalent to the parental leave taken. B. Parental leave will run concurrently (during the same period of time) with FMLA and SDI (if applicable). Parental leave is limited to six weeks per twelve-month period. For employees approved for short-term disability, parental leave will make up the difference between 100% pay and 66 2/3% pay (if applicable) for up to six weeks. SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE A. An employee who suffers the loss of an immediate family member including a(n): current spouse, domestic partner, or adult designee; child, mother, father, brother, sister; current father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law; grandparent; current step-grandfather, step-grandmother; grandchild, or current step grandchild, stepchild, stepmoth er, stepfather, stepbrother or stepsister, grandfather-in-law, grandmother-in-law; or, domestic partner’s or adult designee’s relative as if the domestic partner or adult designee were the employee’s spouse is eligible to be released from work for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related event(s). B. In the event of death of an immediate family member, the city will provide an employee with up to five working days of paid leave for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related event(s). The employee will be permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if the employee attends a funeral, memorial service or equivalent event that is held more than 150 miles from Salt Lake City and the day following the memorial service or equivalent event is a regular working shift. C. In the event of death of a first-line extended relative of an employee, or of an employee’s spouse, domestic partner, or adult designee’s relative as if the adult designee were the employee’s spouse not covered in paragraph A above (such as an uncle, aunt or cousin), the city will provide an employee with up to one work shift for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related event(s). The employee will be permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if the employee attends a funeral, memorial service or equivalent event that is held more than 150 miles from S alt Lake City and the day following the memorial service or equivalent event is a regular working shift. D. In the event of death of a friend, an employee may be allowed to use vacation or personal leave for time off to attend the funeral or memorial service, as approved by an immediate supervisor. E. In the event of death of any covered family member while an employee is on vacation leave, an employee’s absence may be extended and authorized as bereavement leave. 26 F. In the event of a miscarriage or stillbirth, the employee, employee’s spouse or partner, or employee to be an adoptive parent, the city will provide an employee with up to three working days of paid leave for bereavement. SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE A. Leave of absence for employees who enter uniformed service. An employee who enters the uniformed services of the United States, including the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force, commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Coast Guard, or the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, is entitled to be absent from his or her duties and servic e from the city, without pay, as required by applicable l law. Leave will be granted in accordance with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). B. Leave while on duty with the armed forces or Utah National Guard. An employee who is or who becomes a member of the reserves of the federal armed forces, including the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force, and the United States Coast Guard, or an y unit of the Utah National Guard, is allowed military leave for up to 15 working days per calendar year for time spent on active or reserve duty. Military leave may be in addition to vacation leave and need not be consecutive days of service. To be covered, an employee must provide documentation demonstrating a duty requirement. SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES A. Jury Leave: An employee will be released from duty with full pay when, in obedience to a subpoena or direction by proper authority, the employee is required to either serve on a jury or appear as a witness for the United States, the state of Utah, or other political subdivision. 1. Employees are entitled to retain statutory fees paid for service in a federal court, state court, or city/county justice court. 2. On any day that an employee is required to report for service and is thereafter excused from such service during his or her regular worki ng hours from the city, he or she must forthwith return to and carry on his or her regular city employment. Employees who fail to return to work after being excused from service for the day are subject to discipline. B. Court Appearances. A Police sergeant is eligible to receive compensation as a witness subpoenaed by the city, the State of Utah, or the United States for a court or administrative proceeding appearance as follows: 1. Appearances in court or administrative proceeding made while on-duty will be compensated as normal hours worked. 27 2. In the event an appearance extends beyond the end of an employee's regularly scheduled shift, time will be counted as normal work time for the purpose of computing an employee's overtime compensation. 3. Employees are entitled to retain statutory witness fees paid for service in a federal court, state court, or city/county justice court. 4. Appearances made while off-duty will be compensated as follows: (a) The city will pay employees for two hours of preparation time plus actual time spent in court or in an administrative hearing at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate. Lunch periods granted are not considered compensable time. Compensation for additional preparation time for any subsequent appearance during the same day is allowed only when there is at least two hours between the employee’s release time from a prior court or administ rative proceeding and the start of the other. (b) If the time spent in court or administrative proceeding extends into the beginning of the employee's regularly scheduled work shift, time spent in court or in administrative proceeding will be deemed ended at the time such shift is scheduled to begin. 5. An employee is required to provide a copy of the subpoena, including the beginning time and time released from the court or administrative hearing, with initials of the prosecuting or another court representative within seven working days following the appearance. 6. Any employee failing to appear in compliance with the terms of a formal notice or subpoena may be subject to disciplinary action. SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY) The city has established rules governing the administration of an injury leave program for sworn public safety personnel under the following qualifications and restrictions: A. The disability must have resulted from an injury arising out of the discharge of official duties or while exercising some form of necessary job-related activity as determined by the city; B. The employee must be unable to return to work due to the injury, as verified by a medical provider acceptable to the city; C. The leave benefit may not exceed the value of the employee's net sala ry during the period of absence due to the injury, less all amounts paid or credited to the employee as workers’ compensation, Social Security, long-term disability or retirement benefits, or any form of governmental relief whatsoever; D. The value of benefits provided to employees under this injury leave program may 28 not exceed the total of $5,000 per employee per injury, unless approved in writing by the employee’s department head after receiving an acceptable treatment plan and consulting with the city’s risk manager; E. The city's risk manager is principally responsible for the review of injury leave claims, except that appeals from the decision of the city’s risk manager may be reviewed by the Human Resources director, who may make recommendations to the mayor for final decisions; F. If an employee is eligible for workers’ compensation as provided by law and is not receiving injury leave pursuant to this provision, an employee may elect to use either accumulated sick leave or hours from the RL account, if applicable, and authorized vacation time to supplement workers’ compensation. The total value of leave hours or hours from an RL account combined with a workers’ compensation benefit may not exceed an employee's regular net salary. SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE Additional leaves of absence may be requested in writing and granted as identified in policy to an employee at the discretion of a department director. SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE The city may provide additional paid leave to employees if: i) the mayor has declared a local emergency; and ii) the mayor and/or city council authorize and approve the use of available funds for such purposes during the period of local emergency. Emergency leave may also be provided as a form of income replacement for part -time (hourly) and/or seasonal employees whose work hours are either red uced or discontinued temporarily, so long as there is an expectation they will return to work after the emergency period is ended. 29 APPENDIX A - SALT LAKE CITY COR PORATION GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP) Effective June 25. 2023 GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM SEAX/HRLY $12.46 $70.00 10 $13.23 $17.28 $21.33 11 $13.87 $18.15 $22.42 12 $14.57 $19.21 $23.85 13 $15.31 $20.02 $24.72 14 $16.07 $20.94 $25.81 15 $16.86 $22.16 $27.45 16 $17.70 $23.45 $29.20 17 $18.60 $24.41 $30.21 18 $19.53 $25.94 $32.34 19 $20.50 $27.08 $33.66 20 $21.54 $28.24 $34.93 21 $21.72 $29.63 $37.54 22 $22.84 $31.15 $39.45 23 $23.97 $32.71 $41.44 24 $25.17 $34.33 $43.48 25 $26.42 $36.03 $45.64 26 $27.75 $37.85 $47.94 27 $29.12 $39.75 $50.38 28 $30.57 $41.76 $52.94 29 $32.12 $43.85 $55.58 30 $33.72 $46.04 $58.36 31 $35.41 $48.35 $61.29 32 $37.17 $50.75 $64.33 33 $39.04 $53.31 $67.57 34 $40.99 $55.97 $70.95 35 $43.03 $58.77 $74.50 36 $45.18 $61.71 $78.23 37 $47.45 $64.79 $82.12 38 $49.82 $68.03 $86.23 39 $52.32 $109.88 40 $54.93 $115.35 41 $57.68 $187.12 30 GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM SEAX/HRLY $25,924.08 $83,494.32 10 $27,518.40 $35,948.64 $44,357.04 11 $28,850.64 $37,739.52 $46,628.40 12 $30,313.92 $39,945.36 $49,598.64 13 $31,842.72 $41,627.04 $51,411.36 14 $33,415.20 $43,548.96 $53,682.72 15 $35,075.04 $46,082.40 $57,089.76 16 $36,822.24 $48,768.72 $60,737.04 17 $38,678.64 $50,756.16 $62,833.68 18 $40,622.40 $53,944.80 $67,267.20 19 $42,631.68 $56,325.36 $70,019.04 20 $44,793.84 $58,727.76 $72,661.68 21 $45,186.96 $61,632.48 $78,078.00 22 $47,502.00 $64,777.44 $82,052.88 23 $49,860.72 $68,031.60 $86,202.48 24 $52,350.48 $71,394.96 $90,439.44 25 $54,949.44 $74,954.88 $94,938.48 26 $57,723.12 $78,711.36 $99,721.44 27 $60,562.32 $82,686.24 $104,788.32 28 $63,576.24 $86,857.68 $110,117.28 29 $66,808.56 $91,203.84 $115,599.12 30 $70,128.24 $95,768.40 $121,386.72 31 $73,644.48 $100,573.20 $127,480.08 32 $77,313.60 $105,574.56 $133,813.68 33 $81,201.12 $110,881.68 $140,540.40 34 $85,263.36 $116,429.04 $147,572.88 35 $89,500.32 $122,216.64 $154,954.80 36 $93,977.52 $128,353.68 $162,708.00 37 $98,694.96 $134,752.80 $170,810.64 38 $103,630.80 $141,479.52 $179,350.08 39 $108,828.72 $228,555.60 40 $114,245.04 $239,934.24 41 $119,967.12 $389,210.64 Annual Rates 31 APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X 32 DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X 33 COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member -elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members-elect are also equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. 34 APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE Annual Salaries Effective June 25, 2023 Mayor $168,067 Council Members $42,017 Except for leave time, benefits for the mayor and city council members are equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. 35 APPENDIX D- UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2023-2024 Tier 1 Defined Benefit System System Employee Contribution Employer Contribution Total Public Employees Contributory System 6.0% 13.96% 19.96% Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 17.97% 17.97% Public Safety Noncontributory System 0 46.71% 46.71% Firefighters Retirement System 0 23.05% 23.05% Tier 1 Post Retired System Post Retired Employment After 6/30/10 – NO 401(k) Amortization of UAAL* Post Retired Employment Before 7/1/2010 Optional 401(k) Public Employees Noncontributory System 6.11% 11.86% Public Safety Noncontributory System 24.20% 22.51% Firefighters Retirement System 0% n/a Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System Employee Contribution Employer Contribution 401(k) Total Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 16.01% 0.18% 16.19% Public Safety Noncontributory System (for entry and two year pay steps only) 2.59% (city paid) 38.28% 6.00% 46.87% Public Safety Noncontributory System (for pay steps year four or more) 2.59% (city paid) 38.28% 0% 40.87% Firefighters Retirement System 2.59% (city paid) 14.08% 0% 16.67% Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only Employee Contribution Employer Contribution 401(k) Total Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 6.19% 10.00% 16.19% Public Safety Noncontributory System (for entry and two year pay steps only) 0% 24.28% 22.27% 46.55% Public Safety Noncontributory System (for pay steps year four or more) 0% 24.28% 14.00% 38.28% Firefighters Retirement System 0% 0.08% 14.00% 14.08% 36 Executive Non-Legislative Position Employer Contribution Public Employees Noncontributory System Department Heads, Mayor, Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Chief Administrative Officer, Up to Two Additional Senior Executives in the Mayor’s Office, Executive Director for City Council Normal contribution into Utah Retirement System (URS)with 3% into 401(k) – OR – If Tier 1 and exempt from system or Tier II and exempt from vesting, 401k contribution equal to the applicable URS system contribution plus 3% Public Safety Noncontributory System Department Head Same as above Firefighters Retirement System Department Head Same as above Council Members Elected with prior service in the Utah Retirement System (Tier 1 Defined Benefit) System Employee Contribution Employer Contribution Total Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 17.97% 17.97% If exempt… 0 10% base salary to 401(k) 10% Council Members Elected After July 1, 2011 with no prior service in the Utah Retirement System (may exempt from vesting) Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only Employer 401K Total 6.19% 10% 16.19% Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System Employer 401K Total 16.01% 0.18% 16.19% CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:October 10, 2023 RE: 135, 159, 163 West Goltz Avenue, and 1036 South Jefferson Street Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2021-01307/01308/01309, PLNPCM2022-00198/00199/00207 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue, and 1035 South Jefferson Street from their current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential) zoning, with a maximum height of 35 feet, to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) which has a maximum residential building height of 75 feet (45 feet for non-residential buildings/uses). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the 2022 Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments would allow the property owner to construct multifamily developments on the properties, though no development plans have been submitted. The petitioner initially submitted applications in 2021 to rezone the subject Goltz Avenue properties and 1061 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). Following several community comments to Planning staff, most of which opposed FB-UN2 zoning, the petitioner revised their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, removed 1061 South Jefferson Street and added 1036 South Jefferson Street to the request. This is summarized in the table below. Address Current Zoning Original Proposed Zoning Current Proposed Zoning Future Land Use Designation Proposed Future Land Use Designation 135 West Goltz Avenue (Vacant property) RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential Mixed-Use Item Schedule: Briefing: October 10, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 159 West Goltz Avenue (Duplex) RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential Mixed-Use 163 West Goltz Avenue (Duplex) RMF-35 FB-UN2 R-MU Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential Mixed-Use 1036 South Jefferson Street (Single-family) RMF-35 N/A (Not part of original request) R-MU Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential Mixed-Use 1061 South Jefferson Street RMF-35 FB-UN2 N/A (Request removed) Medium-Density Residential N/A (Request removed) It is important to note that Mayor Mendenhall initiated a petition to implement Ballpark Station Area Plan recommendations to rezone the Jefferson Park Mixed Use, Main Street, and Heart of the Neighborhood areas. The subject parcels are within the Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area which the City proposes rezoning to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 1). The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its June 14, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people spoke, all in opposition to the proposal. Concerns cited include: •Building scale and compatibility, •Amending the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan, •Lack of parking, setbacks, required buffers, and R-MU design standards, •Shadow and light impacts to adjacent properties, •Loss of existing middle housing types, and opportunities for owner occupancy. During their discussion, some Commissioners expressed support for high density development in the area as there is existing public transit. Other Commissioners were opposed to the proposal stating that R-MU zoning is too intense for the area. Commissioners opposing the proposal also noted the effort neighborhood residents put into creation of the Ballpark Station Area Plan. A motion was made to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments. That motion failed due to a tie vote. A motion to forward a negative recommendation to the Council also failed due to a tie vote. A third motion was made, again to forward a negative recommendation to the Council. That vote passed with six Commissioners in support, and four opposed. To provide context to the Council’s discussion, Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, noting several areas where the petition was either incompatible with the recently adopted master plan or incompatible with adjacent properties. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? Page | 3 2. The Council may wish to discuss how the forthcoming Affordable Housing incentives overlay proposal could be utilized to guarantee affordability is included in future projects on this property that may be more compatible with surrounding properties. 3. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration and petitioner if it would make sense to request they consider a different zone if added housing units is desired, considering these are mid- block properties adjacent to lower-scale development. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Salt Lake City Planning provided the following Google Earth image showing the area development pattern with subject properties outlined. Existing Conditions 135 West Goltz Avenue This property is vacant land that is approximately .18 acres. A single-family dwelling which used to be on the property was demolished in 2022 in preparation for redevelopment. The home was demolished after the rezone petition was filed but prior to review and approval of a housing loss mitigation plan. Properties north and west of the property are a mix of low- and moderate-density residential uses. Jefferson Park is located to the south and east of this property and is zoned Open Space. 159 West Goltz Avenue A single-story duplex is on this approximately .15-acre parcel. Properties to the east and west of this parcel are zoned RMF-35 and include low- and moderate-density residential uses. A fourplex is directly east of Page | 4 this parcel, and a duplex is located directly to the west at 163 West Goltz Avenue. The duplex to the west is owned by the petitioner and included in the proposed rezone and master plan amendment. 163 West Goltz Avenue As noted above, this parcel is directly west of 159 West Goltz Avenue. It is approximately .15 acres and includes a single-story duplex. The previously mentioned duplex to the east, and a single-family residential dwelling to the west are both zoned RMF-35. A six-story multifamily development zoned R-MU is across Goltz Avenue to the north, and Jefferson Park is located to the south of this property. 1036 South Jefferson Street This .17-acre RMF-35 parcel is located mid-block and includes a single-family residential dwelling. Surrounding uses are a mixture of low-, medium, and high-density residential. Properties immediately to the north, south, and east are zoned RMF-35 include single-family residential dwellings. Properties to the west are zoned R-MU and RMF-35. A four-story multifamily residential development and single-family homes are on those properties. Because homes on the subject properties will be demolished as part of the proposal, City Code requires housing loss mitigations plans. These plans were reviewed and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Department Director and are included in Attachment H (pages 69-84) of the Planning Commission staff report. The petitioner proposes constructing replacement housing to satisfy the loss of existing dwelling units. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 9-18 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. Planning reviewed how the proposal aligns with Plan Salt Lake (2015), Growing SLC (2017), and the Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022). Plan Salt Lake (2015) It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal aims to increase residential density near transit and open space called for in Plan Salt Lake. It would also allow for retail, service commercial, and small office use, adding neighborhood amenities that could be accessed by walking, bicycling, or transit. However, Planning also noted that the subject properties are scattered mid-block within an established neighborhood of primarily single-family, two-family, and small multifamily dwellings. The proposed R-MU zoning would allow high-density buildings up to 75 feet tall, which would significantly impact the neighborhood. It would reduce the mix of middle housing in the immediate area. Current structures on the subject parcels are duplexes and a single-family home. Planning staff believes the existing dwellings are naturally occurring affordable housing, due to their character rather than being restricted by covenant. Losing these units would be a loss of affordable housing stock, which is already limited. Growing SLC (2017) Planning staff found the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments would result in reduced alignment with policies found in Growing SLC that “promote diversifying housing options, increasing Page | 5 housing options, restoring “missing middle” housing types, and enabling moderate density increases while minimizing neighborhood impacts.” Planning noted large areas of the Ballpark Station area are designed for high-density mixed-use development. The only area designated for medium density development for missing middle housing is where the subject properties are located. Approval of the proposal would eliminate the medium density residential designation for the four properties and reduce housing options for the neighborhood and an ability to restore missing middle housing. Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022) The recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use map and descriptions calls for larger 5-7 story buildings to be located along corridors where large building forms are, along the TRAX line, or on West Temple. The plan recommends smaller 2-3 story medium-density buildings in the Jefferson Park area. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments do not align with the Ballpark Station Area Plan goals and strategies to provide a variety of housing types and balanced mix of uses. Consideration 2 – Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted the proposed R-MU zoning designation would allow buildings up to 75 feet tall adjacent to low- to medium-density residential structures with a current maximum height of 35 feet. R-MU zoning does not include architectural or site design requirements such as building scale transitions or required buffer yards. The Planning Commission staff report stated, “If the proposal is approved, new high- density development on the subject properties would fragment the small-scale single family and middle housing development pattern and character found within the interior of the block.” (Planning Commission staff report page 18.) It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map amendment from RMF-35 to R-MU, and the associated future land use amendment from medium density residential to high density mixed use is not compatible with adjacent properties, the block’s development pattern, or the neighborhood’s development intent. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment D (pages 24-26) of the Planning Commission staff report includes the following table comparing current and proposed zoning districts. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (RMF-35)Proposed Zoning (R-MU) Lot Area/Width Multi-Family Dwellings 3-11 units: 9,000 SF/80 FT Multi-Family Dwellings 12 or more units: 26,000 SF/80 FT Single-Family attached dwellings (3 or more): 3,000 SF per unit/22 FT for interior lot & 32 FT for corner lot Single-Family detached dwellings: 5,000 SF Twin home dwellings: 4,000 SF Two-Family dwellings: 8,000 SF Multi-Family Dwellings: No minimum lot area required/50 FT Single-Family Attached (3 or more): 3,000 SF per 1 unit/22 FT for interior lot & 32 FT corner lot Single-Family Detached: 5,000 SF/50 FT Twin Home Dwelling: 4,000 SF/25 FT Two-Family Dwelling: 8,000 SF/50FT Non-Residential Uses: No Minimum/No Minimum Page | 6 Other permitted or conditional uses in 21A.33.020: 5,000 SF/50 FT Other permitted or conditional uses in 21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT Minimum Front/Corner Side yard Setback All Uses: Min. 20 FT Front yard/ Min. 10 FT corner side yard *All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title Single-Family Detached, Single- Family Attached, Two-Family, & Twin Home: Min. 15 FT Front yard/ Min. 10 FT corner side yard Multifamily Dwellings & Other Residential Uses: No front or corner side yard setback required. Nonresidential Development: No front or corner side yard setback required Maximum Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No specific maximum setback requirements Single-Family Detached, Single- Family Attached, Two-Family, & Twin Home: At least 25% of the building façade must be located with 25 FT of the front lot line. All other uses: At least 25% of the building façade must be located within 15 FT of the front lot line. *Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the Design Review Process. Interior Side Yard Setback Single-Family detached & two-family dwellings: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT, Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and Min 10 FT on the other Single-Family Attached: No interior side yard required, if a yard is provided it shall not be less than 4 FT Two-Family: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT, Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and 10 FT on the other Twin Home: No interior side yard required along one side, a Min. 10 FT is required on the other side. Multifamily Dwellings: Minimum 10 FT on each side All other permitted and conditional uses: Min. 10 FT on each side Single-Family Detached, Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT, Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and Min 10 FT on the other Single-Family Attached: No interior side yard required, if a yard is provided it shall not be less than 4 FT Two-Family: Corner Lot: Min. 4 FT, Interior Lot: Min 4 FT on one side and 10 FT on the other Twin Home: No interior side yard required along one side, a Min. 10 FT is required on the other side. Multifamily Dwellings & Other Residential Uses: No interior side yard setback required Nonresidential Development: No interior side yard setback required Rear Yard Setback All Uses: Minimum of 25% of the lot depth, up to 25 FT, but not less than 20 FT Single-Family Detached, Min. 25% of the lot depth, up to 20 FT Single-Family Attached, Two-Family, & Twin Home: Min. 25% of lot depth or 25 FT, whichever is less Multifamily Dwellings & Other Residential Uses: Min. 25% of the lot depth, up to 30 FT Nonresidential Development: Min. 25% of the lot depth, up to 30 FT Page | 7 Parking Setback Front and corner side lot lines: Parking prohibited between front lot line and corner side lot line. Interior Side Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Rear Lot Line: 0 FT Front and Corner Side Lot Lines: Surface Parking Lots: 30 FT minimum landscape setback from the front property or corner side property line. Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum landscape setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. Interior Side Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT when abutting any 1-2 Family Residential District. Rear Lot Line: 0 FT or 10 FT when abutting any 1-2 Family Residential District Building Height Maximum Building Height – 35 FT Residential Building Height – Max. 75 FT Non-Residential Buildings/Uses – 45 FT (Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings is limited to the first 3 floors) Maximum Building Coverage of All Principal and Accessory Buildings Single-Family Detached: Max. 45% Single-Family Attached: Max. 60% Two-Family & Twin Home Dwellings: Max. 50% Multifamily Dwellings: Max 60% Non-Residential Land Uses: Max 60% No specific building coverage regulations. Open Space No specific open space regulations Residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use a min. of 20% of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. Landscape Buffers When a lot abuts a lot in a Single Family or Two Family residential district, a 10-foot landscape buffer shall be provided. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 31-33) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Does not comply. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Does not comply. Page | 8 The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Does not comply. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 18, 2022 – Applications to rezone properties from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 submitted and assigned to staff. • February 10, 2022 – Planning staff determines the proposed FB-UN2 zone does not align with the Central Community Master Plan future land use map. For consistency between the proposed zoning district and the master plan, a master plan amendment would be necessary. • April 4, 2022 – Master plan amendment petitions submitted and assigned to staff. • April 12, 2022 – Public notice sent to chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Open house page posted to the Planning Division website. • May 5, 2022 – Applicant presents proposal to a joint Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council meeting. Community members expressed concerns with density, parking, and building height. • May 17, 2022 – Applicant requested the applications be put on hold to evaluate an alternative zoning amendment proposal. • October 2022 – Ballpark Station Area Plan adopted by the City Council. • December 5, 2022 – Applicant informed Planning staff they would like to revise the rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, remove 1061 South Jefferson Street and add 1036 South Jefferson Street to the application. • January 2023 - February 2023 – Applicant worked with Planning staff to submit revised applications to rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 to R-MU and amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use map land use designations for the subject properties from medium-density residential to high-density residential mixed-use. • March 6, 2023 – Public notice regarding the updated zoning map and master plan amendment requests sent to Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council chairs, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Updated open house page posted on the Planning Division website. • May 11, 2023 – Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public Page | 9 hearing property signs posted at the subject properties. • May 17, 2023 – Applicant requests to postpone the public hearing to the next Planning Commission agenda. • June 1, 2023 - Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing property signs posted at the subject properties. • June 14, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by Planning Commission and a public hearing is held. The Commission votes 6-4 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. • June 23, 2023 – Draft ordinance requested of and received from the City Attorney’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. TAG SLC Rezone for Goltz and Jefferson Parcels www.tagslc.com Aerial View Timeline August 2012 Rezone to RMU Approved 2017 TAG Enters Jefferson Area Early 2021 Ballpark Draft Released- Medium Density October 2022 Ballpark Master Plan Adopted Spring 2022 Community Meetings Regarding FB-UN2 December 2022 TAG Resubmits Proposal as RMU 2023 Housing SLC Adopted June 14th 2023 Planning Commision 2021 Rezone Application for FB-UN2 December 2015 Plan Salt Lake Adopted December 2017 Growing SLC Adopted October 10th 2023 City Council April 2022 2nd Draft Jefferson Mixed Use Area North Temple 400 South 200 W Large Building Forms Already Present “Larger building forms [5-7 stories] are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already present OR where it is abutting the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple corridor.” Ballpark Master Plan - Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area Page 18 Goltz Ave Paxton Ave Goltz Street 43% of Goltz Street frontage is a six story building Jefferson Street 19% of Jefferson Street frontage is a six story building 50 Streets in the Ballpark Station Area Plan… 8 have Buildings over 4 stories Two of those buildings are in the Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area 1201 S Main 230 W 1700 S 222 W 13th S 1380 West Temple*C9 Flats Goltz Ave* 1023 S 200 W 365 Paxton 275 High Avenue Jefferson Park-Mixed Use Area www.tagslc.com Comment about land-use Map from work session: Extend the “Heart of the Neighborhood” along the north side of Paxton Reasons to not extend: “Properties are limited in size and owned by many different property owners which would inherently limit redevelopment potential.” “If our goal is to create as much residential as possible I was wondering why we’re limiting the building heights instead of allowing it to be five or six stories high” Answer: “The issue in the Jefferson Park Area is also one similar to Paxton Avenue. The lot sizes are pretty small and they’re individually owned so the rationale behind the decision was you could see a few of the parcels consolidating and rezoning but a parcel that’s 4,000 square feet trying to get additional building height over 30 feet could look awkward.” Heart of the Neighborhood “The lot sizes are pretty small and they’re individually owned…” .092 Acres = 4,000 “...but a parcel that’s 4,000 square feet trying to get additional building height over 30 feet could look awkward.” Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area Ballpark Master Plan vs Rezone Proposal Ballpark Master Plan Rezone Proposal Larger building forms are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already present or where it is abutting the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple corridor. These larger building forms should consist of approximately 5-7 stories and provide some commercial spaces/residential amenities. FB-UN2 urban neighborhood 2 subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height Smaller building scales should be focused on areas adjoining Jefferson Street and avenue streets; smaller building scales should generally consist of 2-3 stories and almost entirely comprised of medium-density residential uses. FB-UN1 urban neighborhood 1 subdistrict: Generally includes small scale structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height www.tagslc.com Goltz and Jefferson Vision www.tagslc.com Goltz www.tagslc.com Jefferson Eyes on the Street Area Characteristics - What May Be Coming CENTRAL NINTH CATALYTIC CONNECTIVITY Phase I underpass improvements include amenities on both sides of the 900 South viaduct such as public art, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and other comfort amenities Phase II TRAX extension which would run from 400 West to 900 South with adjacent active transportation trail 900 South viaduct demolition and shortening which would occur at the end of the viaduct’s structural life and be replaced with community amenities and new connections BALLPARK NEXT Zoning Amendment Why this area needs more density: ●Major transit hub ●“where large building forms are already present” ●Between high density districts on North, West and East ●C9 Flats ●Salt Lake City Goals Questions? Thank you for your time! www.tagslc.com Salt Lake City Council // October 10, 2023 ZONING MAP & MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS 135, 159, & 163 W GOLTZ AVE & 1036 JEFFERSON STREET PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199 & PLNPCM2022-00207 Request: TAG SLC, LLC is requesting is the following for the properties located at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street: •Zoning Map Amendments: •From RMF-35, Moderate Density Multifamily Residential •To R-MU, Residential Mixed Use •Amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use Designations •From Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. •To support Requested Rezone •Intended to accommodate multiple multifamily dwellings •Future development plans not submitted at this time Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial of the Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division SUBJECT PROPERTIES Proposal involves 4 – Properties •Located Mid-Block along Goltz Avenue and Jefferson Street •135 W Goltz Ave •Previously contained a SF- Dwelling which was demolished in 2022 •159 W Goltz Ave. •Duplex •163 W Goltz Ave. •Duplex •1036 S Jefferson St. •Single Family Dwelling. 135 W. Goltz Ave Previous Single-Family Dwelling 159 W. Goltz Ave Existing Duplex 163 W. Goltz Ave Existing Duplex 1036 S Jefferson Street Existing Single-Family Dwelling Salt Lake City // Planning Division CONTEXT •Interior parcels •Located on interior of the blocks •Characterized by a mix small scale SF & middle housing types •Small scale SF •Two-Family •Multifamily dwellings •Zoned RMF-35 •Larger scale •High density multifamily residential uses •Located on large corner parcels •Frontage on 200 W & West Temple •Zoned R-MU •Properties contain residential units •Requested zoning change permits non-residential uses •Housing Loss Mitigation Plan Required •Three potential options: •Option A: Build replacement housing to replace all 6 units •Option B: Fee based on difference between housing value and replacement cost •Option C: Flat fee for deteriorated housing •Enter into a development agreement if requests are approved Salt Lake City // Planning Division HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division Standards for General Amendments – Chapter 21A.50.050 •Review for compliance with City standards •Consistency with the City’s Master Plan goals and policies •Compatibility & Impacts on adjacent properties •Access to City services ZONING & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Requested rezone: R-MU, High Density Residential Mixed Use Zone •General requirements: •Allows a mix of uses: •Multifamily •Commercial/Retail Services & Office •Max. 75’ Height •Minimal setbacks •20% Open Space R-MU STANDARDS Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022), Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area Future Land Use Description: Mix of uses & building scales •Uses & Density: •Higher Density Mixed Use 5-7 stories •200 W & West Temple •Medium Density Residential – 2-3 Stories •Areas adjoining Jefferson Street & Avenue Streets •Subject Properties •Applicant request: Amend the plan to change the designation to high density mixed use Overall plan goals: •Provide a diversity of housing types and options •Create a balanced mix of uses •Properties in the only area designated for medium density residential •All other areas aside from the yellow area, call for higher density mixed use development Citywide polices •Increasing residential density near transit •Encourage mix of land uses •Maintain neighborhood stability and character •Restore missing middle housing types •Enable moderate density increases while minimizing neighborhood impactsSalt Lake City // Planning Division PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-MU Development Standards: •Max. building height, 40 FT higher than the RMF-35 •No front, corner side, or interior side setback or buffer yards adjacent to RMF- 35 properties •Lacks design standards and ground floor use requirements •That could help mitigate impacts associated w/ high density development COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES Hoyt Place Existing Development Along Jefferson Street – R-MU Zone (Left) Adjacent to SF dwelling in RMF-35 Zone (Right) •Over 20 emails received & several phone calls – in opposition •Public Hearing: 7 members of the public spoke in opposition •Common concerns: •Neighborhood compatibility & Impacts on adjacent properties •Changing recently adopted plan •Building height, setbacks, & scale •Loss of middle housing types & opportunities for owner occupancy •Lack of design standards & ground floor use requirements of R-MU zone Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to implement the Ballpark Station Area Plan •Subject properties are proposed to be rezoned – FB-UN1 •Currently within 45-day public engagement period •Scheduled for Planning Commission Briefing on October 11th. •Tentative Public Hearing on October 25th •Transmitted to the Council in Nov-December Salt Lake City // Planning Division SALT LAKE CITY BALLPARK REZONES Recommended denial of zoning map and master plan amendments: 1. Rezoning •R-MU zoning is not compatible with the adjacent properties •Height, density, lack of setbacks 2. Master Plan Amendments •Does not align with the applicable policies for the area •Community’s recently established vision for the Ballpark Station Area should be respected Salt Lake City // Planning Division COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Brooke Olson // Principal Planner Brooke.olson@slcgov.com ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 08/08/2023 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 08/08/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street – Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 STAFF CONTACT: Brooke Olson, Principal Planner brooke.olson@slcgov.com or (801)-535-7118 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the properties located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street: 1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. 2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:36 MDT) The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. The proposed Zoning Map and Master plan amendment request includes four properties. Three of the four are located along the south side of Goltz Avenue. The other is located on the west side of Jefferson Street. It should be noted that the applicant submitted the applications in 2021 with a request to rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 S Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). Staff received several comments from the community regarding the request to rezone the properties to FB-UN2 (see Attachment F in the staff report), the majority of which voiced opposition to the proposal. In late 2022 the applicant revised their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, removed 1061 S Jefferson Street and added 1036 S Jefferson Street to the request. Vicinity Map HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION: The applicant was required to submit a housing loss mitigation plan as part of this request, per Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a housing loss mitigation plan is approved by the city before any petition is approved for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units. A housing loss mitigation plan is required for this petition because the R-MU zone allows nonresidential uses. Options for mitigating residential housing loss include providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units, and, where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s housing trust fund. The applicant intends to provide replacement housing. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Previous rezone request – FB-UN2 • March 3, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. Property owners and residents within 300 ft of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • May 5, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils discussed the petitions at a joint Community Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns regarding the density, height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In general, the community voiced opposition to the proposal. • March 2022 – March 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Current rezone request – R-MU • March 6, 2023 - An early notification was sent to the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. • April 20, 2023 - Staff met with the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils to present the project and gather feedback from the community. The Community Councils provided letters of opposition for the project. • June 14, 2023 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a negative recommendation to amend the zoning map and Ballpark Station Area Plan for the subject properties to the City Council for their review and decision. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On June 14, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IdalcOM0dg • 7 members of the public spoke in opposition of the petitions including a representative of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils. Members of the public voiced concerns regarding: o Building scale and neighborhood compatibility o Changing the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan, which has not been implemented. o Lack of parking, setbacks, buffer requirements and design standards of the R-MU zone. o Shadow and light impacts on adjacent properties. o Loss of existing housing, middle housing types, and opportunities for owner occupancy. • A petition was submitted by neighbors within the vicinity of the project site (see attachments) which includes 19 signatures in opposition of the proposal. • During the Commission’s discussion, several commissioners voiced support for the proposal with the determination that the area should support high density development due to the existing public transit infrastructure in the area. • Several commission members also voiced opposition to the proposal with the determinations the development regulations of the R-MU zone are too intense for the subject properties and surrounding area. The Commission members in opposition also acknowledged the time and effort members of the neighborhood contributed to creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan, and emphasized that the community’s recently established vision for the neighborhood should be respected. • The Commission voted threes times before a motion was passed. The first two motions failed due to tied votes with 5 yes votes and 5 no votes. The third motion passed and the Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council, with 6 yes votes and 4 no votes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Comments received after the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report 4) Ordinance 5) Original Petition 6) Mailing List ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PC STAFF REPORT 4. ORDINANCE 5. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 6. MAILING LIST 1. Project Chronology ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022- 00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 Nov. 2021 Salt Lake City initiated the creation of a small area plan within the Ballpark Neighborhood, The Ballpark Station Area Plan. Jan. 18, 2021 Zoning Map Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2021-01307, -01308, & -01309) to rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 are assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner. Feb. 10, 2022 Planning Staff determines that the proposed rezones to FB-UN2 do not align with the applicable adopted Master Plan, the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map. For consistency between the proposed zoning district and the master plan, a Master Plan Amendment petition would be necessary. Feb. 22, 2022 Planning Staff Requests Housing Loss Mitigation Plan Apr. 4, 2022 Master Plan Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2022- 00198, -00199, & -00207) are assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner Apr. 5, 2022 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment petitions are deemed complete after the applicant submits Master Plan Amendment and Housing Loss Mitigation Plans for the proposal. Apr. 12, 2022 Public notice regarding this request is sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website. May 5, 2022 The applicant presents the proposal at a joint Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns regarding the density, height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In general, the community voiced opposition to the proposal. May 17, 2022 The applicant contacted staff and requested to place the applications on hold to evaluate an alternative zoning amendment proposal. Oct. 2022 The Ballpark Station Area Plan was adopted by Salt Lake City Council. Dec. 5, 2022 The applicant informed staff they were ready to move forward and revise their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use, remove 1061 South Jefferson Street and add 1036 S Jefferson Street to the application. Jan. 2022 – Feb. 2023 The applicant worked with staff to submit their revised applications to rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 to R-MU and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, future land use designations of the subject properties from medium density residential to high density residential mixed use. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Mar. 6, 2023 Public notice regarding the updated zoning map and master plan amendment requests are sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An updated Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website. May 11, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties. May 17, 2023 Applicant requests to postpone the public hearing for the petitions to the next Planning Commission agenda. June 1, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties. June 14, 2023 The petitions are heard by the Planning Commission, and they vote 6 to 4 to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. June 23, 2023 Draft ordinance requested and received from the City Attorney’s Office. June 28, 2023 The Planning Commission ratifies the minutes for their meeting on June 14, 2023. 2. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207– TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the properties located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street: 1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. (Petitions PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207) 2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). (Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, & PLNPCM2021-01309) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 or via e-mail at brooke.olson@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, or PLNPCM2022-00207 People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Olson, Brooke (EXTERNAL) 135, 159, 163 W Goltz Avenue, & 1036 S Jefferson Street Rezones and Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Amendment Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:53:33 PM Hello Brooke, This letter is from an informal group of neighbors called Friends of Jefferson Park that live around and use the park. We are not in favor of the Rezone and Master Plan Amendments that TAG SLC Is requesting on their lots on Goltz Ave and Jefferson Street. We do not feel that the proposed rezones would have a positive impact on Jefferson Park or the greater neighborhood. The requested rezones increase the density and height allowed on these lots dramatically over the surrounding lots. It would also allow much higher buildings abuting Jefferson Park with little to no setbacks that would help preserve this unique and needed green space in the neighborhood. Jefferson Park and the surrounding neighborhoods are quiet residential streets. The zoning road map laid out in the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan should be adopted and followed. This ensures that future growth in these areas happens in a way that meshes with the current built environment and allows for additional density and missing middle housing. We are in favor of investment in the area and additional density and neighbors to use and love Jefferson Park. We don't think these zoning changes should be made to individual lots that could impact neighbors and the Park so drastically. The zoning in the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan seems to be the right fit for these lots and would encourage development that will someday enhance and be a positive on Jefferson Park. Please consider these comments from our neighborhood group and many other neighbors, and hopefully recommend against this rezone to the Planning Commission. Thank you for your time and hard work on this matter, Friends of Jefferson Park From: To: Subject: Date: O so B ooke (EXTERNAL) Ballpark Commun ty Council Letter on the TAG-SLC Rezones on Jefferson and Goltz Ave Wednesday June 14 2023 12:55:40 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, We, the Ballpark Community Council, wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezone and master plan amendments for the three properties mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 & 163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful consideration and consultation with our community members, we have concluded that these changes are not in the best interest of our neighborhood. Our concerns primarily revolve around the potential negative impacts of high-density residential mixed-use developments in this area. We believe that such developments would result in increased traffic congestion, decreased parking availability, and a strain on existing infrastructure and resources. Also the proposed changes would allow for development that would no be consistent with properties already in the area, as you can see in the image attached to this email. We urge the Commission to consider the views and concerns of the Ballpark Community Council and its residents before making any decisions regarding these zoning and master plan amendments. We believe that sustainable and responsible development should be prioritized, taking into account the well-being and livability of the existing community. Sincerely, Ballpark Community Council From: To: Subject: Date: Olson, Brooke (EXTERNAL) Letter for the TAG-SLC Rezones & Master Plan Amendments on Goltz and Jefferson St Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:40:09 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, We, the Central 9th Community Council, wish to express our opposition to the proposed master plan amendments for the three properties mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 & 163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful consideration and consultation with our community members, we have concluded that these amendments are not in the best interest of our neighborhood. Our concerns primarily revolve around the fact that the master plan for the area has not been finalized, and the proposed amendments would prematurely dictate the future development of the neighborhood. We believe it is essential to engage in a comprehensive and inclusive planning process that involves meaningful community input before making any significant amendments to the master plan. Rushing into changes without a thorough understanding of the long-term implications could have detrimental effects on the neighborhood's character, livability, and sustainability. Sincerely, Central 9th Community Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:15:54 AM Dear Planning Commission I am writing you in reference to an item on the agenda for tonights meeting. The item is PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022- 00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments I am writing in support of the staff recommendation to not permit the up-zone of the parcels in question. As the Ballpark Station Area Plan notes this area is zoned for medium density development, which I think is appropriate. A salient point is that these proposed re-zone is adjacent to the only existing public park in the neighborhood. A potential 7 or 8 story building allowed in the proposed RMU zoning, looming over this park will adversely impact the park users experience very negatively in my opinion. I believe a three story building would be much more appropriate for this location. Thanks for considering my comments. Best regards Bill Davis - ex-officio Chair Ballpark Community Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Olson, Brooke Re: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:38:53 PM image001.png Hi Brooke I am traveling on business but should be able to call from the airport Thursday around 2 — would that work? Fraser On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:43 PM Olson, Brooke <Brooke.Olson@slcgov.com> wrote: Hi Fraser, Thank you for reaching out. I would be happy to set up a call with you tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the City’s process. I have availability tomorrow or Thursday afternoon. Please let me know what timeframes will work for you. Thank you, BROOKE OLSON | (She/Her/Hers) Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: (801) 535-7118 Email: Brooke.olson@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Fraser Nelson < Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 5:53 PM To: Olson, Brooke <brooke.olson@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet Hi Brooke, First I'd like to thank you for your presentation on Wednesday 6/17/2023 to the city council regarding the TAG SLC, LLC rezones and that is the cause of my concern, the tiny section of the Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area that is contradictory worded and the entire basis of TAG SLC's argument. Here is the text in full with what I believe the alterations should be: Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area The area encompassing approximately east of the 200 West TRAX line to the West Temple corridor and Paxton Avenue to Mead Avenue to the north is characterized by a mix of housing types and commercial uses. Redevelopment of the area should support a live/work/play community by providing a mix of uses and building scales. Larger building forms are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already present or where it is abutting of the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple corridor. These larger building forms should consist of approximately 5-7 stories and provide some commercial spaces/residential amenities. Smaller building scales should be focused on areas adjoining Jefferson Street and avenue streets; smaller building scales should generally consist of 2-3 stories and almost entirely comprised of medium-density residential uses. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. The map above is the entire area used with the rezoning proposals later on, all 1.5 square blocks of it. With these two things combined it is evident that the "spirit" of this description is that 5-7 story mixed use type structures belong on West Temple and 200 W and 2-3 story residential structures on Jefferson St (specifically mentioned above) and surrounding avenues: Fremont Ave, Goltz Ave, Mead Ave, and Paxton Ave being the only 4 avenues in this area. Those 8 little words destroy this design/vision because of C9 Flats existence and location, it currently gives developers the opening and justification to put 5-7 story mixed use type structures on ANY lot north of the park and in the future when a single R-MU structure is built anywhere south of the park. In conclusion, I would appreciate any information you could give me as to what I can do or can be done in general to get this section amended before it is finalized. Thank you for your time. -Lee Anderson m ub c RN P e W M Caut on Th s s an xte na ma P e se be caut us wh n c ck g n s o open ng at achmen s Good mo n ng B ooke I went o can t ose pet t on pa es tod y ut I fo got my ew compu e w not wo k w th s sca ne I se d a co p e pho os but I an p obab y sc n t un h t me I w a so b ng Pe e on ocumen s o the meet ng oday Tha k yo ! -Cha es But on Th s s a pet t on a ga n t e on ng f om med um d ns ty to h gh ens ty s ent a m ed use Th se s gna u es a e f om ne ghbo s d ect y su ou d ng he ezon ng a eas th y a e not f e s gn tu es 4. Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District, and amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions) An ordinance pertaining to properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street (the “Properties”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021- 01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309 and amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on June 14, 2023 on an application submitted by TAG SLC, LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone Properties from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021- 01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309, and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions with respect to the Properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207; and WHEREAS, at its June 14, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) deny said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby are rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R- MU Residential Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan. The Future Land Use Descriptions of the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a development agreement requiring Applicant to replace any dwellings demolished on the Property with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinance amending zoning and MP 135 159 163 W Goltz Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: June 23, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 135 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-016-0000 LOTS 16 17 & E 1/2 LOT 18 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 8,276 SQUARE FEET OR 0.19 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 159 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-012-0000 LOTS 24 & 25 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 163 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-011-0000 LOTS 26 & 27 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1036 South Jefferson Street Tax ID No. 15-12-408-015-0000 LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB CONTAINS 7,405 SQUARE FEET OR 0.17 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 5. Original Petitions 8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF       Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 135 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE  If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ Zoning Amendment SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G Name of Applicant: TAG SLC, LLC Phone: WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. ✔ List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ St a f f Re v i e w !" # $ %&' Ÿ ( $ # ) *+,-./-)012 3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9 = !"# $ %&' 9 >1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0 % $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9 yz{| }~€ = !" '54 9 ‚ƒ}„}…~†‡ˆ ‰„ & ! 9 Š‹yŒŽŠŒ‹ % $!" '54 9 ¡œ~¢{‹£Žˆ¤’€‰’“”„€¥ˆ¦‚Šy{ MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 ‘’“”•€’–—˜™˜~š zyŒ{‹ŒzŠy '54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89 Ÿ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9 = !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9 >VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I 5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5 IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54 % 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^ ?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0 &' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5' b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^ @-d.+@-B*- Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^ eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^ &'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^ /+F0?C.@- l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^ mn o p o n q r s t p u v o n w w t wx #$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<= >?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\ X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\ X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7< e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh +:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - / , / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / / 8 -. 0 < < < < 801-478-0662 801-478-0662 Jake@tagslc.com " @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ DD;71/BJ I )GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3 TAG SLC, LLC Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022 )G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32 )GC931J '/@3 .CB7B5 22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ '/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ 22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ )6CB3 PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ % 3;; #/P ✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G '/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ " @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3 Single-Family Residence (RMF-35) Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2) 7 B 4 C G @ / J7 C B 7 J I 6 D / G J C / N 2 72 2 3 7J 2 7C 4 B C / G < IJ 7B / 4 4 C 4 G / @ B/ / ; J Q 7C I7 B I @ / < Q < 7 0 B 3 4C G G 3 @ F / K J 7G 7C 3 B 2 G 0 3 Q F J K 6 7G 3 3 D 2 G 4 C C 9 G 31 I J J/ D 4 ; 4 / / B B B / 3 < G QI J 7 C I O 3B 7< I ; K 0 G 3 3 1 / C 2 D 3 7 F 3 K 2 / / J B 3 2 G @ 3 / N 2 73 3 O D 0 K0 Q ? / 71 B Q 7 B 7 B 1 ; J K 3 2 G 7 3 B I 5 J 3 D 2 G C D 4 / 3 G I J I Q 7 CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71 T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32 +75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ 135 W Goltz Ave "P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3 8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF       Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 159-163 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE  If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ Zoning Amendment SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G Name of Applicant: Somewhere OTR, LLC Phone: WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. ✔ List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ St a f f Re v i e w !" # $ %&' ¡ ( $ # ) *+,-./-)012 3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9 = !"# $ %&' 9 >1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0 % $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9 yz{|y}y~y}€ ‚ƒ„… % $!" '54 9 ¢Œ ž‚£z”‘}{“†–ƒ„Ž–—ˆŸ„¤¥¦’yz” MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 y”|z‘|}y •–—ˆ˜„–™šƒ›œ›‚‡ '54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89 ¡ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9 = !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9 >VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I 5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5 IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54 % 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^ ?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0 &' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5' b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^ @-d.+@-B*- Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^ eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^ &'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^ /+F0?C.@- l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^ mn o p o n q r s t p u v o n w w t wx #$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<= >?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\ X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\ X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7< e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh +:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - / , / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / / 8 -. 0 < < < < 4PVUI +FGGFSTPO 4USFFU       E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 1036 S Jefferson St W, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Name of Applicant: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Phone: Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: X Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE 0DS $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV SHU DFUH H[FHVV RI RQH DFUH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH 7H[W $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH 3XEOLF QRWLFLQJ IHHV ZLOO EH DVVHVVHG DIWHU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV VXEPLWWHG SIGNATURE  If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Jordan Atkin 83'$7(' SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Application Type: Mailing Address: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Email: Phone: Signature: Date: AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. Legal Description of Subject Property: LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB. 8628-5902 8821-3856 8996-3014 9089-4504 9320-1902 9712-38 1N0a2m6e4-o9f 8O7w6ner: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Mailing Address PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Street Address: Signature: Date: The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1. If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4. If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that is the subject of this application. Updated 9/14/22 _ WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. X List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. _ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 83'$7(' SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS X St a f f Re v i e w     E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Signature of Owner or Agent: Jacob Billitteri Date: 02/25/22 Master Plan Amendment Amend the text of the Master Plan ✔ Amend the Land Use Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name of Master Plan Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 1061 S Jefferson St. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 ***Application Updated to 1036 S Jefferson Street Per applicant request on March 3, 2023 Name of Applicant: TAG Holdings, LLC Phone: Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email zoning@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. REQUIRED FEE Filing fee of $ϭϬϬϴ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. $100 for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Mailing fees will be assessed after application is submitted. SIGNATURE  If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ�ϭϲͬ20Ϯϭ SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets electronically.) ĞƐĐƌŝďĞ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŵĂƐƚĞƌ ƉůĂŶ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ĚĞĐůĂƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘ Declare why the present master plan requires amending. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact language to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. JB I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϭϲͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ St a f f Re v i e w 22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ )GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3 1061 S Jefferson St. **Application address updated to 1036 South Jefferson Street per applicant request on 03/03/2023 TAG Holdings, LLC Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022 )G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32 )GC931J '/@3 .CB7B5 '/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 )6CB3 " @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ % 3;; #/P DD;71/BJ I $BJ3G3IJ 7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ ✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G '/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ " @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3 Single-Family Residence (RMF-35) Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2) 7 B 4 C G @ / J7 C B 7 J I 6 D / G J C / N 2 72 2 3 7J 2 7C 4 B C / G < IJ 7B / 4 4 C 4 G / @ B/ / ; J Q 7C I7 B I @ / < Q < 7 0 B 3 4C G G 3 @ F / K J 7G 7C 3 B 2 G 0 3 Q F J K 6 7G 3 3 D 2 G 4 C C 9 G 31 I J J/ D 4 ; 4 / / B B B / 3 < G QI J 7 C I O 3B 7 < I ; K 0 G 3 3 1 / C 2 D 3 7 F 3 K 2 / / J B 3 2 G @ 3 / N 2 73 3 O D 0 K0 Q ? / 71 B Q 7 B 7 B 1 ; J K 3 2 G 7 3 B I 5 J 3 D 2 G C D 4 / 3 G I J I Q 7 CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71 T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32 +75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ 22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ "P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3 *(# , + *!),!(' jZK>pK >tt>ER >HHStTeb>Z pRKKt <mTttKb HKpEmTjtTeb eO tRK HKtKm_Tb>tTeb em _eHSOTE>tSeb eO K{TptTbP xpK tR>t Tp CKTbP mKkxKptKH (-+!' &) , , , & ', (-+"' !&) , +, , & ', + $% 0HKbtTO| tRK KppKbtT>Z >HyKmpK T_j>Etp eb tRK mKpTHKbtT>Z ER>m>EtKm eO tRK >mK> pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb% 1HKbtSO| C| >HHmKpp >b| HzKZZTbP xbStp t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb OeZZezTbP tRK Pm>btTbP eO tRK jKtTtSeb& 8Kj>m>tKZ| Oem K>ER HzKZ[TbP xbTt t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[StTeb pt>tK Ttp ExmmKbt O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK TO tR>t xbTt zKmK Sb > mK>peb>CZK pt>tK eO mKj>Tm >bH _Kt >ZZ >jj[TE>CZK CxT[HTbP OSmK >bH RK>\tR EeHKp& 8t>tK tRK bx_CKm eO pkx>mK OKKt eO [>bH ~ebKH Oem mKpTHKbtT>[ xpK uR>t zexZH CK mK~ebKH em EebHStTeb>ZZ| jKm_SttKH te CK xpKH Oem jxmjepKp pexPRt Tb tRK jKtTtSeb etRKm tR>b mKpTHKbtS>Z RexpTbP >bH >jjxmtKb>bt xpKp& >bH 8jKESO| > _TtTP>tTeb j[>b te >HHmKpp tRK Zepp eO mKpSHKbtS>Z ~ebKH [>bH mKpTHKbtT>[ xbTtp em mKpTHKbtS>[ ER>m>EtKm 5mH 6KtStTebKmp pxCVKEt te tRK mKkxTmK_Kbtp eO tRTp ER>jtKm _>| p>tSpO| tRK bKKH Oem _TtTP>tTeb eO >b| mKpSHKbtT>[ RexpTbP xbSt [eppKp C| >b| ebK eO tRK OeZZezTbP _KtReHp! ) 7Kj[>EK_Kbt /expSbP" 9RK jKtTtTebKm _>| >PmKK Sb > ZKP>] Oem_ p>tSpO>Etem| te tRK ESt| >ttembK| te EebptmxEt tRK p>_K bx_CKm eO mKpSHKbtS>Z HzK[[TbP xbTtp jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtTeb zTtRTb# 9RK ETt| EexbET[ HTptmSEt Tb zRSER tRK [>bH pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb Sp [eE>tKH' em )b >HWeTbTbP EexbETZ HTptmTEt SO tRK `TtSP>tTeb pTtK Tp zTtRTb > ebK _TZK m>HTxp eO tRK HK_e[StTeb pStK )b| pxER >PmKK_Kbt pR>Z[ TbEZxHK >HKkx>tK pKExmTt| te Px>m>btKK Ee_jZKtTeb zTtRTb tze |K>mp eO tRK Pm>btTbP eO > HK_e[StTeb jKm_Tt * .KK *>pKH 5b ,SOOKmKbEK *KtzKKb /expSbP ;>[xK )bH 7KjZ>EK_Kbt +ept# 9RK jKtStTebKm _>| j>| te tRK ESt| RexpTbP tmxpt OxbH tRK HSOOKmKbEK CKtzKKb tRK O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK eO tRK RexpTbP xbTtp j[>bbKH te CK K[T_Tb>tKH em HK_e[TpRKH >bH tRK mKjZ>EK_Kbt Eept eO CxT[HTbP bKz xbTtp eO pT_T[>m pkx>mK Oeet>PK >bH _KKtSbP >ZZ K{TptTbP CxT[HSbP OTmK >bH etRKm >jjZTE>C]K [>z K{E[xHTbP [>bH y>ZxKp + .KK <RKmK ,KtKmTem>tKH /expTbP -{Tptp 4et +>xpKH *| ,K[TCKm>tK 0bHSOOKmKbEK 5O 2>bHezbKm# 7KkxKpt *| 6KtStTebKm .em .Z>t .KK +ebpSHKm>tTeb$ 1b tRK KyKbt tR>t > mKpTHKbtS>Z HzK[ZTbP xbSt Tp t>mPKtKH em jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb >bH Tp Tb > HKtKmTem>tKH pt>tK Ome_ b>txm>Z E>xpKp pxER >p ( =lx>YK en >QKH eCpe^KpEKcEK vR?t Tq bft gFG@rThbLI D} vRMJK[TCKmAwN BEus ho haUppSidp te >Et eb tRK j>mt eO tRK jKtTtSebKm em RTp jmKHKEKppemp Sb TbtKmKpt zRTER HKtmS_Kbt>Z EebHTtSeb mKHxEKp > HzK[[TbP xbTt p O>Sm _>mXKt y>[xK em R>CTt>CS[Tt| >p > mKpTHKbtS>[ HzK[[TbP xbTt uRK jKtStSebKm _>| mKkxKpt >b K{K_jtTeb Ome_ tRK >CeyK tze _KtReHp eO _TtTP>tSeb Ome_ tRK HSmKEtem eO tRK ESt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt| >bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt >p jmeySHKH CK[ez ) VxHP_Kbt >p te zRKtRKm HKtKmSem>tTeb R>p eEExmmKH >p tRK mKpx[t eO HK[SCKm>tK TbHSOOKmKbEK pR>Z[ CK C>pKH eb > jmKjebHKm>bEK eO KyTHKbEK 7KkxTmKH .>Etp 5O 4>txm>[ ,KtKmSem>tTeb 1bEmK>pK .>Sm 3>mXKt ;>ZxK 5O :bStp 9e *K ,K_eZSpRKH! 9RK jKtStSebKm _>| pxC_St te tRK HTmKEtem eO tRK ETt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt| >bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt KyKm| O>Et Xbezb te pxjjemt tRK jmejepTtTeb tR>t tRK mKpTHKbtS>Z HzKZ[SbP xbStp zKmK bet jxmjepK[| >Z[ezKH te HKtKmTem>tK C| Z>EX eO mK>peb>C[K _>TbtKb>bEK 6. Mailing List WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TWO HUNDRED WEST, LLC 720 N REXFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 EZE FAM REV TRUST 1102 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARATHON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 3731 W SOUTHJORDAN PKWY #102Ͳ505 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 JIMMIE E LONG 1049 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DANIELLE HILDEBRAND; MARCUS A LONARDO (JT) 160 E FORT UNION BLVD MIDVALE UT 84047 KATHLEEN M ROBERTS 175 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAN E MYLECRAINE 171 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SS CAPITAL, LLC 35 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ELK RIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC 376 800 S AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 KRISTIE GILES 1022 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AMRA PASIC 1032 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 CHARLES EDWIN BUTTON 1052 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LERNICE CABRERA 1056 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JAMIE L THORPE 1058 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TENFIFTEEN PARTNERS, LLC 3045 E LOUISE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 DE ANZAͲC9 LP 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 KATHRYN A CAUSEY 923 LONGLEAF DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 BRYCE K JOHNSON 126 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AKBAR MATINKHAH 2618 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CARNEGIE HOLDINGS LLC 4019 S OLYMPIC WY HOLLADAY UT 84124 R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 INTERMOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 GREGORY C KETCH 655 E 100 N ALPINE UT 84004 R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 GONZALEZ B, RUBEN A & LOPEZ V, TIMOTEO S; JT (JT) 1035 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JKBRT; GRBRT 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 DAVID P MIDGLEY 1051 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DOUGLAS FLAGER; MARCUS WRIGHT (JT) 134 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CARLETON J ALLEN 128 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CARL CONNELLY 2263 E HIGH MOUNTAIN DR SANDY UT 84092 VADIM DMITRIYEVICH KOMAROV; CHRISTOPHER 1002Ͳ1006 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RACHELLE LAM 1008 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RICHARD ERIC BROWN 1010 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 400 EAST/WT APARTMENTS, LLC 11589 S SUMMERFIELD CIR SANDY UT 84092 STEVEN CHASE ADAMS 1042 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAVID M BEMIS 8479 S 1380 E SANDY UT 84093 JOSEPH L HERNANDEZ 1047 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC 2223 S HIGHLAND DR #E6Ͳ375 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANDREW BURT; CYNTHIA BURT (JT) 133 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ISMAEL G SIERRA; JESUS J OJEDA (JT) 1001 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARIN MASAO MANO 1058 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARIN MANO; KEVIN RANDALL (JT) 1064 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KRISTEN MORTENSEN FAMILY TRUST 05/16/2013 13818 S VESTRY RD DRAPER UT 84020 RALPH S GATHERUM & DONETA MCGONIGLE GATHERUM FAMILY TRUST DATED 1 1697 N FORT LN LAYTON UT 84041 SKI BUM LLC 440 W 900 S #12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TERESA PEREZ; PASCUAL CARDENAS (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LARISSA M HUNT 167 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 JAMES C TAYLOR; JESSICA M TAYLOR (JT) 3556 S 5600 W # 1Ͳ533 WEST VALLEY UT 84120 JOB G GOWON 145Ͳ147 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LEE ANDERSON 137 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 DOHENYͲVIDOVICH PARTNERS 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 ALLEN L CARLSON; ELAINE R CARLSON (JT) 1089 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PASCUAL CARDENAS; MARIA T PEREZ (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PEDRO CARDENAS PEREZ 1127 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JESSICA LARSON 1131 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BRETT MATESEN 169 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ESTEBAN R. TINOCO; SOPHIE R. TINOCO 4628 W 4695 S WEST VALLEY UT 84120 KATHLEEN LOIS COCHRAN REVOCABLE TRUST 09Ͳ03Ͳ 2008 347 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 347 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DAN O GARZARELLI 950 HARBOR AVE HENDERSON NV 89002 JUAN R BUSTAMANTE; GRISELDA A RAMIREZ (JT) 139 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LAKE LIMITED 8350 S VIA RIVIERA WY COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 N C CARRIDO INC 1085 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PATRICK QUINN; ERIN HAMILTON (JT) 1124 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MORTENSENͲMAHYERA LIVING TRUST 01/05/2017 1122 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CAITLIN ARNWINE; MATTHEW ARNWINE (JT) 1120 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LEAH THOMAS 353 E 1500 N OREM UT 84057 ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 SCOTT SORENSON 121 W FREMONT AVE # 17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KRISHEILA OCAMPO 123 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARREN GONZOL; TARA MLEYNEK (JT) 125 W FREMONT AVE # 119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JESSE C WALKER; MARK HOFELING (JT) 127 W FREMONT AVE # 120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NATHAN THOMAS PASKETT; ADAM TROY WHITE (JT) 129 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HENRY S MASTAIN 131 W FREMONT AVE # 122 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARCUS MCBRIDE 133 W FREEMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84701 WHITNEY MARIE FINLINSON 135 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOWMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS,LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOMINIUM HOMEWONERS 7931 BLAZE TRAIL CT ORANGEVALE CA 95662 Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1018 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1024 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1050 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1098 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1039 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1055 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 165 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 151 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1036 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1046 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1015 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1075 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1062 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 120 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 130 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 129 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 127 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 111 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1025 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1043 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 124 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1002 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1008 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1010 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1012 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1042 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1068 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1061 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1058 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1064 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1095 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1101 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1103 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 175 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 163 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 159 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 149 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 147 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 135 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 121 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 168 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 158 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 154 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 148 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 142 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 136 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 130 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 126 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 122 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 110 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1089 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1085 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 185 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 163 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 157 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 151 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 145 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1099 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 995 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1011 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1117 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1124 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1122 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1120 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 121 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 127 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 131 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 133 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 2 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 3 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 4 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 5 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 6 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 7 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 8 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 9 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 10 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 11 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 12 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:October 10, 2023 RE: 1720 and 1734 South West Temple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00106/00380 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1720 and 1734 South West Temple (0.24 acres each) from their current R-1/5,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning, to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. The proposed amendments would allow the property owner to potentially construct a medium-density residential development on the properties like a development immediately adjacent to the north, though no development plans have been submitted. A single-family home constructed in 1931 is on the 1720 South property. A duplex built in 1906 and remodeled in the early 2000s is at 1734 South. Both properties are market rate rental units. The parcels have frontage on West Temple and are near 1700 South, both of which are collector streets. Single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and multi-family buildings are in the vicinity, with bars, restaurants, a church and commercial uses within a few blocks. Jefferson Circle Park is adjacent to the west of the subject parcels. Planning staff noted that given the subject properties’ combined size of approximately ½ acre, and a minimum of 20% open space, limited buildable area will keep a potential building’s scale compatible with adjacent development. Residential use parking and height will be restricted due to fire codes and zoning ordinance requirements. Commercial uses involving alcohol would be prohibited because of the abutting park to the west. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 10, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 Area zoning is a mix of R-1/5,000, R-MU-45, CG (General Commercial), CB (Community Business), RMF- 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential/Office) and R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) as shown in the zoning map below. Area zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red. It is important to note that an ordinance was adopted in 2016 that downzoned 155 properties in an area bordered by 1300 South, Main Street, 2100 South, and 200 West from RMF-35 to R-1/5,000. The properties impacted by the rezone are not all adjacent to each other. The properties being considered by the Council are two of eight located on West Temple south of 1700 South that were rezoned in 2016 as shown below. Page | 3 Image showing properties downzoned in 2016. Courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its July 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people spoke, six of whom were opposed to the proposal. Concerns cited include no development proposal, parking issues, the 2016 downzone was intended to maintain the core of neighborhood homes. The person who spoke in support noted the properties are on and near collector streets, are close to transit, and a need for moderate density in the area. During their discussion, Commissioners clarified that the subject parcels are not included in the Ballpark Station Area Plan. (Staff note: The parcels are within the draft 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Plan Page | 4 area currently being drafted. That plan is not far enough along to provide specific recommendations for the subject parcels.) Some Commissioners expressed a desire to preserve the character of the street, felt the development and use potential are not appropriate for the parcels, and the small setbacks are an issue. Planning staff’s opinion was that the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments met factors to consider in City Code and recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that the petitioner enter a development agreement with the City for replacement of the three dwelling units. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to discuss how the forthcoming Affordable Housing incentives overlay proposal could be utilized to guarantee affordability is included in future projects on this property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Adopted City Plan Considerations Planning reviewed how the proposal aligns with the Central Community Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Housing SLC 2023-2027. Central Community Master Plan The subject parcels are within the Central Community Master Plan area and is shown on the published future land use map for this plan as Medium-Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre). The map is inaccurate as the 2016 downzone discussed above designates the properties as Low-Density Residential (1- 15 dwelling units/acre). The map was published in 2005, well before the parcels were downzoned. In the Planning Commission staff report Planning staff stated: The subject properties are no longer compatible with the surrounding uses by remaining labeled “low-density residential” among “medium-residential/mixed-use” and “residential/office mixed- use” on the future land use map. Most of the development and the zoning has been designated for higher densities. Therefore, the master plan should be amended to show these two properties as “medium-density residential” to allow for future multi-family and/or mixed-use development Page | 5 potential and to make the subject properties more compatible with the uses around them. Plan Salt Lake Planning staff cited the city’s need for housing in Plan Salt Lake which calls for “access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Two key components in the initiative are: •Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income, and •Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. Housing SLC 2023-2027 It is Planning staff’s option that amending the master plan to designate the subject properties as medium- density residential aligns with the main objective in Housing SLC to “make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.” Consideration 2 – Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted the low-density residential neighborhood that was part of the larger area. They also acknowledged changes over the past decade including townhomes, multi-family developments, and commercial uses. The tallest buildings in the immediate area include the townhome development adjacent to the subject parcels to the north, and a senior resident apartment building. Consideration 3 – R-MU-45 Zoning vs R-1/5,000 Zoning Development Potential R-MU-45 development potential is very different than the current R-1/5,000 zoning. Building setbacks in R-MU-45 are much less than R-1/5,000, and there would be more dwelling units allowed if the proposal is adopted. R-MU-45 zoning allows for buildings up to 45 feet tall, but as noted above the maximum building height on the subject parcels would likely be lower. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the parcels’ size along with landscaping and on-site parking requirements would allow a building similar in height to the adjacent townhome development. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment C (pages 15-16) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a comparison of existing R- 1/5,000 and proposed R-MU-45 zoning. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-1/5,000)Proposed Zoning (R-MU-45) Lot Area/Width 5,000 square feet- lot size 50 feet -lot width 5,000 square feet for new lots. No minimum for existing lots. 50 feet -lot width Setbacks 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded 3. Nonresidential, Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Developments: a. Front Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). b. Corner Side Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). Page | 6 subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot depth, or twenty feet (20'), whichever is less. c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required unless an interior side yard abuts a Single- or Two-Family Residential District. When a setback is required, a minimum ten-foot (10') setback must be provided, and the minimum side yard setback shall be increased one foot (1') for every one foot (1') increase in height above thirty feet (30'). Buildings may be stepped so taller portions of a building are farther away from the side property line. The horizontal measurement of the step shall be equal to the vertical measurement of the taller portion of the building. d. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of lot depth but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). Parking Two parking spaces per dwelling unit Min: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Max: All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Building Height 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section. Buildings taller than forty-five feet (45'), up to a maximum of fifty-five feet (55'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided that the proposed height is supported by the applicable master plan. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20'). Coverage/Open space The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot. Minimum Open Space Area: For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential uses, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. This open space area may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 31-33) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map Page | 7 amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies if multi-family development is constructed. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Some public facilities and services may need to be upgraded if a more intense use is permitted in the R-MU-45 zone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • March 3, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • March 17, 2023 – Information about the proposal sent to the Ballpark Community Council Chair. • March 20, 2023 – Early notification announcement sent to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site. • May 10, 2023 – It was determined that a petition for a master plan amendment would be required to amend the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from low-density residential to medium-density residential. • May 17, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition received by Planning Division. • May 19, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • July 17, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on property. • July 21, 2023 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. • July 26, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission votes 5-2 to forward negative recommendations to the City Council for the Page | 8 zoning map and future land use map amendments. • July 31, 2023 – Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office. • August 3, 2023 – Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division. • September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council // October 10, 2023 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT & MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT-1720 S. & 1734 S. WEST TEMPLE ST. PLNPCM2023-00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380 Request to rezone properties at 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple Street from R-1-5,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed-Use). •Subject properties are approximately 0.48 acres •This area is part of the Ballpark area –although it is not part of the Ballpark Plan area. •1720 S. has an existing single-family dwelling •1734 S. has an existing non-conforming duplex There are no development proposals at this time. The applicant has indicated possible residential/commercial mixed-use, but that is not known at this time. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council, although the Planning staff did recommend favorably of both applications. PROJECT REQUEST Since the subject property is less than ½acre,there will be limitations on the buildable area put on any development proposed for it,which would keep the scale of the building compatible with the adjacent developments.For a residential proposal,parking and heights will be restricted due to fire codes and zoning ordinance requirements.For commercial uses, any alcohol-involved use (tavern,bar,etc.)will be prohibited since there is an abutting park directly to the west. Any development under the R-MU-45 zoning will require at least twenty percent (20%)of the lot area to be maintained as an open space area. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division END Rezone & Master Plan Amendment1734 & 1720 S West Temple To RMU-45 and Medium Density Planning Staff has recommended my applications unianimously §The application for RMU-45 is the same as the RMU-45 zone of the adjacent property to the north providing consistency in this mixed-use location that also has CG, RMF-35, R-2 (with 2, 4-plexes on smaller lots directly across from street from subject properties), CB and RO. §Area has developed into a commuter and walkable zone –close to public transit, busses and TRAX as well as amenities like Costco and Target. §West Temple and 1700 S are both collector streets. This is consistent with city goals identifying properties on collector streets for development. §The applicant properties are two, large, underutilized lots that can be home to so many more people. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2023-00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380 Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment 1720 S. & 1734 S. West Temple St. STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the petitions for a zoning map amendment and a master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15- 13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low-Density Residential” to “Medium- Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The applicant, who is the current owner of the subject properties, is requesting that the zoning be changed to R-MU-45, a medium-density residential zone. For this zone change to be considered, rachel otto (Sep 8, 2023 09:13 MDT)09/08/2023 09/08/2023 a Master Plan Amendment application must also be considered to change the future land use designation from low- to medium-density residential. The subject properties front along West Temple Street just south of 1700 South. Both 1700 South and West Temple are collector roads. This area is a mixed-use area, with many townhomes, duplexes, multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity, and also nearby commercial and residential/office buildings. On August 26th, 2016, an ordinance was adopted (Ordinance 14 of 2016) that changed the zoning for 155 individual properties located in an area bounded by 1300 South and 2100 South Streets and Main and 200 West Streets. These properties were not all adjacent properties. The zoning for these properties was changed from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-1-5,000 (Single-Family Residential). The ordinance also amended the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map by identifying these 155 properties from “Medium Density Residential” to “Low-Density Residential”. The applicant does not have an intended use proposal for the property. However, in discussions with the applicant, he may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance as well as the goals of the adopted master plans or request to amend the master plan, as the applicant did make an application for. Planning Staff believed that those standards and goals were met and had recommended approval of these petitions to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on March 20, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Ballpark Community Council on March 17, 2023. No comment was received from the Ballpark Community Council prior to the meeting. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan amendment. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for decision. The findings for recommending denial were: 1. It’s inappropriate without a development plan. 2. It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. 3. It is not compatible with the neighboring uses. In addition, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment petition. The finding for recommending denial was: • It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of July 26, 2023 (Click here) b) PC Minutes of July 26, 2023 (Click here) c) PC Staff Report of July 26, 2023 (Click here) d) PC Meeting of July 26, 2023 Time 1:56:05 to 2:31:04 (Click here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00106 – Zoning Map Amendment Request PLNPCM2023-00380- Master Plan Amendment Request approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. February 13, 2023 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 3, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. March 17, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 20, 203 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. May 4, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. May 10, 2023 It was determined that a petition for a Master Plan Amendment would be required to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Central City Master Plan from “low-density residential” to “medium-density residential”. May 17, 2023 Petition for the master plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. May 19, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 17, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. July 21, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. July 21, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing July 26, 2023. By a vote of 5 - 2 , the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and the Master Plan Amendment. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00106 – Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15-13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low- Density Residential” to “Medium-Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The following two petitions are associated with this request: A. Master Plan Amendment – The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as “Low-Density Residential”. The request is to amend the designation to “Medium-Density Residential”. Case Number PLNPCM2023-00380 B. Zoning Map Amendment- The subject properties are currently zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The request is to amend the zone to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). Case Number PLNPCM2023-00106 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00106 or PLNPCM2023-00380. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST OWN FULL NAME OWN ADDR own unit OWN CITY OWN STATE OWN ZIP SUSANNE GUSTIN FURGIS; GEORGE E FURGIS (JT)1181 E CHANDLER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LESLEY ULIBARRI 124 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 129 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT SYDNEE SCARBOROUGH; MAUREEN O'DONNELL (JT)134-136 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 NATOSHA WASHINGTON 1628 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GEORGE S RUSTER 1629 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JEREMY JOHN NEFF 163 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MAXINE POTTER 1631 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES M WILLARD 1634 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOEL G ARMENDARIZ 1637 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CINDY KHA 1638 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1639 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1640 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1689 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1709 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 21 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 17 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 15 Salt Lake City 84115 UT ANNE KENDALL GOTTWALT 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARGARET SCHAUFLER 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GREGORY M HARRIS; MIGUEL E GARCIA 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CATHERINE MARY CHRISTOPHER; CHIBUEZE DEREK UCHENDU (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA MARKS; MARIE MARKS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1710 SOUTH, A SERIES OF ILLAHEE, LLC 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXA NORLIN; KEVIN BOLGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES B CURRAN; ROBERT E TOWNE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST #9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID BENJAMIN DICKSHINSKI; JESSICA BAZZELLE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ROBERT WILLIAM NAYLOR 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BRYCE NELSON; ERIC ADAMS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 23 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SHANE M STEPHENSON; HANNAH M STEPHENSON (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ANDREW E MARR; CHLOE A RUEBECK MARR (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 20 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JENNIFER MCCALLUM 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 19 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FRANK FELDMAN; DAVID S RABIGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 18 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 OLIVIA J AKERLEY 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TYSON HATCH 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID JOSEPH JANGRO 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 13 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOHN MCKENZIE-CARTER; MARINA QUEVEDO (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 14 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SEAN HOUSEHOLDER; TRACI RESTON-HOUSEHOLDER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1712 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1715 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1717 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1719 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JESSICA ARMSTRONG 1720 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAVIER H ALEGRE-ALCAYAGA 1722 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1723 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JUDITH WILLIAMS; ANDREW KITER 1723 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1726 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT ALLISON K COFFELT; BRITT HULTGREN (JT)1728 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1729 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1733 S JEFFERSON ST NFF1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1734 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1735 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT MEGAN RADVANSKY 1738 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CHRISTIAN L CASE 1741 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HUGH VANN 1742 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARY L COX 1746 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1748 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1750 S JEFFERSON CIR NORTH Salt Lake City 84115 UT FRANCISCO AVILA-CRUZ; PAULA B AVILA (JT)1751 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA H GIBSON 1754 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CODY C CARVER 1755 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1758 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY L T CARR (JT)1759 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DIANE VAN ROOSENDAAL; STEPHANIE VAN ROOSENDAAL (JT)1760 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1760 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY T CARR (JT)1767 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1790 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT YING-TING LIN 336 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 AXIST PROPERTIES LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROY SISTO ALIRES & ARLENE W ALIRES TRUST 09/16/2020 3899 S BURNINGHAM DR WEST VALLEY UT 84119 Current Occupant 58 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 59 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT JACK H KOLKMAN 64 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GRANT J NORTON; COLLEEN C NORTON (JT)657 WINDSOR CT ALPINE UT 84004 Current Occupant 67 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT 17TH TOWNHOMES, LLC 70 NORTH MAIN STREET #106 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 KENNETH OWEN NAIL 736 S 300 E UNIT 5E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ROBERT J RILEY; GARY AYTON (JT)74 W QUAYLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1709 SOUTH, A SERIES OF UNSTOPPABLE REAL ESTATE, LLC 7901 S 3200 W # 443 WEST JORDAN UT 84088 FAMILY PROMISE-SALT LAKE 814 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COLE SQUARED L.L.C.851 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 1734 S WEST TEMPLE L.L.C.909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Diana Martinez, Principal Planner 451 S. State St. / P.O. Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 Larsen Sequist 909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00106 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00380. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 26, 2023, on a petition submitted by Larsen Sequist (“Petitioner”) to rezone two parcels located at 1720 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-006-0000) and 1734 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-007-0000) (collectively, the “Properties”) from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and a petition to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; WHEREAS, at its July 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the petitions; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map within the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of ___________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned: 1720 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-006-0000 COM 4.35 RDS N FR SE COR LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 8923-0487 9283-9367 09283-9369 11181-1070 and 1734 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-007-0000 COM AT SE COR OF LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A B F SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 5820-2802 6497-0799 6548-1936 6606-0482,0489,0491 6781-0714 7597- 0552 8353-6519 8387-2544 8409-4333 8413-4101 8422-2142 8648-4144 8743-4086 8743-4107 9535-711 10377-4386 10753-9793 10754-8050 Will Utah Have a Recession?Year -Over % Chg. In Employment in Utah 9.6% 7.5% 4.9% 1. 7 0 % -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 19 5 0 19 5 4 19 5 8 19 6 2 19 6 6 19 7 0 19 7 4 19 7 8 19 8 2 19 8 6 19 9 0 19 9 4 19 9 8 20 0 2 20 0 6 20 1 0 20 1 4 20 1 8 20 2 2 ( f ) Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services. Building Permits Issue for Residential Units in Utah 2010-2023 Source: Gardner Policy Institute. 31,401 39,620 29,386 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Total Utah Housing Shortage Could Worsen Over Next Two Years 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Housing Units Households Year -Over Percent Change in Utah and U.S. Housing Price Index 1992-2023 Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency. 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US Utah Is Prone to Rapid Acceleration of Housing Prices, (quarterly year over percent change) Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency, All Transaction Index. 20.1%18.3%17.2% -12.1% 28.3% -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 19 7 7 19 7 8 19 7 9 19 8 0 19 8 2 19 8 3 19 8 4 19 8 5 19 8 7 19 8 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 Year-Over First Quarter Change in FHFA Price Index Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency. Year -Over Second Quarter Change in Median Sales Price by County (blank = less than 50 transactions) Source: UtahRealEstate.com. Ranking Housing Prices in Utah Metro Areas (185 Metro Areas) Metropolitan Area Median Sales PriceQ1 2023 Ranking by Highest Price YoY % Change Salt Lake $522,700 27th -6.1 St. George $512,200 29th -13.4 Provo-Orem $492,600 32nd -13.3 Clearfield-Ogden $451,900 37th -4.6 Source: National Association of Realtors Median Middle as Measure of Affordability(Median Price of Home Divided by Median Household Income – Salt Lake Metro) Source: Gardner Policy Institute. 4.2 4.6 5.6 6.3 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Mortgage Payment Calculation for Median Price Home in Utah Q2 2021 to Q2 2023 Category Q2 2021 Q2 2022 Q2 2023 % Chg.2022-2023 % Chg.2021-2023 Median sales price of home $440,000 $535,000 $494,250 -7.6%12.3% 5% down payment $22,000 $26,750 $24,713 -7.6%12.3% Amount to finance $418,000 $508,250 $469,519 -7.6%12.3% Interest rate 3.00%5.27%6.51%------ Principal and interest payment $1,762 $2,813 $2,971 5.6%68.6%Private mortgage insurance 1% of the loan $348 $423 $391 -7.6%12.4% Home Insurance $100 $100 $100 0.0%0.0% Property tax @0.007% of home value $256 $312 $288 -7.7%12.5% Total mortgage payment $2,466 $3,648 $3,750 2.8%52.1% Income Required to Finance Median Priced Home $98,640 $145,920 $150,000 2.8%52.1%Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Freddie Mac, UtahRealEstate.com Apartment Units in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, 2023, Source: Utah Housing Corporation, U.S. Census Bureau. Salt Lake City Salt Lake County SL City % Share Tax Credit Units 9,950 17,983 55.3% Construction Rental Units (2000-2022)11,845 37,603 31.5% Total Rental Units 55,000 155,000 35.5% Best Practices of Local Municipalities to Address Housing Affordability •Land Use Regulations Determine the Effectiveness of All Best Practices. •Preservation •RDAs and Tax Increment Financing •Leadership and Political Will. •ADU •TOD Legislative History ●HB 295 (1996) requires needs assessment ●HB 241 (2017) homeless shelter funding ●HB 430 (2018) Commission on Housing Affordability Over next five years another dozens substantive bills on housing: (1) New construction and preservation, Utah Housing Preservation Fund (2) Administrative support and policies, needs assessment (3) Homeless assistance, resource centers (4) Housing and transportation, investment zones at TODS (5) Zoning ordinances, allow ADUs Comparison of State-Funded Housing Programs ●Rental Assistance ●State Housing Trust ●State Tax Credits ●Eviction States With Rental Assistance Programs Fully-Funded by the State Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition. States With Rental Assistance Programs Fully-Funded by the State Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition. States with Real Estate Transfer Tax, 2020 Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition The Next Twelve Months •No recession in Utah. •Wage increase likely to slow. •Housing affordability worsens. •Mortgage rates to remain high, 6.5%-7.5% •Housing prices will stabilize by 3Q-4Q. •Home building drops to 22,750 in 2023, 24% drop. Modest recovery in 2024. •Many sectors will see modest slowdown in economic growth and activity over next 12 months. State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024 James Wood Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Dejan Eskic Senior Research Fellow and Scholar The pandemic years created unmatched volatility in Utah’s housing market. September 2023 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu Table of Contents Analysis in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Homebuilding Whiplashed by Interest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Residential Construction Concentrated in Five Cities .............5 Existing Homes Sales Fall to Lowest Level in Eight Years . . . . . . . .6 Real Estate Commissions Total $1.5 Billion .......................6 Median Days on Market Declines in 2023 ........................7 Residential Real Estate Listings Impacted by Interest Rate Volatility ................................................7 Homebuilding Contraction Likely to Increase Utah’s Housing Shortage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Market Conditions and the Housing Shortage ...................9 Occupied Housing Units as a Measure of the Housing Shortage ...........................................10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Market Conditions . . . . . . . .10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Demand and Supply .......10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Prices ......................10 Housing Price Change for Utah’s Counties and Large Cities, 2022-2023 ............................................12 The Inverse Relationship of Housing Prices and Interest Rates ...13 Measuring Housing Affordability: Median Multiple and Housing Opportunity Index .................................14 Mortgage Payments Increase Despite Drop in Housing Prices ...15 Renters Locked Out by Rent Increases ..........................15 Utah’s Housing Forecast: 2023-2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 1 State of the State's Housing Market, 2022-2024 The pandemic years created unmatched volatility in Utah’s housing market. The volatility in these past two years surpassed 50 years of housing history. Building permits for residential units increased by 26% in 2021, only to fall by 26% in 2022. These COVID-19 pandemic years now join the Great Recession as one of those unique moments in Utah's housing market. The Great Recession produced 16 consecutive quarters of declining housing prices, while the pandemic produced the shortest and steepest homebuilding expansion and contraction on record. Key Findings • Utah’s ten-year home building and real estate boom ended abruptly in 2022 - First quarter home building activity and real estate sales in 2022 seemed to indicate another exceptional year for Utah’s housing market. But over the following nine months the mortgage rate increased from 4.0% to 6.5%, undercutting homebuyer demand. Consequently, the year-over number of residential units receiving building permits fell by 35% from April to December, sales of existing homes dropped 23%, and the median sales price of a home fell by 10%.1 • The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy affected all types of residential construction - Year-over comparisons show single-family residential construction was hardest hit with a Analysis in Brief Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits in Utah, 2010-2022 Note: Does not include group quarters, manufactured homes, and cabins. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 32% drop in building permits in 2022, followed by a 27% decline in apartment unit permits, and a 9.5% decline in condominium, town home, and twin home permits. • The housing market contraction continued through Q2 2023 - Through June 2023, the year-over number of residential units receiving building permits in Utah fell 37%, existing homes sales fell 20%, and the median sales price of a home fell by 7.5%.2 • Utah’s housing shortage is likely to increase by 2024 - Utah's housing shortage decreased from 56,800 units in 2017 to 28,400 units in 2022; however, as homebuilding activity contracts, new households will outnumber new housing units. Consequently, Utah's housing shortage will likely increase to over 37,000 units by 2024.3 • Housing price increases peaked in 2022, then slowed, and declined in 2023 - The year-over median sales price of a home peaked in February 2022 with a record 28.2% increase.4 Over the next 10 months price increases slowed, falling to 1.1% by December and turned negative in January with a decline of 5.3%. Declines continued through the first four months of 2023, reaching 10.3% in April. By July, the year-over decline had narrowed to 2.0%.5 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM2 • A correction in prices was inevitable - The median sales price of a home in Utah increased from $336,300 in February 2020 to $500,000 in February 2022.6 A price increase of this magnitude (49% in 24 months, the largest two-year increase on record), requires a future price correction. That correction began in March 2022 and continued through July 2023. The correction, however, looks to be modest with less than a 5% decline in year-over price. As such, this appears to be a one- year (2023) pause in price increases, likely followed by a price increase in 2024. • Despite the dip in housing prices, housing affordability continues to prevent homeownership opportunities for many households - In Q2 2023, the median income household in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area could afford only 21% of the homes sold in that area.7 In an affordable housing market the median income household should be able to afford 50% of homes sold. Of the 241 metropolitan areas surveyed, 203 are more affordable than the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area. State comparisons show that housing prices in Utah have increased by 72% since Q1 2018. Only seven states had greater price increases.8 • Homeownership is a fading dream for many renter households - Only 15% of Utah’s renter households have enough income to purchase a modestly priced $300,000 to $400,000 home. High interest rates and housing prices will continue to exclude a growing share of renters from home ownership. These long-term renters will face a rental market with rising rents and low vacancy rates. The average rental rate in Wasatch Front counties has increased at a rate of 6.5% to 7.0% annually since 2011, nearly double the rate of increase in the median income of renters. The average rental rate in Salt Lake County is now $1,570, which requires an income of $60,000 to qualify as a tenant.9 • Housing forecast for 2023 and 2024 - The 2023 forecast for the number of residential units receiving building permits in Utah is 22,750, the lowest level since 2016. Real estate sales of existing homes are likely to fall to 37,500 in 2023, the lowest level since 2014. Both homebuilding activity and real estate sales, however, are expected to increase in 2024. The 2023 forecast for the median sales price is $500,000, just 2% below the statewide median in 2022. By year-end 2023, the mortgage rate will likely be near 7.0% but will trend lower in 2024 averaging 6.5% for the year.10 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3 Introduction Homebuilding Whiplashed by Interest Rates The 2022-2024 edition of the Kem C. Gardner Institute’s State of the State’s Housing Market provides a detailed analysis of current housing market conditions in Utah. The report provides information on five areas: (1) residential construction activity, Table 1: Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits by Type of Unit in Utah, 2010-2022 Year Single Family Units Condominium Units Apt . Units Total 2010 5,947 1,169 1,723 8,839 2011 5,389 1,388 2,130 8,907 2012 7,655 1,228 2,880 11,763 2013 9,857 2,469 2,539 14,865 2014 8,712 3,122 6,742 18,576 2015 9,933 2,536 4,607 17,076 2016 10,668 3,034 5,735 19,437 2017 12,113 4,874 5,061 22,048 2018 12,766 5,741 5,185 23,692 2019 11,872 5,752 9,366 26,990 2020 15,569 7,016 8,816 31,401 2021 17,528 7,895 14,143 39,620 2022 11,873 7,146 10,367 29,386 YoY % Chg. 2021-2022 -32.2%-9.5%-26.7%-25.7% Note: Does not include group quarters, manufactured homes, and cabins. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (2) existing homes sales, (3) the housing shortage, (4) prices and affordability, and (5) a 2023 and 2024 forecast. Each section provides a statistical time series presented in tables and figures as well as an analysis of past trends and current conditions. Table 2: Share of Utah Residential Building Permits Issued by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Year Single-Family Units Multifamily Units Condominium, Townhome, Twin Home Units Apt . Units Multifamily Share of Total 2010 67.3%13.2%19.5%32.7% 2011 60.5%15.6%23.9%39.5% 2012 65.1%10.4%24.5%34.9% 2013 66.3%16.6%17.1%33.7% 2014 46.9%16.8%36.3%53.1% 2015 58.2%14.9%27.0%41.8% 2016 54.9%15.6%29.5%45.1% 2017 54.9%22.1%23.0%45.1% 2018 53.9%24.2%21.9%46.1% 2019 44.0%21.3%34.7%56.0% 2020 49.6%22.3%28.1%50.4% 2021 44.3%20.0%35.7%55.7% 2022 40.4%24.3%35.3%59.6% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute The historic expansion and contraction of the housing market in 2021 and 2022 reflects the Federal Reserve’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic emerged, the Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to record low levels to avert a depression. The low interest rates ultimately led to higher inflation rates by 2022, which the Federal Reserve sought to counter with a historically rapid increase in interest rates. Consequently, mortgage rates doubled in less than a year. Predictably, Utah’s housing market felt the full force of the Federal Reserve’s policy, both on the upside and the downside. The policy affected all types of residential construction. Year- over comparisons show single-family residential construction was hardest hit with a 32% drop in building permits in 2022, followed by a 27% decline in apartment unit permits, and a 9.5% decline in condominium, town home, and twin home permits (Table 1). The weakened market conditions continued into 2023. Building permit data from the U.S. Census Bureau show Utah’s year-over January to June residential permits for all types of units fell 37.2% (Figure 1). Only four states, Montana, New York, Wyoming, and Alaska have had sharper declines. Nationally, permits for all types of units fell 17% over the January-June period. Single-family permits dropped 41% in Utah compared to 21% nationally. The rise in mortgage rates gave additional momentum to the shift from low density housing (single-family) to high density housing (condominiums and apartments). More high-density housing has been developed in Utah since 2021 than at any other time; 15,000 condominium units and 24,500 apartment units received building permits in the past two years. Sixty percent of all residential permits issued in 2022 were for apartments, condominiums, town homes, and twin homes, the highest share on record (Table 2 and Figure 2). September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM4 Figure 1: Percent Change in Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits by State, 2022-2023 (Year-over change January to June 2022-2023) Source: U.S. Census Bureau State Building Permit Survey Data -51.0% -44.1% -43.9% -38.0% -37.2% -34.1% -33.5% -32.9% -32.8% -29.9% -29.9% -28.2% -28.2% -28.1% -27.7% -27.5% -25.2% -24.8% -24.6% -23.8% -23.7% -21.0% -20.4% -20.1% -18.0% -17.8% -17.1% -16.5% -16.4% -15.5% -14.6% -14.1% -13.5% -13.4% -12.9% -12.3% -12.3% -10.6% -10.4% -9.5% -7.3% -4.5% -3.0% -2.3% -2.0% 1.6% 2.6% 9.6% 13.2% 26.9% 30.9% -60.0%-50.0%-40.0%-30.0%-20.0%-10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0% Alaska Wyoming New York Montana Utah Nebraska Idaho Minnesota South Dakota Massachusetts Kansas Nevada Arkansas District of Columbia New Mexico Washington Maine Arizona Colorado Missouri Oklahoma Louisiana Texas Maryland Mississippi Michigan Iowa South Carolina Illinois North Dakota Virginia West Virginia Indiana Wisconsin Florida New Jersey Delaware California Georgia Tennessee Pennsylvania Oregon Ohio Hawaii North Carolina Alabama Vermont Rhode Island Kentucky New Hampshire Connecticut gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5 Residential Construction Concentrated in Five Cities A handful of Utah cities accounted for a significant share of residential construction activity in 2022. The top five cities statewide are ranked by number of new units by type (single- family, condominium, townhome, twin home, and apartments) in Table 3 (the three multifamily designations of condominium, townhome, and twin home are referred as “condominiums” in the text below). St. George led all cities in permits issued for single-family with 834 units. Washington City ranked 4th with 581 new homes. The other three cities are all located in northern Utah County in the Silicon Slopes area: Eagle Mountain (724 units), Saratoga Springs (583 units), and Lehi (500 units). Building activity in these top five ranked cities represent 27% of single-family permits issued statewide. Lehi was the dominant city in condominium development in 2022. The city issued permits for 914 units, roughly one out of every eight new condominiums units statewide. Salt Lake City ranked 2nd with 540 units. Two of the three remaining top five cities, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain, are in northern Utah County. The fifth city, South Jordan (309 units), is nearby in Salt Lake County. The top five cities represented 36.5% of all new condominium units statewide in 2022. Twenty percent of all new apartment units in 2022 were in Salt Lake City and the apartment boom in downtown Salt Lake City continues unabated by the pandemic. The city issued permits for 2,679 apartment units in 2022. The top five cities for Figure 2: Share of Utah Residential Building Permits Issued by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table 3: Top Five Utah Cities for Number of Permits Issued for Residential Units, 2022 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Single-Family Units Units Share of State St. George 834 7.0% Eagle Mountain 724 6.1% Saratoga Springs 583 4.9% Washington 581 4.9% Lehi 500 4.2% Total 3,222 27 .1% Condominium, Townhome, Twin Home Units Units Share of State Lehi 914 12.8% Salt Lake City 540 7.6% Saratoga Springs 502 7.0% Eagle Mountain 345 4.8% South Jordan 309 4.3% Total 2,610 36 .5% Apartment Units Units Share of State Salt Lake City 2,063 19.9% West Valley 1,048 10.1% Lehi 835 8.1% Draper 571 5.5% Unincorporated Salt Lake County 477 4.6% Total 4,994 48 .2% Total Residential Units Units Share of State Salt Lake City 2,679 9.1% Lehi 2,249 7.6% St. George 1,493 5.1% West Valley 1,183 4.0% Saratoga Springs 1,159 3.9% Total 8,763 29 .8% apartment development in 2022 accounted for nearly half of all new apartment units statewide. Apartment development is not as sensitive to higher interest rates as single-family and condominium development due to the two-to-three-year lead time for approvals and financing. Consequently, projects that are underway with approvals and financing in strong economic periods may draw building permits during times of weak market conditions. 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM6 Existing Homes Sales Fall to Lowest Level in Eight Years Utah realtors did not fare much better than homebuilders in 2022. Existing home sales dropped by 19.4% in 2022, well below the 26% decline in homebuilding. Statewide residential real estate sales totaled 40,686 units in 2022, the lowest level in eight years (Figure 3). Single-family sales fell to 29,804 homes, a decline of 19.3% while condominium, townhomes and twin homes had a nearly identical decline of 19.5%, a total of 10,266 homes (Figure 4). As a percentage of total sales, multifamily units (condominiums, townhomes, and twin homes) have steadily increased their share of sales. In 2000, multifamily sales accounted for 14% of total sales. By 2022 their share had increased to 25%. Residential sales fell in every Wasatch Front county in 2022. Salt Lake County had the steepest decline at 25.4%, while sales in the other three counties declined about 15% (Table 4). The declines have continued for each county over the first six months of 2023 with Salt Lake County reporting the largest decline of 24.6%. Statewide sales are down 20.6% through June 2023. Figure 3: Utah Residential Real Estate Sales, 2005-2022 (Number of units) Table 4: Residential Real Estate Sales in Wasatch Front Counties and the State, 2021-2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Figure 4: Utah Residential Real Estate Sales by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com Real Estate Commissions Total $1 .5 Billion Although sales fell in 2022, the value of residential sales was the second highest ever at $25 billion, down only 10% from 2021 (Table 5). The value of residential sales held up better than the number of sales due to the increase in home prices. Consequently, residential real estate brokers and agents did remarkably well, not only in 2022, but over the last several years. The near doubling of housing prices since 2017 raised total commissions by a similar amount in 2022 (increasing from $891 million to $1.5 billion), the second highest year ever. That said, the booming real estate market and growth in commissions attracted more agents to the profession and, consequently, total commissions are divided among a growing number of agents. The sales business has become more competitive for the individual agent as the number of licensed realtors in Utah grew from about 15,000 agents in 2017 to an all-time high of 20,000 in 2022.11 County 2021 2022 % Change Davis 4,877 4,088 -16.2% Salt Lake 18,014 13,447 -25.4% Utah 11,549 9,901 -14.3% Weber 4,465 3,749 -16.0% State 50,504 40,686 -19 .4% County January-June 2022 January-June 2023 % Change Davis 2,141 1,829 -14.6% Salt Lake 7,368 5,554 -24.6% Utah 5,274 4,308 -18.3% Weber 2,088 1,630 -21.9% State 21,976 17,457 -20 .6% 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 2030405060708090100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,40120192020 2021 2022Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total67.3%40.4%13.2%24.3%19.5%35.3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 Table 5: Utah Residential Real Estate Commissions, 2010-2022 (Millions) Median Days on Market Declines in 2023 An important indicator of real estate market conditions is the median days on market (MDOM). This metric measures the number of days from the listing of a home to a signed purchase contract, i.e., the number of days a home is unsold. The historic MDOM average from 2000 to 2022 is 45 days. During the Great Recession (2008-2011), when housing demand was devastated by the financial crisis, the MDOM increased to a high of 87 days and averaged 81 days. This is in sharp contrast to the era of low interest rates which begin in 2014 (Figure 5). Low rates spurred housing demand by effectively making housing more affordable. For five years (2016-2020) the days on market averaged around 20 days but fell to a low of seven days by 2021 as the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy resulted in mortgage rates dropping below 3%. The sensitivity of the days Residential Real Estate Listings Impacted by Interest Rate Volatility Low interest rates produced a strong demand for housing from 2020 to early 2022, which in turn drove down the number of active listings (Figure 7). Homes for sale quickly cleared the market, depleting the number of active listings. By Q1 2022, statewide active listings fell to 2,000 homes. The number of listings in the first quarter is typically well over 6,000 homes. Once interest rates began to rise in Q2 2022, the number of active listings also rose as homes took longer to sell and new listings from prospective sellers added to the number of listings. The increase, however, was short-lived. By Q1 2023, the number of active listings peaked as sellers pulled back resulting in fewer new listings. Many homeowners became reluctant sellers, scared off by steep prices and the high mortgage rates they would face as buyers. Consequently, the number of active listings fell for six consecutive months, falling from 10,221 in October to 6,528 in April 2023. With the spring housing market, the prime time for selling a home, active listings have increased in the past three months. Although active listings have increased, the number of listings entered (new listings) is well below the levels of the last four years. The number of entered listings in July (2019-2022) Year Value of Sales Commissions 2010 $6,007.4 $360.4 2011 $5,987.5 $359.3 2012 $7,207.9 $432.5 2013 $8,918.5 $535.1 2014 $9,642.8 $578.6 2015 $11,842.9 $710.6 2016 $13,364.5 $801.9 2017 $14,859.2 $891.6 2018 $16,417.7 $985.1 2019 $18,376.5 $1,102.6 2020 $23,478.1 $1,408.7 2021 $27,836.6 $1,670.2 2022 $25,001.5 $1,500.1 on market indicator to the mortgage rate is shown in Figure 6. As the Federal Reserve began their interest rate hikes in spring 2022 the days on market moved in short order to 20 days by July. From July to January the indicator rose to 52 days, the highest level since the Great Recession. But since then, it has fallen to 24 days by July indicating that demand may be recovering despite relatively high mortgage rates. Figure 5: Utah Residential Real Estate Median Days on Market, 2000-2022 (Annual Average) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Figure 6: Utah Residential Real Estate Median Days on Market by Month, Jan 2021 to July 2023 (Annual Average) 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010201220142016201820202022 Condominium, Townhome Twin HomeSingle FamilyTotal 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 201020112012201320142015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single FamilyCondominium Apartments Single FamilyCondominiumApartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010201220142016201820202022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 200620082010201220142016201820202022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 Source: UtahRealEstate.comSource: UtahRealEstate.com September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM8 Figure 7: Utah Active Residential Real Estate Listings, Jan 2019 to July 2023 Figure 8: Entered Residential Real Estate Listings in Utah, 2019-2023 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 8701020304050607080901002000200220042006200820102012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022MDOMHistoric Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010201220142016201820202022 Condominium, Townhome Twin HomeSingle FamilyTotal 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000201020112012201320142015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,40120192020 2021 2022Single FamilyCondominium ApartmentsSingle FamilyCondominiumApartments Total67.3%40.4%13.2%24.3%19.5%35.3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%201020122014201620182020202226,06253,80650,50440,686010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000200620082010201220142016201820202022 24120102030405060 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Homebuilding Contraction Likely to Increase Utah’s Housing Shortage A commonly used measure for a housing shortage compares increases in households against increases in housing units. This measure assumes that an additional household requires an additional housing unit. This assumption is consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau’s methodology, which reports occupied housing units and households as equal and interchangeable estimates. A housing shortage occurs when growth in households exceeds growth in housing units, historically an uncommon condition in Utah. A review of changes in households and housing units shows that from the 1970s through the 2000s, the decadal growth in housing units exceeded growth in households by nearly 15% (Table 6). The surplus is, in part, explained by the addition of units that are not occupied by a full-time resident (household), such as second homes, recreational condominiums (timeshare units), and cabins. From 2010 to 2017, however, the housing-units-to- households relationship flipped, with additional households outnumbering additional housing units, thus creating Utah’s first prolonged housing shortage. Each year, from 2010 to 2017, the growth in households was greater than the growth in housing units, although the gap gradually declined over the seven-year period (Figure 9). The cumulative shortage from 2010 to 2022 totaled 28,415 housing units (Figure 10). This should not be interpreted as leading to 28,415 homeless households. Rather, the shortage created record low rental vacancy rates in both rental units and owner-occupied units. In other words, the shortage removed vacant units from the housing market, and created an unhealthy condition leading to higher housing prices, higher rental rates, and few housing alternatives especially for moderate to low-income households. By 2018, the housing shortage began to ease as the building boom finally caught up with household growth and new housing units exceeded the number of new households. In that year, new housing units totaled 24,245 while households increased by 23,139, thus reducing the housing shortage by Table 6: Change in Utah Households and Housing Units by Decade, 1970–2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decade Increase in Households Increase in Housing Units Increase in Housing Units Compared to Increase in Households 1970s 150,669 174,241 Higher by 15.6% 1980s 88,670 108,382 Higher by 22.2% 1990s 164,008 170,206 Higher by 3.8% 2000s 176,411 213,227 Higher by 20.9% Total 579,758 666,056 Higher by 14.9% averaged 6,000 listings compared to only 4,335 in July 2023 (Figure 8). Due to the years of mortgage rates below 4% (2019 to spring 2022), many homeowners now have mortgages carrying interest rates below 4%. At the end of 2022, 62% of mortgage holders nationally had a mortgage rate below 4% (according to Redfin News). Many of these low mortgage rate homeowners have become unwilling sellers in a period of high rates, thus reducing the number of entered listings. The effect of years of low interest rates and the subsequent rapid rise in 2022- 2023 is now limiting the supply of new listings with implications for Utah’s housing shortage and housing affordability. Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 9 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Figure 10: Cumulative Housing Shortage in Utah, 2011-2024(f) Figure 9: Increase in Utah Housing Units vs . Increase in Utah Households, 2010-2024(f) (f) = forecast (2023–2024) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (f) = forecast (2023-2024) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute about 1,100 units. Over the next four years more housing units were built than new households created, shrinking the housing shortage to a little more than 28,000 units. But the rapid rise in mortgage rates threatens to undo some of this recent progress. Although new housing units did exceed new households in 2022, residential construction projections indicate the five-year decline in the shortage may soon end. Household growth is expected to exceed housing unit growth in 2023 and 2024 by about 8,800 units. This shortfall would push the housing shortage up by 31% to 37,255 units (Table 7). Market Conditions and the Housing Shortage Another measure of a housing shortage looks at conditions “on the ground.” The housing market has three entry points: buying a new home, buying an existing home, or renting a unit. For the past several years these points of entry have shown the Table 7: Utah’s Housing Shortage, 2010-2024(f) (f) = forecast Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institutew stress of demand outstripping supply, however, in 2022 these indicators told a mixed story. The rental market showed demand outpacing supply as rental vacancy rates in the Wasatch Front counties were around 4%. An acute shortage of affordable rental housing—rental units affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 50% area median income (AMI)— persisted with tax credit, public housing, and housing voucher programs all carrying long waitlists. The story is mixed because of the historically rapid increase in mortgage rates, which doubled in less than 12 months and created a sudden and unexpected shock to the housing market. The psychological and financial impact on homebuyers cut into the demand for both new and existing homes. Consequently, these two points of entry, new home or existing home purchase, as indicators of a housing shortage, at least in the short-term, have been rendered less meaningful. To be brief, does the 26% decline in new housing units and the 19% decline in the sales of existing homes signal a significant shrinkage of the housing shortage? Or what does the rise of MDOM from six days in March 2022 to 45 days in December 2022 tell us about the housing shortage? The interest rate increase of 2022 interrupted and created short-term (hopefully) distortions of demand for new and existing homes. Perhaps, it is best not to interpret the impact of short-term wild swings in demand as indicators of long-term housing market conditions, particularly in the case of the housing shortage. Year Increase in Housing Units Increase in Households Cumulative Shortage 2010 9,079 24,460 2011 9,085 22,615 28,911 2012 11,918 20,998 37,991 2013 15,009 17,631 40,613 2014 18,810 20,210 42,013 2015 17,294 24,151 48,870 2016 20,064 24,426 53,232 2017 23,002 26,000 56,230 2018 24,245 23,139 55,124 2019 27,610 24,461 51,975 2020 31,797 24,312 44,490 2021 40,144 26,689 31,035 2022 29,529 26,909 28,415 2023 (f)22,750 27,349 33,014 2024 (f)23,500 27,741 37,255 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM10 Occupied Housing Units as a Measure of the Housing Shortage A third method for measuring housing shortages comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, which provides estimates of total and occupied housing units. The bulk of vacant units is composed of second and recreational homes followed by vacant rental units and finally vacant “for sale” homes. The estimates from four decennial censuses for Utah show that on average 90.6% of all housing units are occupied units. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey for Utah shows that 92.6% of all housing units are occupied. The number of vacant units in 2021 is the smallest of the five-time periods selected. Fewer vacant units and more occupied units suggest that the market is experiencing a housing shortage. If we apply the average of 90.6% from the decennial censuses to the total occupied units in 2021 of 1,1,90,154 units, the number of vacant units would increase by 23,220 and the number of occupied units would Table 8: Utah Total Housing Compared to Occupied Housing Units by Decade, 1990-2020 and 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Market Conditions Year Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Percent Occupied 1990 598,000 537,000 89.8% 2000 769,000 701,000 91.2% 2010 981,821 880,025 89.6% 2020 1,151,414 1,057,252 91.8% 1990-2020 Average 90.6% 2021 1,190,154 1,101,499 92.6% 2021 Occupied at 90.6%1,190,154 1,078,279 90.6% Estimated Shortage 23,220 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Demand and Supply The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on Utah’s housing market. Like the Great Recession, the pandemic was a unique moment in Utah’s housing history. The Great Recession featured the most prolonged period of price declines—16 consecutive quarters—while the pandemic triggered the steepest rise in prices in Utah’s real estate history. In a matter of 24 months the median sales price of a home increased by 51%; (from $335,000 Q1 2020 to $505,000 Q1 2022). What caused the historic rise in prices? Certainly, the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy served to stimulate demand but there were other factors at play. The pandemic brought large scale investors, flush with cash, into the housing market, which added to demand. In some urban markets investors accounted for 20% of homes purchases in 2021.12 The rise of remote work due to the pandemic gave a boost to net in- migration, which also added to housing demand. Net in- migration grew from 26,142 to 38,191 from 2020 to 2022. While not all these individuals were remote workers, a common real estate anecdote during this period recounted the arrival of out- of-state remote workers and their willingness and ability to pay top dollars for Utah real estate. Unfortunately, this heightened demand struck when Utah was facing a housing shortage of 44,000 units—a shortage equivalent to about 18 months of homebuilding. And of course, the shortage was made worse by construction delays from the pandemic’s disruption of the construction supply chain. And finally, a non-pandemic related supply constraint was the rise of short-term rentals. From 2019 to 2021 the number of short- term rental homes in Utah increased by 27% to 18,743 homes thus reducing the supply of long-term housing. The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Prices With the squeeze on supply and the surge in demand, an accelerated increase in housing prices was inevitable. Given the magnitude of the increase, 53% in twenty-four months (Q2 2020 to Q2022), a correction was also inevitable.13 According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s price index, housing prices went from a year-over quarterly increase of 29.7%, to a decline of 4.3% in 18 months, exhibiting much greater volatility than prices nationally. The interest rate induced price swings highlight the volatility of housing prices in Utah. In the four price cycles since 1992, the rate of change of Utah housing prices have been higher on the upside and lower on the downside (Figure 11). The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) publishes quarterly housing price data for each state and the largest one hundred metropolitan areas. The FHFA’s Housing Price Index (HPI) is an important source of comparative price data for states and metropolitan areas. “The house price indexes measure changes in single-family home values based on data from all fifty states and over 400 cities that extend back to the mid- 1970s. The HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. This information comes from reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties decline by a like number, easing the housing shortage. The third measure using occupied housing units indicates Utah faced a housing shortage of at least 23,000 units in 2021 (Table 8). gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 11 whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since 1975.”14 FHFA ranked Utah 50th or last in the percent change in housing prices in Q1 2023. Utah’s 4.3% decline was the largest among the seven states experiencing declines, all of them western states (Figure 12). While prices fell in most western states the rest of the country experienced price gains. Twenty- eight states had increases of at least 5%. South Carolina led all states with a year-over increase of 9.5%. The fiscal and monetary response to the pandemic brought a necessary but short-term price correction to Utah’s housing market. Despite the past 12-month decline Utah still ranks second in the long-term increase in housing prices. From 1991 to Q1 2023 Utah’s housing price index increased by 564.7%, second only to Colorado’s 565.04% increase Table 8. And in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area, the long-term increase has been even greater than the statewide increase. Of the largest one hundred metropolitan areas, the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area ranks first with an increase of 628.2% from1991 to Q1 2023 (Table 9). The year-over first quarter index shows a 4.9% decline in prices in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area, which ranks 90th among the one hundred metropolitan areas. San Francisco had the largest decline of the 100-metropolitan area, 10.1%, followed by Austin, Texas at 8.5%. The FHFA index tracks price changes but not the absolute price of a home. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), however, publishes quarterly data on the median sales price of a single-family home in 185 metropolitan areas. The four Utah metropolitan areas included in the report all show declines in home prices in the first quarter.15 Both St. George and Provo- Orem had double-digit declines, nevertheless the price of a Figure 11: Year-Over Percent Change in Utah and U .S . Housing Price Index, 1992-2023 Table 9: Percent Change in Utah and Salt Lake Area Housing Price Index, 2023 Figure 12: Year Over First Quarter Change in FHFA Price Index, 2023 Note: State rank excludes District of Columbia. Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000$420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000 4,3356,10801,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2019202020212022202305,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2022202328.2%-10.3%-2.0%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul202220236.265.64.64.2 0 1234567 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Period Utah Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area YoY % Change State Rank YoY % Change Metropolitan Rank Q1 2022 – Q12023 (one year)-4.3%50th -4.9%90th Q1 2018 – Q1 2023 (five years)71.9%8th 66.3%21st Q1 1991 – Q1 2023 564.7%2nd 628.2%1st Table 10: Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes in Select Utah Metropolitan Areas, 2023 Source: National Association of Realtors Metropolitan Area Median Sales Price Q1 2023 Ranking by Highest Price Q1 YoY % Change Salt Lake $522,700 27th -6.1 St. George $512,200 29th -13.4 Provo-Orem $492,600 32nd -13.3 Clearfield-Ogden $451,900 37th -4.6 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000$420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000 4,3356,10801,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2019202020212022202305,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2022202328.2%-10.3%-2.0%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul202220236.265.64.64.2 0 1 234567 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency median priced home in both metropolitan areas is relatively high. Out of 185 metropolitan areas, St. George, with a median price of $512,000, ranks 29th highest and Provo-Orem ranks 32nd. The Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area ranks 27th in housing prices; only 15% of the 185 metropolitan areas surveyed have higher median sales prices (Table 10). September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM12 Housing Price Change for Utah’s Counties and Large Cities, 2022-2023 The National Association of Realtors’ price data relies on information from the multiple listing services (MLS) in each state. Locally, UtahRealEstate.com provides (MLS) price data on real estate listings and sales transactions. The year-over second quarter price data show that county-level prices varied across Utah. Table 11 provides data on every county but price changes for small counties with limited sales transactions are less reliable than counties with a larger number of transactions. The 14 counties with fewer than 50 sales transactions in either Q2 2022 or Q2 2023 are in italics. One county, Daggett, had no reported sales information. Table 11: Change in Median Sales Price of Homes by County, 2022-2023 (Single-family, townhome, twin home, condominium) Note: Counties in italics had fewer than 50 sales transactions. The small sample size makes year-over comparisons less reliable. Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data County Q2 2022 Q2 2023 Change Beaver $368,500 $239,900 -34.9% Box Elder $452,500 $403,800 -10.8% Cache $450,000 $425,000 -5.6% Carbon $255,000 $229,350 -10.1% Daggett NA NA NA Davis $545,000 $519,000 -4.8% Duchesne $274,000 $323,350 18.0% Emery $260,000 $225,000 -13.5% Garfield $415,000 $429,000 3.4% Grand $697,000 $675,000 -3.2% Iron $380,000 $410,000 7.9% Juab $390,000 $435,000 11.5% Kane $453,500 $395,000 -12.9% Millard $272,500 $305,000 11.9% Morgan $736,950 $692,950 -6.0% Piute $318,000 $365,000 14.8% Rich $673,000 $540,000 -19.8% Salt Lake $556,000 $520,000 -6.5% San Juan $640,870 $400,000 -37.6% Sanpete $432,000 $365,000 -15.5% Sevier $315,000 $281,000 -10.8% Summit $1,285,000 $1,375,000 7.0% Tooele $490,544 $449,425 -8.4% Uintah $279,500 $318,000 13.8% Utah $545,000 $487,500 -10.6% Wasatch $969,988 $1,016,143 4.8% Washington $600,000 $523,500 -12.8% Wayne $550,000 $560,000 1.8% Weber $450,000 $425,000 -5.6% State $535,000 $493,990 -7.7% Sales transactions include all types of housing (single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home). The median sales price in counties with more than 50 transactions increased in only four counties and declined in ten. Rural counties with a smaller number of sales transactions are more likely to report a price increase. Price increases were strong in Summit and Wasatch counties, the two most expensive housing markets in the state. The median sales price in Summit increased by 7.0% to $1,375,000 and in Wasatch County by 4.8% to $1,016,143. Ten counties experienced year-over price declines in Q2 2023 (Table 12). Five counties reported double-digit declines.16 Washington County, for example, saw a 12.8% decline in the median sales price. The four Wasatch Front counties also saw declines, with the largest in Utah County (-10.6%) and the smallest in Davis County (-3.7%). Price changes in the 14 counties with a significant level of sales transactions (50 transactions or more) are shown in (Figure 13). Statewide the median sales price declined 7.7% in the second quarter, falling from $535,000 in 2022 to $493,990 in 2023. Nearly all Utah’s largest cities had year-over second quarter price declines as well. Five cities had double-digit declines, led by Eagle Mountain, where prices fell 13.7% (Table 13). Only two of Utah’s largest cities saw increases: Herriman and Draper. The median sales price in Herriman increased by 0.5% to $571,956. South Jordan saw a larger gain of 7.5%, with the median sales price increasing to $785,000. Table 12: Change in Utah Median Sales Price in Select Counties, 2023 Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data County % Change Q2 to Q2 Number of Transactions in Q2 2023 Counties with Increase in Median Price Duchesne 18.0%54 Summit 7.0%240 Uintah 13.8%87 Wasatch 4.8%157 Counties with Decline in Median Price Box Elder -10.8%180 Cache -5.6%335 Carbon -10.1%75 Davis -4.8%1,056 Salt Lake -6.5%3,190 Sanpete -15.5%56 Tooele -8.4%356 Utah -10.6%2,300 Washington -12.8%520 Weber -5.6%929 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 13 Table 13: Change in Median Sales Prices in Utah’s Largest Cities, 2022-2023 (Largest 20 cities by population) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Population Rank City Q2 2022 Q2 2023 % Change 1 Salt Lake City $570,000 $523,000 -8.2% 2 West Valley City $471,400 $435,000 -7.7% 3 West Jordan $559,950 $505,000 -9.8% 4 Provo $448,500 $437,250 -2.5% 5 Orem $510,000 $458,000 -10.2% 6 Sandy $660,000 $624,900 -5.3% 7 St. George*$572,500 $499,071 -12.8% 8 Ogden $365,000 $349,900 -4.1% 9 Layton $524,000 $488,000 -6.9% 10 South Jordan $642,500 $590,000 -8.2% 11 Lehi $539,344 $495,000 -8.2% 12 Millcreek $642,500 $590,000 -8.2% 13 Taylorsville $481,500 $464,000 -3.6% 14 Herriman $569,000 $571,956 0.5% 15 Logan $408,000 $394,950 -3.2% 16 Murray $527,500 $470,000 -10.9% 17 Draper $730,000 $785,000 7.5% 18 Bountiful $541,424 $540,000 -0.3% 19 Riverton $607,500 $541,000 -10.9% 20 Eagle Mountain $569,355 $491,500 -13.7% Figure 14: Monthly Median Sales Price of Homes in Utah, Jan 2022 to July 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Figure 13: Change in Utah Median Sales Price by County, 2023 (Year-over change Q2) $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Median price falls 16% in eight months, peak to trough The Inverse Relationship of Housing Prices and Interest Rates The sharpest price decline in Utah’s real estate history occurred from May 2022 to January 2023. In just eight months the median sales price of an existing home statewide fell 16% (Figure 14). Statewide the median sales prices peaked in May 2022 at $545,000. By January 2023, it had fallen to $460,000. There is no other comparable short-term decline, when housing prices fell so far so fast, in either the Great Recession or the decade of the 1980s. The trough of this price cycle was likely established in January 2023 with the statewide median price of $460,000. From January to May 2023 the median sales price increased each month, reaching $499,000, however, in June and July the price stalled at nearly $500,000 (Table 14). Nevertheless, the recovery in prices so far in 2023 is encouraging, indicating that the downward pressure on prices is winding down. Furthermore, the monthly year-over price decline decelerated over the last three months, narrowing to a 2% decline in July 2023 compared to July 2022 (Figure 15). Thus, the month-to-month and year- over data, along with the declining days on market suggest that price declines may have hit bottom in spring 2023. It is no coincidence that the historic decline coincided with the most rapid short-term increase in mortgage rates ever. From March 2022 to January 2023 the average 30-year mortgage rate rose from 3.76% to 6.48%. The rise in the mortgage rate was due indirectly to the Federal Reserve’s increase in the federal funds rate. The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate eleven times from March 2022 to July 2023 to slow economic growth and cool inflation. In a little more than a year the Federal Reserve has increased the federal funds rate from zero in Q1 2022 to 5.5% in July 2023 (Table 15).17 Summit Salt Lake Wayne Washington Wasatch Utah Uintah Tooele Sevier Sanpete San Juan Piute Millard Kane Juab Iron Grand Garfield Emery Duchesne Carbon 7.0% -6.5% -12.8% 4.8% -10.6%13.8% -8.4% -15.5% 18.0% -10.1% -10.8% Box Elder Beaver Cache, -5.6% Rich Weber, -5.6% Davis, -4.8% Morgan Dagget -10% or more -5% to -10%-1% to -5% 1% to 5%5% to 10%10% to 15% 15% or more <50 Transactions Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM14 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,000 2,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Figure 15: Percent Change in Utah Median Sales Price of a Home, Jan 2022 – July 2023 (Year-over monthly percent change, single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Table 15: Change in the Federal Funds Rate, March 2022 to May 2023 *Basis points. 25 bps is equivalent to a quarter of a percent increase in the Federal Funds rate. Source: Federal Reserve Date BPS* Increase Federal Funds Rate March 17, 2022 25 0.25% - 0.50% May 5, 2022 50 0.75% - 1.00% June 16, 2022 75 1.50% - 1.75% July 27, 2022 75 2.25% - 2.50% September 21, 2022 75 3.00% - 3.25% November 2, 2022 75 3.75% - 4.00% December 14, 2022 50 4.25% - 4.50% February 1, 2023 25 4.50% - 4.75% March 22, 2023 25 4.75% - 5.00% May 3, 2023 25 5.00% - 5.25% July 26, 2023 25 5.25% - 5.50% Measuring Housing Affordability: Median Multiple and Housing Opportunity Index One measure of housing affordability is the median multiple, which is a price-to-income ratio of the median house price divided by the median household income. The affordability rating of the median multiple is shown in Table 16. From 2000 to 2018 the median multiple in Utah was under 4.0. Housing $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Table 16: Utah Median Multiple Affordability Rating, 2022 Source: Demographia International Housing Affordability Housing Affordability Rating Median Multiple Ratio Affordable ≤3.0 Moderately Unaffordable 3.1 to 4.0 Seriously Unaffordable 4.1 to 5.0 Severely Unaffordable 5.1 & over Figure 16: Utah Median Multiple Affordability Rating, 2000-2022 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and UtahRealEstate.com Table 14: Change in Utah Median Sales Price by Month in Utah, Jan 2022 to June 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Median Price YoY % Chg . 2022 January $485,000 27.63% February $500,000 28.24% March $520,500 27.89% April $535,000 24.42% May $545,000 23.86% June $530,000 17.78% July $510,000 11.58% August $504,990 9.78% September $495,000 6.45% October $495,000 6.68% November $486,581 3.55% December $480,000 1.05% 2023 January $460,000 -5.15% February $468,000 -6.40% March $484,000 -7.01% April $480,000 -10.28% May $499,990 -8.26% June $502,500 -5.18% July $499,800 -2.00% gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 15 Table 17: Ratio of Median Housing Price to Median House - hold Income in Utah and Major Metropolitan Areas of the Western U .S ., 2022 Source: Demographia International Housing Affordability, 2023 Metropolitan Area Median Multiple Phoenix 6.0 Salt Lake City 6.6 Portland 6.7 Las Vegas 6.9 Seattle 6.9 Denver 7.0 San Diego 9.4 San Francisco 10.7 Los Angeles 11.3 Table 18: Housing Opportunity Index by Utah Metropolitan Area, Q1 2022 to Q2 2023 Source: National Home Builders Association and Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index Metropolitan Area Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Salt Lake 44.3 24.1 22.5 18.7 24.9 21.3 Ogden-Clearfield 55.5 31.1 31 27.5 42.7 38.3 Provo-Orem 35.0 16.5 15.6 16.1 27.2 23.5 St. George 32.3 21.8 19.5 16.3 27.4 24.7 have benefitted from the rise in housing prices. Their equity gains offsetting the deterioration in affordability. Hence, the median multiple and HOI are mechanistic in that they only consider income and housing price. Nevertheless, they are meaningful indicators of the deterioration of housing affordability and of particular relevance to households not yet homeowners. Mortgage Payments Increase Despite Drop in Housing Prices The monthly mortgage payment on the median priced home in 2021 was $2,466 and the income required to finance the mortgage was $98,640. The mortgage payment increased to $3,648 in 2022 and to $3,750 in 2023 (Table 19). The income required to finance the mortgage payment in 2023 was $150,000 up 2.8% from a year ago and 52.1% from two years ago. This sharp two-year increase in the cost of the median priced home precludes a growing share of households from homeownership and threatens the housing opportunities of future generations. Of course, half of all homes sold are priced below the median. Do these lower priced homes provide a realistic home ownership opportunity for most renters or first-time home buyers? Sales data show that 25% of homes sold (June 2022 through June 2023) were $400,00 to $500,000 and another 19% were $300,000 to $400,000 (Table 20). But even these lower priced homes require relatively high levels of income to qualify for homeownership. A home priced between $300,000 to $400,000 would require an income of roughly $100,000 to $130,000 and for a home priced from $400,000 to $500,000 the income required ranges from $130,000 to $160,000 (Table 21), daunting income requirements for most first-time homebuyers and renters. Even homes priced well below the median would likely require two incomes in a household and several years’ experience in the job market. Renters Locked Out by Rent Increases Only a small share of Utah renter households have sufficient income, $100,000 to $130,000, to purchase a $300,000 to $400,000 home (Table 22). High interest rates and housing prices exclude a growing share of renters from home ownership. Long- term renters will face a rental market with rising rents and low vacancy rates. The average rental rate in Wasatch Front counties increased at a rate of 6.5% to 7.0% annually since 2011, nearly double the rate of increase in renter’s income. The average rental rate in Salt Lake County is now $1,570, which requires an income of $60,000 to qualify as a tenant (Table 23). In the past two years the average rental rate in each of the four Wasatch Front counties has increased by over 25% (Table 24). In Weber County rental rates are up over 30% in two years. The prolonged period of low vacancy rates, nine years with the vacancy rate below 5%, has put upward pressure on rental rates (Table 25). was moderately unaffordable. But by 2019 and 2020 the ratio moved up to the 4.1 to 5.0 range, a seriously unaffordable rating. By 2021 and 2022, the acceleration in price increases pushed the median multiple to 5.61 in 2021 and 6.26 by 2022, signifying a severely unaffordable housing market (Figure 16). The Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area has a median multiple of 6.6, comparable to Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle, and Denver (Table 17). Another measure of affordability is the quarterly Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) published by the National Home Builders Association and Wells Fargo. The HOI is “the share of homes sold (existing and new) in a metropolitan area that would have been affordable to a family earning the local median income.” The HOI is like the median multiple in that it has two major components: income and housing prices. The HOI, however, estimates the share of homes affordable to the median income family, rather than a ratio of the median multiple. The HOI of the four metropolitan areas in Utah show declining affordability throughout 2022 and into 2023 (Table 18). Over six quarters the HOI for Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area fell from 44.3 in Q1 2022 (meaning the median income family could afford 44.3% of homes sold in that quarter) to 21.9 in Q2 2023. In an affordable housing market, the median income family should be able to afford at least 50% of the homes sold. Neither of these affordability measures, however, considers the housing wealth of the median income family. Most homeowners September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM16 Table 20: Residential Sales in Utah by Price Range (June 2022 through June 2023) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Price Range (1,000s)Homes Sold % Share ≤$200.0 416 1.2% $200.0 to $299.9 1,925 5.4% $300.0 to $399.9 6,985 19.5% $400.0 to $499.9 9,240 25.7% $500.0 to $599.9 5,953 16.6% $600.9 to $699.9 3,964 11.0% $700.0 to $799.9 2,389 6.7% $800.0 to $899.9 1,400 3.9% $900.0 to $999.9 862 2.4% $1,000.0 to $1,999.9 2,026 5.6% ≥$2,000.0 735 2.1% Total 35,895 100 .0% Table 21: Income Required to Purchase Utah Homes in Select Price Ranges, 2023 (Q2 2022 to Q2 2023) Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Sales Price Range of Monthly Payment Income Range Required Number of Homes Sold Percent of Home Sold $300,000- $400,000 $2,289-$3,018 $98,100 to $129,342 6,985 19.5% $400,000- $500,000 $3,018-$3,747 $129,342 to $160,585 9,240 25.7% Table 22: Household Income for Utah Renter Households, 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Income Category Renter Households Percent Share Less than $5,000 17,685 5.3% $5,000 to $9,999 10,773 3.2% $10,000 to $14,999 15,667 4.7% $15,000 to $19,999 14,198 4.3% $20,000 to $24,999 13,771 4.1% $25,000 to $34,999 38,060 11.4% $35,000 to $49,999 58,536 17.6% $50,000 to $74,999 73,252 22.0% $75,000 to $99,999 40,203 12.1% $100,000 to $149,999 33,905 10.2% $150,000 or more 17,390 5.2% Total 333,440 100 .0% Table 23: Average Rental Rate for All Types of Units in Wasatch Front Counties, 2011-2022 AARC = Average Annual Rate of Change Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 $791 $753 $701 $655 2012 $810 $788 $720 $684 2013 $850 $807 $756 $678 2014 $892 $868 $796 $698 2015 $960 $924 $839 $754 2016 $1,027 $1,041 $933 $810 2017 $1,087 $1,097 $1,005 $864 2018 $1,153 $1,138 $1,060 $937 2019 $1,218 $1,181 $1,102 $995 2020 $1,229 $1,196 $1,136 $1,040 2021 $1,484 $1,432 $1,369 $1,265 2022 $1,570 $1,523 $1,483 $1,387 AARC 6.4%6.6%7.0%7.1% Table 19: Mortgage Payment Calculations for the Median Priced Home in Utah, Q2 2021 to Q2 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Category Q2 2021 Q2 2022 Q2 2023 % Chg . 2022-2023 % Chg . 2021-2023 Median sales price of home $440,000 $535,000 $494,250 -7.6%12.3% 5% down payment $22,000 $26,750 $24,713 -7.6%12.3% Amount to finance $418,000 $508,250 $469,519 -7.6%12.3% Interest rate 3.00%5.27%6.51%------ Principal and interest payment $1,762 $2,813 $2,971 5.6%68.6% Private mortgage insurance 1% of the loan $348 $423 $391 -7.6%12.4% Home Insurance $100 $100 $100 0.0%0.0% Property tax @0.007% of home value $256 $312 $288 -7.7%12.5% Total mortgage payment $2,466 $3,648 $3,750 2.8%52.1% Income Required to Finance Median Priced Home $98,640 $145,920 $150,000 2.8%52.1% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Freddie Mac, UtahRealEstate.com gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 17 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 4.8%5.2%-1.4%2.3% 2012 2.4%4.6%2.7%4.4% 2013 4.9%2.4%5.0%-9.0% 2014 4.9%7.6%5.3%2.9% 2015 7.6%6.5%5.4%8.0% 2016 7.0%12.7%11.2%7.4% 2017 5.8%5.4%7.7%6.6% 2018 6.1%3.7%5.5%8.5% 2019 5.6%3.8%4.0%6.2% 2020 0.9%1.3%3.1%4.5% 2021 20.7%19.7%20.5%21.7% 2022 5.8%6.4%8.3%9.6% Table 25: Rental Vacancy Rates in Wasatch Front Counties, 2011-2022 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 5.2%5.0%5.8%6.5% 2012 5.0%3.2%6.6%6.1% 2013 5.1%4.4%4.6%6.9% 2014 4.9%3.6%4.6%4.7% 2015 4.1%4.1%4.0%4.2% 2016 3.2%4.0%3.4%2.3% 2017 4.1%4.1%3.5%3.2% 2018 4.3%4.4%3.0%2.5% 2019 4.4%3.2%3.0%3.0% 2020 4.8%4.2%2.8%4.1% 2021 2.9%2.3%2.0%2.7% 2022 4.6%3.8%4.2%4.3% Table 24: Annual Percent Increase in Average Rental Rate by County, 2011-2022 Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Utah’s Housing Forecast: 2023-2024 Utah’s housing fundamentals remain strong; however, demographic and economic growth are forecast to slow slightly in 2023 and 2024. Net in-migration will likely edge lower due to high housing costs, fewer remote workers, and slower job growth. Employment growth will fall around 2.0%, the lowest level since the Great Recession (except for the pandemic year 2020). A weaker economic environment will add to Utah’s home building and real estate challenges. The forecast for the number of homes receiving building permits in 2023 is 22,750, the lowest level since 2015. Sales of existing homes will fall to 37,500 in 2023, the lowest level since 2014. However, both home building activity and real estate sales are expected to increase in 2024. Market indicators suggest that the decline in housing prices is near bottom, and year-over increases are likely in the third and fourth quarters. The 2023 median sales price is forecast at $500,000, just 2% below the statewide median in 2022. The mortgage rate is expected to be near 7.0% by year- end 2023 and trend lower in 2024 to 6.5%. Finally, little progress on housing affordability is likely as price increases return and the housing shortage grows. Table 26: Forecast for Residential Construction and Residential Real Estate Sales in Utah, 2021-2024 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Source: Freddie Mac, UtahRealEstate.com, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Category Numeric Change Percent Change 2021 2022 2023 2024 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Residential building permits (units)40,144 29,883 22,750 24,000 -25.6%- 23.9%5.5% Existing home sales 49,678 40,072 37,500 42,000 -19.3%-6.4%12.0% Median sales price of homes $446,000 $510,000 $500,000 $520,000 14.4%-2.0%4.0% Mortgage rate 2.96%5.34%7.00%6.50%--------- Endnotes 1. Freddie Mac archive of mortgage rates, UtahRealEstate.com, and Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah. 2. UtahRealestate.com and U.S. Census Bureau’s Building Permits by State. 3. Gardner Policy Institute, State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024. 4. As measured by median sales price from UtahRealEstate.com; February 2021 median sale price of $389,900, February 2022 median sales price $500,000. Statewide median price for all types of housing, single-family, condominium, town home, and twin home. 5. UtahRealEstate.com 6. Median sales price of home (single-family, condominium, town home, twin home) in Utah from UtahRealEstate.com. 7. National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index, Q2 2023. 8. Federal housing Finance Agency, Housing Price Index by State. 9 . U.S. Census Bureau, Table B25119 Median Household Income by Tenure, and CBRE Apartment Market Report for the Greater Salt Lake Area, 2022. 10. Gardner Policy Institute, State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024. 11. National Association of Realtors. 12. Redfin News, Investors Are Buying Roughly Half as Man Homes as They Were a Year Ago, February 15, 2023. 13. The FHFA price index for Utah increased from 532.84 in Q2 2020 to 813.03 in Q2 2022, a 53% increase. 14. For more information see https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/ Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx. 15. Logan Metropolitan Area is not included in the NAR quarterly report. 16. The source for Washington County data is the Utah Association Realtors rather than UtahRealEstate.com. 17. The federal funds rate is a short-term interest rate to guide overnight lending among banks. While the Federal Reserve does not set the mortgage rate the federal funds rate indirectly affects long-term mortgage rates. Other factors influencing the mortgage rate include the inflation rate, job creation, and overall economic conditions. Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Chief of Staff Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Nate Lloyd, Director of Economic Research Dianne Meppen, Director of Community Research Laura Summers, Director of Industry Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Public Policy Analyst Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Parker Banta, Public Policy Analyst Melanie Beagley, Public Policy Analyst Preston Brightwell, Dignity Index Field Director Andrea Thomas Brandley, Senior Education Analyst Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Economist Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow and Scholar Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Madeleine Jones, Dignity Index Field Director Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Praopan Pratoomchat, Senior Research Economist Heidi Prior, Public Policy Analyst Natalie Roney, Research Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large John C. Downen, Camoin Associates Dan Griffiths, Community-at-Large Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Northbound Strategy Juliette Tennert, Community-at-Large Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Roger Boyer Michelle Camacho Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Jeremy Hafen Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Angela Romero Senator Luz Escamilla Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Christian and Marie Gardner Family Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Wells Fargo Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu (HC) State of State Housing Sep2023 Utah policymakers have significantly expanded affordable housing programs in response to the housing crisis. As this effort continues, a comparison of state housing programs provides valuable policy insight. A Comparison of State-Funded Affordable Housing Programs April 2023 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu James Wood Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Max Becker Public Policy Analyst Table of Contents Analysis in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Need for Affordable Rental Housing ..................2 Low Vacancy Rates and High Rental Rates ................3 Job Growth in Relatively Low Paying Jobs ................3 The State’s Expanding Role in Affordable Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Chronology of Housing Legislation .......................4 Summary of 2023 General Session Housing Legislation ...5 Summary of Utah Housing Legislation 1995 to 2023 ......6 Selection of the “Best Fit” Programs for Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .7 State-Funded Rental Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 HUD Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers .................9 State-Funded Housing Vouchers .........................9 State-Funded Short-Term Housing Assistance Programs ...9 State-Funded Transitional Housing Assistance Programs ..9 State Housing Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) ..............12 A Comparison of State Trust Funds ......................13 Real Estate Transfer Tax ..................................13 State Tax Credit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Utah’s State Tax Credit Program ..........................16 Comparison of State Programs ..........................16 State Eviction Laws and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figures: Figure 1: Rental Vacancy Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2001-2022 (mid-year) ....................3 Figure 2: Annual Percent Increase in Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2011-2022 (mid-year) ......3 Figure 3: Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) .........................3 Figure 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 .................7 Figure 5: State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 ..............................................9 Figure 6: States with Real Estate Transfer Tax, as of 2020 ...14 Figure 7: States with State Tax Credits for Low-Income Housing, as of 2022 ....................................16 Tables Table 1: Very Low and Extremely Low-Income Renters with Severe Housing Cost Burdens, 2015-2019 ...........2 Table 2: Projected Annual Labor Demand by Minimum Education Level, 2020-2026 .............................3 Table 3: Major Legislation Supporting Utah State Housing Programs, 1995-2023 ..........................6 Table 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 .........................8 Table 5: Vouchers and Waitlists Administered by Public Housing Authorities, 2020 ........................8 Table 6: Characteristics of State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 ..........................10 Table 7: Short-Term Rental Assistance Programs, as of 2020 .............................................11 Table 8: State-Funded Transitional Housing Programs, as of 2020 .............................................11 Table 9: Annual State General Fund Appropriations for the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, 1995-2023 ...........12 Table 10: State Funding Levels for Housing Trust Funds, 2022 ...........................................13 Table 11: States with Trust Funds but Undetermined State Funding, as of 2022 ..............................13 Table 12: State Real Estate Transfer Tax Rates, 2020 ........14 Table 13: Revenue Allocation of Real Estate Transfer Taxes by State, 2020 ...................................15 Table 14: Selected Features of State Tax Credit Programs, as of 2021 ...................................17 Table 15: State Tax Credits Available, 2021 ................17 Table 16: States Ranked by Eviction Rate, 2019 ............19 Table 17: Eviction Filings by State, 2019 ...................20 Table 18: Monthly Eviction Filings in Utah, 2017-2022 .....20 Table 19: Eviction-Related Legislation Passed in Response to COVID-19, as of 2022 ......................21 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 1 A Comparison of State-Funded Affordable Housing Programs Analysis in Brief Housing instability and homelessness threaten the economic well-being of at least 40,000 extremely low-income renter house- holds in Utah. These households have annual incomes of less than $24,000 and must devote at least half of their income to housing and utilities. Many states have programs to help reduce this insta- bility and increase the number of affordable housing units. This report specifically focuses on four state-funded programs or policies that provide direct assistance to very low-income renters: (1) rental assistance, (2) state tax credits, (3) housing trusts, and (4) eviction policies. Key Findings • Utah has a shortage of several thousand affordable rental units – The need for affordable rental housing will likely continue to grow due to the high cost of homeowner- ship, rising rental rates, and historically low vacancy rates. • The Utah Legislature took significant steps in the 2023 General Legislative Session to ease the shortage of affordable housing – They passed six housing-related bills providing assistance to the homeless, first-time homebuy- ers, low-income housing developers, and home builders. A review of housing legislation from 1996 through 2023 suggests this was the most productive session for housing assistance in recent history. • Rental assistance programs reduce housing instability for very low-income households in many states – Thirty-one states have state-funded rental assistance programs. Many programs directly supplement the income of very low-income households through one-time rent payments, rental assistance to those leaving correctional systems or state psychiatric hospitals, loans for the first month’s rent, and housing vouchers patterned on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. • The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) is Utah’s primary state-funded housing program – OWHLF has participated in the development of 24,561 affordable rental units since first funded in 1995 (at $2.4 million). State General Fund appropriations, however, have not increased since the creation of the trust fund. • Utah’s state tax credits for low-income housing helped fund 8,000 units across 147 affordable rental housing projects – Utah’s tax credit program facilitates the development of affordable units for extremely low- income renters. In 2021 the available credit of $1.1 million ranked second lowest among the 25 states with tax credit programs (only Arkansas’ credit level was lower). That said, Utah’s Legislature increased the program to $10 million annually during the 2023 legislative session, aligning Utah’s funding with most state tax credit programs. • Utah’s state-funded programs have focused on the supply side of the affordable housing crisis – State tax credits, OWHLF gap financing, and funding of homeless shelters support the development of additional affordable units; however, these programs provide little housing assistance to the 40,000 extremely low-income renters (≤30%). Supply-focused programs can’t reach these renters due to the high cost of construction. Consequently, many states have added demand-focused programs to their affordable housing arsenal, programs that provide direct assistance to renters through rental assistance, state housing vouchers, and expanded eviction assistance. Expanding direct assistance programs would provide a lifeline to the state’s most vulnerable renters and broaden Utah’s efforts in addressing the affordable housing crisis. 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM2 This report continues the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s research on housing prices and affordability in Utah. In 2020, the Gardner Institute published Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? That report focused on the most effective city and county policies for improving housing affordability. While the 2020 study addressed housing affordability, this study has a narrower focus, affordable housing. For clarification, affordable housing refers to a specific type of housing, generally government-assisted rental housing, targeted for very low– to extremely low–income households. Housing affordability is a much broader term and refers to the general level of housing prices relative to the general level of household income as opposed to a specific type of housing. The Need for Affordable Rental Housing At least 40,000 renter households in Utah are extremely low- income renters (≤30% of Area Median Income, AMI), meaning they pay at least 50% of their income towards housing and utilities (Table 1). These households receive no rental assistance and live in market-rate rental units. They face housing instability and financial stress. For example, the nearly 17,000 extremely low-income households in Salt Lake County have an income of $2,000 per month or less and a monthly housing cost of at least $1,000. This severe housing cost burden underscores the need for state housing policies that increase housing opportunities for extremely low-income and very low-income renters (≤50% AMI). Introduction Table 1: Very Low and Extremely Low-Income Renters with Severe Housing Cost Burdens, 2015-2019 (Housing costs ≤50% of renter’s income) County Extremely Low-Income Renter Households ≤30% AMI Very Low-Income Renter Households 30%-50% AMI Total Renter Households Income ≤50% AMI Total Renters % Share of Renters with Incomes ≤50% AMI Salt Lake 16,795 5,215 22,010 123,265 17.9% Utah 7,435 2,195 9,630 53,700 17.9% Weber 3,320 430 3,750 22,235 16.9% Davis 3,035 565 3,600 24,035 15.0% Cache 2,345 440 2,785 14,215 19.6% Washington 1,675 955 2,630 16,915 15.5% Iron 1030 110 1,140 6,130 18.6% Summit 435 145 580 3,215 18.0% Box Elder 445 80 525 3,905 13.4% Tooele 330 180 510 3,900 13.1% Carbon 415 65 480 2,055 23.4% Wasatch 270 145 415 2,670 15.5% Sanpete 300 45 345 1,925 17.9% Uintah 315 4 319 2,545 12.5% Duchesne 275 35 310 1,705 18.2% Grand 90 170 260 1,460 17.8% Sevier 155 10 165 1,610 10.2% Kane 80 10 90 595 15.1% San Juan 75 10 85 835 10.2% Beaver 75 4 79 590 13.4% Emery 75 0 75 845 8.9% Millard 60 10 70 1,105 6.3% Garfield 30 30 60 360 16.7% Juab 40 0 40 745 5.4% Morgan 15 0 15 495 3.0% Wayne 15 0 15 260 5.8% Rich 15 0 15 180 8.3% Piute 10 0 10 85 11.8% Daggett 0 0 0 20 0.0% Total 39,155 10,853 50,008 291,600 17 .1% Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3 Low Vacancy Rates and High Rental Rates In the past two years, the rental vacancy rates in Salt Lake and Utah counties (the state’s two largest apartment markets) dropped to historically low levels of 2-3%. These low rates follow nine years of vacancy rates below 4% (Figure 1). The 2014 to 2022 period marks the longest stretch of rental shortages in the counties’ histories. Low vacancy rates inevitably lead to higher rental rates as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The average overall rental rates in each county doubled since 2012, and rates rose by about 30% in the past two years (2020 to 2022 mid-year). Since 2012, renter income grew at about half the pace of rental rates. From 2012 to 2021, the median income of renters in Salt Lake and Utah counties increased by about 50%, while rental rates doubled.1 Job Growth in Relatively Low Paying Jobs The demand for affordable housing is expected to grow as future job growth concentrates in low-wage jobs. “The Utah Department of Workforce Services projects that nearly 70% of annual job openings from 2020 to 2026 will center on occupations typically requiring at most a high school diploma”2 (Table 2). Jobs that required only a high school diploma or no formal education will generally be low paying jobs. Thus, the rising share of workers in low wage jobs will lead to a greater need for affordable housing. Table 2: Projected Annual Labor Demand by Minimum Education Level, 2020-2026 Education Level % of Annual Demand High school diploma or equivalent 39.2% No formal educational credential 29.4% Bachelor’s degree 17.2% Postsecondary certificate 6.3% Some college no degree 2.6% Doctoral or professional degree 2.0% Associate degree 1.9% Master’s degree 1.5% Source: “An Analysis of Labor Supply and Demand in Utah,” (September 2019) Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and Utah Department of Workforce Services. 3.2% 2.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 2 0 . 7 % 9. 4 % 1 9 . 7 % 7 . 1 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 1: Rental Vacancy Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2001-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 3.2% 2.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 2 0 . 7 % 9. 4 % 1 9 . 7 % 7 . 1 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 2: Annual Percent Increase in Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2011-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 3.2%2.4%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022mid-year 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 20.7%9.4%19.7%7.1% 0%5%10%15%20%25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 3: Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM4 The State’s Expanding Role in Affordable Housing Programs Utah’s Housing and Community Development Division (HCDD) within the Department of Workforce Services is the primary state agency overseeing housing programs. The division administers the Section 8 Landlord Incentive Program, the development of tools to assess municipal housing needs, and the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF). The OWHLF, established in 1995, is Utah’s main state-funded housing program (discussed on p. 12) H.B. 347 (2021) expanded the state’s administrative and funding role related to housing programs. This bill created the Office of Homeless Services (OHS) and was the culmination of four years of legislative activity targeting homelessness. During this four-year period, the Utah Legislature passed several bills that provided support for affordable housing. In 2023, the Legislature further expanded housing funding and policies. The historical chronology outlined below gives a brief description of these legislative achievements. Chronology of Housing Legislation n H .B . 295 Providing Affordable Housing (1996 General Session) – H.B. 295 was the first substantive affordable housing bill passed by the Utah Legislature. This bill directed municipalities to create a plan for housing moderate-income households. Municipalities also needed to assess their need for affordable housing annually and evaluate zoning practices to better implement affordable housing plans. This bill allocated $250,000 for the state to help municipalities meet these requirements. n Hiatus from housing legislation (1996 to 2017) – From 1996 to 2017 the Legislature did not create any notable affordable housing or related programs. By 2016, however, there was a growing concern that a shortage of affordable housing and increasing homelessness could become serious problems in the state. Since then, the Legislature has passed a number of bills related to homelessness and housing affordability. n H .B . 441 Housing and Homeless Reform Initiative Amendments (2017 General Session) – Following the Great Recession, Utah experienced an increase in its homeless population. The Legislature passed H.B. 441 in the 2017 General Session to address the growing need for homeless aid. This bill provided the Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account with $10.1 million to open three new resource shelters that could house 700 people each. The bill also closed the largest shelter in Salt Lake County, which provided shelter for up to 1,100 people. n H .B . 430 Affordable Housing Amendment creates Commission on Housing Affordability (2018 General Session) – H.B. 430 created a Commission on Housing Affordability. The commission consists of 20 members, including three legislators, directors from various state agencies and municipalities, and 12 members appointed by the governor from the home building and real estate development community. The commission provides recommendations for affordable housing legislation. In 2022, the Legislature modified the commisson’s membership and repealed the sunset provision. n S .B . 34 Affordable Housing Modifications (2019 General Session) – In 2019, the Legislature passed S.B. 34, “Affordable Housing Modifications,” which changed the state code to require every local community’s general plan to include three components: (1) land use, (2) transportation, and (3) moderate-income housing. This provision was originally outlined in H.B. 295, which was passed 23 years prior to S.B. 34. The new bill provides additional direction and detail for moderate-income housing development, broadens some requirements to all cities, and requires specific communities to provide more robust housing strategies and an annual report on the implementation of those strategies. n S .B . 39 and the Utah Housing Preservation Fund ($10 million to OWHLF, 2020 General Session) – S.B. 39 “Affordable Housing Modifications” provided the largest, one-time General Fund appropriation to OWHLF since its creation in 1995. OWHLF received a $10 million appropriation, half of which was for gap financing on private activity bond-financed multifamily housing, and the other half to match private dollars for the preservation or construction of affordable housing. The private match funds came from the Utah Housing Preservation Fund started by a $20 million joint commitment from the Ivory Foundation, Intermountain Health, and Zions Bank. The fund specifically works to maintain and preserve affordable rental units aging out of assistance programs as well as naturally occurring affordable housing. The Utah Non-Profit Housing Corporation manages the fund, which continues to grow with the support of significant private investment from Utah’s business and philanthropic community. Interestingly, a June 2020 special legislative session, called due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced the $10 million appropriation by 50%. gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5 n H .B . 82 Single-family Housing Modifications (2021 General Session) – H.B. 82 made prohibiting most accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by municipalities and counties illegal. This change in zoning law is intended to increase the number of affordable “mother-in-law” apartments, which are less expensive and easier to build than new houses or apartment buildings. The legislation also includes provisions to limit the use of ADUs as short- term rentals. n S .B . 217 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act (2021 General Session) – S.B. 217 enacted the Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act, which established objectives and requirements for a municipality or public transit county to create a housing and transit reinvestment zone. Tax increment financing provides funding for the reinvestment zone. The objective is to promote transit-oriented development that, in turn, increases the availability of affordable housing near public transportation locations. n H .B . 347 Homeless Services Modification (2021 General Session) – H.B. 347 created the Utah Homelessness Council. This bill also centralized and coordinated services for the homeless under the direction of the state homelessness coordinator. n S .B . 238 “Homeless Services Modifications” (2022 General Session) – S.B. 238 included the largest allocation for homeless services and affordable housing in Utah’s history. This bill allocated $55 million of American Rescue Plan Funds to the Department of Workforce Services to fund affordable housing projects in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These funds will provide an estimated 1,078 affordable units across Utah. n H .B . 440 Homeless Services Amendments (2022 General Session) – H.B. 440 allows certain municipalities to receive increased funding from the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Restricted Account. The funds mitigate the impact of homeless shelters and established a formula for the disbursement of funds. Summary of 2023 General Session Housing Legislation The 2023 legislative response to Utah’s high housing costs culminated with the passage of six housing-related bills and significant funding for housing programs. The session likely ranks as the most productive for housing assistance. The legislation (listed below) provides assistance to the homeless, first-time homebuyers, low-income housing developers, and home builders. n S .B . 174 Local Land Use and Development Revisions (2023 General Session) – This bill streamlines city and county subdivision processes by limiting subdivision requests to only one public hearing. If the application complies with existing zoning requirements, city officials are required to approve it with no subsequent public hearings. n S .B . 199 Local Land Use Amendment (2023 General Session) – S.B. 199 prohibits municipal residents from challenging, through referendum, a municipal council’s unanimous approval of a housing development. n S .B . 240 First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (2023 General Session) – This bill sets aside $50 million to help first-time homebuyers purchase newly constructed homes. The new single-family home, condominium, or townhome can cost no more than $450,000. The state can provide a loan up to $20,000 for down payment assistance, closing costs, or buying down the interest rate. The loan is a lien on the home and would be paid back if the owner refinances or sells the house. The program has the potential to assist at least 2,500 homebuyers. n H .B . 364 Housing Affordability Amendment (2023 General Session) – H.B. 364 expands the state tax credit program from $1.2 million in 2022, to $10 million annually from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2028. The allocation period for state tax credit projects remains at 10 years, therefore a $1 million dollar allocation in 2023 would become a $10 million tax credit in the aggregate (over the 10-year period). April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM6 n H .B . 499 Homeless Services Amendments (2023 General Session) – H.B. 499 provides funding to increase homeless shelter options during the winter months and creates an emergency response plan during freezing temperatures. The bill requires each Wasatch Front County to convene a county winter response task force for the purpose of preparing a winter response plan. The legislation also requires Wasatch Front counties to provide shelter(s) for the homeless during winter months. The legislation modifies the formula used by the Office of Homeless Services to disburse funds from the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Restricted Account and prohibits a municipality from receiving funds from the account if the municipality does not enforce an ordinance that prohibits homeless camping. Selected Appropriations for Housing Programs, FY 2024 Office of Homeless Services: • $50 million (one-time) for deeply affordable housing. – $20 million from General Fund. – $30 million from federal funds (American Rescue Plan Act) • $5 million (on-going) for attainable housing grants. – Gap financing for deeply affordable projects (grants to projects, not renters; to assist with rent flow; similar to project-based housing). • $12 million (on-going) dedicated to Office of Homeless Services for shelter operations, winter response, request for grant applications, and non-congregate shelters. • $1 million (one-time) for shelter planning of non- congregate shelters. • $2.5 million (one-time) for homeless shelter cities mitigation reform restricted account. Department of Workforce Services: • $10 million (one-time) for Utah Housing Preservation Fund. • $10 million (on-going) for state tax credits for low-income housing. Summary of Utah Housing Legislation 1995 to 2023 Since the passage of H.B. 295 (1996), housing-related legislation in Utah has targeted five areas: (1) new construction and preservation of affordable housing, (2) administrative policies and support, (3) homeless assistance, (4) affordable housing and public transportation, and (5) municipal zoning ordinances. Table 3 summarizes the legislation. Table 3: Major Legislation Supporting Utah State Housing Programs, 1995-2023 New Construction and Preservation of Affordable Housing Administrative Policies and Support Homeless Assistance Affordable Housing and Public Transportation Municipal Zoning Ordinances Annual funding of Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (established 1985, annual state funding (1995) H.B. 295 requires the needs assessment of municipalities (1996) H.B. 441 initial funding for new homeless resource centers (2017) S.B. 217 establishes requirements for municipalities to create reinvestment zones at TODs with tax increment financing (2021) H.B. 82 made it illegal in most cases for cities to prohibit the development of accessory dwelling units. (2021) S.B. 39 additional one-time funding for OWHLF and creation of the Utah Housing Preservation Fund (2020) H.B. 430 creates Commission on Affordable Housing (2018) H.B. 347 creates the Office of Homeless Services and the Utah Homelessness Council. (2021) S.B. 174 streamlines the subdivision process (2023) S.B. 238 provides $55 million in federal funds to develop deeply affordable housing (2022) S.B. 34 requires the municipality’s general plan to include provisions for moderate-income housing (2019) S.B. 238 provides $55 million in federal funds for deeply affordable housing (2022) S.B. 199 limits referendums challenging housing development (2023) S.B. 240 provides loans to first- time homebuyers (2023) H.B. 347 creates the Office of Homeless Services (2021) H.B. 440 provides increase in funds for municipalities with shelters and allows capacity increases for shelters (2022) H.B. 364 expands to state tax credit program from $1.2 million annually to $10 million (2023) H.B. 499 funding for increased homeless shelter services during winter months. (2023) H.B. 359 allowing eviction expungement if both parties agree (2022) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and Utah Housing Coalition gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7 Selection of the “Best Fit” Programs for Utah To understand what state-funded affordable housing programs may be a “best fit” for Utah, the Gardner Institute conducted a literature review and internet search of state housing programs and policies. In addition, the Gardner Institute contacted several state agencies, local associations, and national non-profit organizations about their understanding of affordable housing policies. Groups contacted include the Utah Housing Corporation, Utah Division of Housing and Community Development, Utah Apartment Association, Salt Lake County Division of Housing and Community Development, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Official (NAHRO), National Low Income Housing Coalition, and others. The Gardner Institute also contacted many out of state housing offices about their state programs. Unfortunately, these inquiries received limited responses. State websites therefore proved to be the best source of information. While useful in identifying and describing state programs, these websites contained very little information on the outcomes (metrics) of housing programs. The Gardner Institute’s 2020 study of Utah municipalities, Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? also encountered a scarcity of outcome data. The evaluation of the pros and cons of a program or policy is only meaningful and effective if outcome data are available. Consequently, the selection of “best fit” programs relied heavily on the Gardner Institute’s experience with local housing markets, the need for affordable housing, the political environment, and agency capacity. This experience is coupled with information gleaned from state websites. In summary, the Gardner Institute selected to review four state-funded programs and policies that provide direct assistance to very low-income renters: (1) rental assistance programs, (2) housing trust funds, (3) state low-income housing tax credits, and (4) eviction policies. Rental assistance programs are selected as a “best fit” because they provide direct financial assistance to low-income renters and have been implemented in 31 states (Table 1). Housing trust funds and state tax credits are selected as “best fits” because of their program histories in Utah, established administrative structure, and general political acceptance. A comparison of state eviction policies is also included because of eviction's impact on housing insecurity and future housing stability. State-Funded Rental Assistance Programs Thirty-one states have rental assistance programs entirely funded by state revenue (Figure 4, Table 4). Many of these programs have been in operation for over 20 years. This section focuses on state-funded programs that are directed to renter households. The programs do not support the construction of additional affordable units, as state tax credits and housing trust programs do, but rather provide direct rental assistance to qualified, very low and extremely low-income households. High priority is often given to households with special needs, such as serious and persistent mental illness, youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, the homeless, and individuals facing an imminent threat of homelessness. Rental assistance programs are divided into three categories: short-term, transitional, and long-term programs. Long-term programs include housing vouchers. Vouchers are of special interest since the Utah Commission of Housing Affordability has considered proposals for homeless voucher assistance programs in the past. Consequently, housing vouchers receive special attention in this section. Utah's rental assistance program is funded by a combination of state dollars and federal funds, such as HUD HOME program funds. Figure 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 Source: Based on data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM8 Table 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 State Rental Assistance Types of Rental Assistance Short- Term Transi- tional Long- Term Vouchers Alabama Alaska n n n Arizona n n n n Arkansas California n n Colorado Connecticut n n Delaware n n n Florida n n Georgia n n n Hawaii n n n Idaho n n Illinois n n n n Indiana Iowa n n n n Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine n n Maryland Massachusetts n n n n n Michigan Minnesota n n n n Mississippi n n Missouri n n State Rental Assistance Types of Rental Assistance Short- Term Transi- tional Long- Term Vouchers Montana Nebraska n n n Nevada n n New Hampshire n n New Jersey n n n n New Mexico n n n n n New York n n North Carolina n n n North Dakota n n Ohio Oklahoma Oregon n n Pennsylvania n n n Rhode Island n n n n South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee n n n Texas Utah Vermont n n n n Virginia Washington n n West Virginia Wisconsin n n Wyoming Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition Table 5: Vouchers and Waitlists Administered by Public Housing Authorities, 2020 Housing Authority Vouchers Waitlist Open Length of Waitlist EHV Beaver City Housing Authority 14 yes No waitlist 0 Housing Authority of Carbon County 185 yes 18 months 15 Cedar City Housing Authority 277 no 1 year (131 individuals on list)15 Davis Community Housing Authority 813 no 3 years 0 Emery County Housing Authority 58 yes 12 months 0 Logan City Housing Authority 351 yes 12 to 18 months 0 Myton City Housing Authority (Vernal)28 yes 18 months 0 Housing Authority of the City of Ogden 1,037 yes 14 months (980 on list)29 Housing Authority of the City of Provo 884 yes 1-3 years 34 Roosevelt City Housing Authority 63 yes 6 months 0 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City 2,624 no 5 years (5,000 households on list)99 Housing Connect (Salt Lake County H.A.)3,102 no 4 years (6,500 on list)131 Housing Authority of Southeastern Utah 53 yes No waitlist 0 St. George Housing Authority 256 no 3 years (500 applicants)21 Tooele County Housing Authority 193 yes 2.5 years 0 Housing Authority of Utah County 1,023 yes 2 years 40 Weber Housing Authority 173 yes 4 years 0 West Valley City Housing Authority 505 yes 4 years 0 Total 11,639 384 EHV = emergency housing vouchers provided by American Rescue Plan (2021) funding. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of local housing authorities and U.S. Treasury Department gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 9 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 5: State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition HUD Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers Housing vouchers are the single most effective rental assistance program for very low and extremely low-income households. HUD’s Housing Choice Program (Section 8) provides long-term rental assistance to 11,639 Utah households. At least 35,000 more Utah households qualify for vouchers but do not receive assistance because of limited funding. Most of these households are extremely low-income (≤30% AMI), living in unstable, overcrowded housing conditions, and most likely to experience homelessness. Vouchers are the only housing assistance program that can effectively reach a significant number of these households. Utah's 18 local public housing authorities administer the federal Housing Choice vouchers (Table 5). Housing Connect (formerly Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake) administers about 3,100 vouchers, accounting for 27% of all vouchers in the state. The Gardner Institute surveyed all 18 housing authorities regarding the length of their waitlists. Only two housing authorities, Beaver City and Southeastern Utah, have immediate availability. The remaining 16 have waitlists ranging from six months to five years with a hundred to 6,500 individuals on the lists. The length and number of individuals on the waitlists confirm that voucher demand far exceeds supply. State-Funded Housing Vouchers The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported in 2021 that “only 1 in 4 households that are eligible for a voucher receive any form of federal rental assistance.”3 In response to the federal voucher shortage, 14 states have established ongoing annual state-funded voucher programs (Table 6). The 30-year-old Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) is well-established. The MRVP awards vouchers to a select number of low-income renter households at or below 80% AMI with at least 30% of their income going towards rent and utilities. MRVP has tenant and project-based options and has over $100 million in funds annually. MRVP is like Connecticut’s program, in that they do not restrict vouchers to special needs populations; however, they do give priority to the homeless. Eleven other state programs prioritize the homeless, mentally ill, youth aging out of foster care, elderly, and victims of domestic violence. Table 6 provides greater detail on these state programs. State-Funded Short-Term Housing Assistance Programs In addition to the 14 state-funded voucher programs, eight states have short-term housing programs funded entirely by ongoing state revenues (Table 7). A substantial share of the assistance available in the short-term programs goes directly to the renter. Short-term programs focus on preventing homelessness and often include variations of eviction prevention programs, which in some cases are limited to special needs populations, youth, and the mentally ill. Below is a brief description of each state-funded program. Utah has provided funding and support for short-term housing assistance over the past several years, which includes a significant share of federal funding. State-Funded Transitional Housing Assistance Programs Nineteen states have transitional housing programs funded exclusively by ongoing state revenue (Table 8). Most transitional housing programs provide temporary housing assistance for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness.4 Length of stay varies from a few weeks to a few years. Housing assistance is available for a rental unit (both single units and multifamily unit structures). Many programs are described as rapid rehousing, transitioning individuals from unstable housing conditions to stable housing conditions. These transitions often include support services such as mental and substance use disorder treatment, employment, and financial counseling. Several transitional programs offer assistance to special needs populations other than the homeless— youth aging out of foster care, individuals with serious and persistent mental illness exiting care facilities or state institutions, individuals exiting substance use residential facilities, individuals released from incarceration, and victims of domestic violence. Rather than focusing on individuals, some programs provide operating funds to organizations assisting the homeless (e.g., shelters, food pantries). Table 8 provides a brief description of each state-funded program. Although state-funded housing programs generally play a secondary role to federally and locally funded programs, they provide targeted support for the lowest income and most difficult-to-reach special needs populations. Consequently, state programs augment and complement the more traditional federal and local housing assistance programs. April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM10 Table 6: Characteristics of State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 State Name Income Target Funding Source Special Needs Populations Tenant Based Project Based Required Share of Tenant Level of Funding Year Est . AZ Bridge Subsidy Program ≤30% AMI State Individuals with serious mental illness. Participants expected to transition eventually to Federal Housing Choice vouchers. yes no Tenants pay 30%-40% of their income $8 million pre- 2016 CT Rental Assistance Program (RAP) ≤50% AMI State None yes no 40% of rent and utilities, 30% for the elderly and disabled $64 million --- DE State Rental Assistance Program (SRAP) 40% AMI State Youth exiting foster care, individuals exiting long-term care facilities. yes no 28% of tenant’s income $6 million 2011 GA Housing Voucher and Bridge Program Three times the SSI federal benefit level State Supportive housing to individuals with mental illness. The program focuses on chronically homeless, mentally ill individuals. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $17.4 million Pre- 2014 HI Rent Supplement Program ≤80% AMI State None specified.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $1.5 million pre- 2016 IL Rental Housing Support Program ≤30% AMI, 50% of resources for households at ≤15% AMI State Homeless or at risk of homelessness, elderly.no yes 30% of income $9.8 million 2005 Bridge Subsidy Program ---State Individuals with serious mental illness living in an institutional setting. Applicants must be on the waiting list for federal vouchers. yes no 30% of tenant’s income $9.9 million pre- 2018 IA Home and Community-Based Services Rent Subsidy Program ≤30% AMI State Assistance for people who receive medical services through Medicaid 1915c waivers. To qualify, patients must qualify for care in an institution. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $600,000 --- MA Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) ≤80% AMI State General but priority to homeless or at risk of homelessness and victims of domestic violence. yes yes 30% to 40% of tenant’s income $115 million in 2020 1992 Alternative Housing Voucher Program (AHVP) ≤80% AMI State Non-elderly disabled persons. At least one member of the household must be less than 60 years old and disabled. Homeless or risk of homelessness, victims of domestic violence, mental illness. yes no 25% to 30% of tenant’s income $8 million in 2020 1995 MN Supplemental Housing Assistance Housing costs greater than 40% of income State Under 65 years of age, relocating from an institution, or eligible for Medical Assistance personal care attendant services. Disabled individuals. yes no 40% of the tenant’s income $43.5 million pre- 2017 Bridge Assistance ≤50% AMI State Individuals with serious mental illness. The highest priority is given to individuals discharged from an inpatient mental health setting. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $8.1 million pre- 2019 NE Housing Related Assistance Program ≤30% AMI State Adults with serious mental illness.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $2.9 million 2006 NJ State Rental Assistance Program (SRAP) 75% of participants at ≤30% AMI, and the remaining participants at ≤40% AMI State, including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund General but also homeless or at risk of homelessness, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. yes yes 30% of the tenant’s income $18.5 million from the Gen. Fund and $20 million from the Housing Trust Fund Pre- 2018 NM Linkages Supportive Housing Rental Assistance ≤30% AMI Funded by the State’s Behavioral Health Collaborative Homeless adults with serious mental illness.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $2.8 million 2007 Transition Supportive Housing ≤30% AMI State Voucher for mentally ill youth aging out of foster care. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $900,000 2007 NC Key Rental Assistance ≤30% AMI State Persons who are disabled and/or experiencing homelessness with extremely low incomes. yes no 25% of the tenant’s income, 30% if the landlord pays utilities $5.5 million 2004 VT Housing Support Fund for Housing Subsidy ≤30% AMI State Persons with serious and persistent mental illness enrolled in the Community Rehabilitation and Treatment Program. yes no 30% of tenant’s $27.2 million 1988 Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 11 Table 7: Short-Term Rental Assistance Programs, as of 2020 State Program Description Massachusetts Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT) – Homeless prevention program for households who are at risk of becoming homeless. Most assistance is in the form of one-time payments. Can fund up to $4,000 per household to prevent homelessness. Missouri Rental Assistance Program – Provides funds for one-time payments that restore housing stability by paying off rent and utilities in arrears. Assisted households must be receiving mental health or substance use disorder services. Nevada Welfare Set Aside Program – Funds allocated to local government to assist eligible persons or families with housing needs. Participants must have income under 60% AMI. Funds targeted for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness. New Jersey Homeless Prevention Program - Provides limited financial assistance to low and moderate-income renters in imminent danger of eviction due to temporary financial problems. New Mexico Move-In Assistance and Eviction Prevention - Provides assistance to qualified households for rent, damage deposits, and utility deposits. Applicants must have documented serious and persistent mental illness or co-occurring substance use disorder. Pennsylvania Housing Assistance Program - Offers a variety of supportive services to families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Tennessee Children and Youth Homeless Outreach Project - Provides outreach and case management for homeless families or those at risk of homelessness and identifies youth with severe emotional disturbance. The program assists parents in securing needed mental health services for their children. Wisconsin Housing Assistance Program - Provides funds for housing, support services, and administrative costs to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to independent living. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Table 8: State-Funded Transitional Housing Programs, as of 2020 State Program Description Alaska Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) – Provides operating support for Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Rapid Rehousing and Prevention Programs. The purpose of the HAP program is to support activities that prevent displacement from permanent, affordable housing and rapidly return displaced persons to permanent housing while also providing safe temporary housing. The program is funded through state capital funds. Arizona Arizona State Housing Fund – Provides funds for Rapid Rehousing, which is currently in its third year of operation. Households seeking assistance in this program must meet the HUD definition of homeless. The program provides 6-9 months of financial assistance and support- ive services for up to a year to assist a household at ≤30% AMI to become independent and take over the rent. California California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program – Provides funds for five primary activities: (1) housing relocation and stabilization services (including rental assistance), (2) operating subsidies for permanent housing, (3) flexible housing subsidy funds, (4) operating support for emergency housing interventions, and (5) systems support for homeless services and housing delivery systems. Idaho Transition Funding Program - Provides housing assistance for individuals transitioning out of the correctional system. The program is aimed at preventing recidivism. Funds may be used to assist with rent payments and living expenses for up to 30 days. Illinois Emergency and Transitional Housing Program – Provides comprehensive shelter services to homeless persons and persons at risk of becoming homeless. The program provides funding for meals, shelter, and support services to not-for-profit organizations and local governments. Illinois Homeless Youth Services - Participants must be homeless youth. The program is designed to increase the safety of youth, ensuring their basic need while also providing safe and stable housing. Iowa Aftercare Rent Subsidy Program – Provides support for youth who are aging out of foster care and are participating in the Aftercare Services Program. The youth must be an active participant in aftercare services, making progress toward an identified goal of obtaining or maintaining stable housing. Maine Bridging Rental Assistance Program (BRAP) – Provides transitional rental subsidy for persons suffering from serious and persistent mental illness. Participants pay 51% of their income towards rent. Massachusetts HomeBASE – Provides housing assistance for rehousing families in the Emergency Assistance (EA) program and eligible families in domestic violence shelters and residential substance use treatment programs. HomeBASE provides up to $10,000 in eligible rehousing expenses over a 12-month period. Minnesota Transitional Housing Program - Provides support to agencies that provide housing and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. The agencies provide case management and rental assistance in the form of tenant or project-based assistance to people who are homeless. Funding can also be used for an agency’s operating and service costs. Assistance is limited to 24 months and has no income restrictions. Mississippi Creating Housing Options in Communities for Everyone (CHOICE) - The program provides assistance to individuals being discharged from a state psychiatric hospital after a stay of more than 90 days. It also assists individuals with intellectual disabilities leaving a nursing facility or intermediate care facility after a stay of more than 90 days. New Hampshire Homeless Housing and Access Revolving Loan Fund - Loans for first month rent and security deposit for homeless individuals. Participants must be residing in a shelter. Repayment shall commence no later than 120 days after the loan is disbursed. New Mexico Crisis Housing Program - Provides temporary, transitional housing for persons with serious mental illness being discharged from psychiatric centers, hospitals, jails, or other institutional settings who would otherwise be homeless. The program offers a 120-day maximum stay in short-term housing with support services. April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM12 Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have at least one state housing trust fund, which provides a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing. In total, these housing trust funds had $2.3 billion in 2022, effectively leveraging funds to increase the supply of affordable housing. While there are hundreds of local housing trust funds (that work in partnership with national and state housing trust funds), this section discusses state-level housing trust funds. Trust funds typically fund the preservation and building of low-income and affordable units. To receive aid, most projects must provide a certain amount of housing for people earning 80%, 50%, or 30% of AMI. Typically, the fund provides rental assistance or loans for disabled persons and the elderly. Some states allow low-income renters to apply for assistance directly through the housing trust fund, although this is rare. State housing trust funds have multiple revenue sources and a variety of funding structures.5 Some are self-sustaining and do not require regular state government allocations. Others receive annual funding from their state legislature. The size and scope of most housing trust funds reflect the state’s affordable housing need. Most have a dedicated funding source (such as a tax or fee) that provides the fund’s annual allocation. The two most popular dedicated funding sources for state housing trusts are a document recording fee and the real estate transfer tax. A document recording fee is usually $80 to $100 and paid at the time of sale. A real estate transfer tax can be a flat fee or an ad valorem tax (based on value) up to 2% of the cost of the home. Interest on real estate escrow accounts also provides funding for some trusts. These funding sources, along with federal funds and payments on current loans, make up the budget for most states’ housing trusts. Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) Utah’s state housing trust fund, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, was established in 1995 and reclassified as a loan fund in 2001. In 2003, the Legislature allowed the fund to provide loans and grants to develop affordable housing. OWHLF funds four programs: (1) the multifamily program, (2) the Single-Family Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Program, (3) the Home Choice program (for individuals with disabilities), and (4) individual development accounts.6 Annually, 15% of allocated federal HOME funds must be set-aside for community housing development organizations (CHDO). North Dakota North Dakota Homeless Grant - Provides financial assistance to facilities and programs within North Dakota to identify sheltered and unshel- tered homeless persons at risk of homelessness. Grants help fund the services necessary to help those persons experiencing a housing crisis regain stability in permanent housing. Oregon Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) - EHA funds are designed to prevent and reduce homelessness. Eligible uses are street outreach, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing, emergency, and transitional shelter, supportive in-home services, data collection, and community capacity building. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Transition (NHT) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance – Provides housing funds for people transitioning out of institutional housing. The NHT Program was developed to assist individuals who want to move from a nursing facility back to a home of their choice in the community. Rhode Island The State Rental Assistance Program – Provides funding to help the chronically homeless achieve housing stability. The primary goal is to address the barriers and challenges that cause individuals and families to be chronically homeless while also working to stabilize program participants in housing through the provision of wraparound services after the family or individual obtains housing. Tennessee The Inpatient Targeted Transitional – Provides funding to assist persons awaiting discharge from regional mental health institutes. The program gives temporary financial assistance for up to 6 months of rental and utility payments, transportation, medication co-pay, etc. Vermont Vermont Rental Subsidy Program – Provides funds for a state-funded rapid rehousing initiative providing rental assistance to households experiencing homelessness whose monthly income would otherwise be insufficient to afford a rental unit. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Year State Funding 1995 $ 2,400,000 1996 $ 2,500,000 1997 $ 3,500,000 1998 $ 2,250,000 1999 $ 2,500,000 2000 $ 1,500,000 2001 $ 2,000,000 2002 $ 2,313,000 2003 $ 2,525,000 2004 $ 2,084,500 2005 $ 2,284,500 2006 $ 2,836,400 2007 $ 3,286,400 2008 $ 2,736,400 2009 $ 3,246,400 Year State Funding 2010 $ 2,295,700 2011 $ 2,242,900 2012 $ 2,242,900 2013 $ 2,242,900 2014 $ 2,242,900 2015 $ 2,242,900 2016 $ 3,242,900 2017 $ 2,242,900 2018 $ 4,803,900 2019 $ 2,242,900 2020 $ 2,242,900 2021 $ 2,242,900 2022 $ 2,242,900 2023 $ 2,242,900 Table 9: Annual State General Fund Appropriations for the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, 1995-2023 Source: Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund State Housing Trusts gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 13 OWHLF receives funding from state general revenue, the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the federal National Housing Trust Fund (HTF), and payments on outstanding loans. Since 2010, the state appropriates about $2.2 million annually from the General Fund (Table 9). Each year the fund typically receives another $3 million to $5 million in non-state-funded support. OWHLF reports that each dollar spent in 2021 was leveraged to $31.38. Over the last 27 years, 24,561 affordable units have been funded by OWHLF. In 2020 and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), Utah received federal money from the CARES Act to support the homeless population. The OWHLF received $13 million of CARES Act funding in 2020 and 2021 and received another $44.6 million from the American Rescue Plan in 2022. A Comparison of State Trust Funds Utah ranks 21st among the 24 states with publicly available data on state funded housing trusts (Table 10). Fifteen of the state housing trust funds rely on a document recording fee, 11 on a real estate transfer tax, and five on a real estate escrow tax. Of the funds with publicly available data, the vast majority received more state funding than the OWHLF in 2022, although it should be noted that many of these states also have larger populations. The amount of state funding in the 24 state trusts was disaggregated from other sources of revenue, then compared and ranked on a state-by-state basis (Table 10). Sixteen additional states have trust funds, but the amount of state funding could not be determined due to the combining of funds with other sources of revenue (Table 11). While Utah does not have the same scale of affordable housing needs as larger states, most other states have additional programs beyond their housing trust fund to provide low-income housing. Until recently, Utah relied on the OWHLF to provide most of the state-funded affordable housing assistance. Starting in 2017, however, the Utah State Legislature appropriated over $100 million in assistance to homeless programs and $56.5 million to the Utah Housing Preservation Fund (a large share of this recent funding, particularly for homeless programs, were federal dollars provided by the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan). Real Estate Transfer Tax Many states use a real estate transfer tax as a source of ongoing revenue for their housing trust funds. The tax is imposed on the sale of residential and commercial property and is equivalent to a sales tax on the transfer of a property’s title and deed. The seller officially pays the tax in several states but that is negotiable and may differ from who bears the economic burden of the tax. Thirty-five states have a real estate transfer tax (Figure 6). The average transfer tax rate is 0.004% (Table 12). Table 10: State Funding Levels for Housing Trust Funds, 2022 State Funding Source State Funding New York General Fund $194,751,071 Florida Documentary stamp taxes $62,500,000 Pennsylvania Realty transfer tax, document recording fees $39,123,701 Louisiana Initial surplus funds $20,123,000 Delaware Document recording fees, General Fund $18,000,000 Maine Real estate transfer tax $13,260,000 Illinois Real estate transfer tax $11,584,000 Connecticut Document recording fees $10,909,733 Vermont Real estate transfer tax $10,800,000 Nevada Real estate transfer tax $10,404,597 Iowa Real estate transfer tax $9,434,060 New Mexico 2.5% of annual severance tax bond capacity $9,000,000 Arizona State Unclaimed Property Fund $6,000,000 South Dakota Corporate excise tax $5,394,456 Kentucky Document recording fees $5,084,000 New Hampshire Other $5,000,000 Texas General Revenue $4,736,262 Missouri Document recording fees $4,093,799 Georgia General Fund $2,962,892 Indiana Program income, smokeless tobacco tax $2,648,305 Utah General Fund $2,242,900 Kansas Bond and fee revenues $2,000,000 Maryland Interest on title escrow accounts $1,984,396 Wisconsin Interest on real estate escrow account $250,000 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of states Table 11: States with Trust Funds but Undetermined State Funding, as of 2022 State Funding Source California Document filing fees Colorado Vendor fees Hawaii Real estate conveyance tax Massachusetts G.O. bonds, document recording fees Michigan General Fund Minnesota Interest on real estate escrow Nebraska Documentary stamp taxes New Jersey Realty transfer tax North Carolina General Fund North Dakota Tax credit contributions Ohio Document recording fees Oklahoma Initial capitalization appropriations Oregon Public purpose funds, interest, and fees Tennessee Tennessee housing development authority funds Virginia General Fund Washington Interest on escrow accounts, document recording fees Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of states April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM14 A portion of real estate transfer tax revenue is often allocated to the county administering and collecting the tax. Use of the revenue varies widely, from allocation to the state general fund to conservation, land preservation, public infrastructure, education, and housing trust funds. Twelve of the 35 states listed in Table 13 allocate a portion of the transfer tax revenue to affordable housing programs (state names are bolded). MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI5MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI4 MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded VouchersStates with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax CreditTax Credit PendingNo Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 6: States with Real Estate Transfer Tax, as of 2020 Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition An Example of a Utah Residential Real Estate Transfer Tax In 2022, the total value of residential real estate sales in Utah was nearly $25 billion; 40,639 sales transactions with an average price of $614,248.11 At four-tenths of one percent (the average of the 12 states that allocate funds to affordable housing programs), a Utah transfer tax would generate $100 million in revenue, while a rate of one-tenth of one percent rate would raise about $25 million in funding. At one-tenth of one percent, the average transfer tax would cost $614 per transaction, less than the sales tax on a new car. State Tax Rate Alabama 0.0010% Arkansas 0.0033% California (local)0.0011% Colorado 0.0001% Connecticut 0.0075% Delaware 0.0300% Florida 0.0070% Georgia 0.0010% Hawaii 0.0020% Illinois 0.0010% Iowa 0.0016% Kentucky 0.0010% Maine 0.0044% Maryland 0.0050% Massachusetts 0.0046% Michigan 0.0075% Minnesota 0.0033% Nebraska 0.0023% State Tax Rate Nevada 0.0026% New Hampshire 0.0150% New Jersey 0.0025% New York 0.0040% North Carolina 0.0020% Ohio 0.0010% Oklahoma 0.0015% Pennsylvania 0.0100% Rhode Island 0.0046% South Carolina 0.0037% South Dakota 0.0010% Tennessee 0.0037% Virginia 0.0025% Washington 0.0128% West Virginia 0.0033% Wisconsin 0.0030% Average 0 .0040% Table 12: State Real Estate Transfer Tax Rates, 2020 Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Significant Features of the Property Tax. Available from https://www.lincolninst.edu/real-estate-transfer-charge/state-transfer-tax- wisconsin-2020 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 15 Table 13: Revenue Allocation of Real Estate Transfer Taxes by State, 2020 (States in bold allocate at least some of the tax revenue to affordable housing) State Revenue Allocation Alabama Allocated to county and state treasury. Arkansas Allocated for open space, recreation, and preservation, Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resource Grants and Trust Fund. California Fifty percent of revenue goes to local governments to update planning documents and zoning ordinances and 50% to support of homeless programs. Colorado Allocated to the county treasurer to defray costs incurred for filing, recording, and releasing title or lien to real property. Connecticut Revenue split between county (general revenue) and state (General Fund). Delaware Seventy-five percent of revenue to the state Division of Revenue and 25% to the state treasurer to be allocated to municipalities and counties where transfers occur. Florida Allocated to Land Acquisition Trust Fund, State Transportation Trust Fund, Grants and Donations Trust Fund, and state and local housing trust fund for Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program. Georgia Allocated proportionally, based on millage rate, to the state and other tax jurisdictions. Hawaii Ten percent Land Conservation Fund, 50% or $38 million, whichever is less, into Rental Housing Revolving Fund, and the remainder to the General Fund. Illinois Fifty percent to the Illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund, 35% to the Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development Fund and 15% to the Natural Areas Acquisition Fund. Iowa States portion is allocated at 65% to the State General Fund, 30% to the Housing Trust Fund, and 5% to the Shelter Assistance Fund. Kentucky Allocated to county General Fund. Maine Allocated to the General Fund, Maine’s Housing Opportunities for Maine Fund, and 10% to the county for services in collecting the tax. Maryland Allocated to the General Fund. Massachusetts Allocated to the state (General Fund) and county where property transfer occurs. Michigan Allocated to State School Aid Fund. Minnesota Allocated to State General Fund after deduction for counties cost of administration and collection. Nebraska Twenty-two percent was allocated to the transferring county, 42% to Affordable Housing Trust Fund, 11% to the Site and Development Fund, 11% to Homeless Shelter Assistance Trust Fund, and 14% to Behavioral Health Services Fund. Nevada State portion allocated to the General Fund. County and city portions are allocated for the development of affordable housing. State Revenue Allocation New Hampshire One-third of transfer tax revenue is allocated to the State Education Trust Fund. Law requires the state treasurer to transfer the sum of $5,000,000 from the transfer tax revenue to the Affordable Housing Fund. New Jersey Allocated to the county to cover the cost of collection and administration, the remainder goes to Shore Protection Fund, Highlands Protection Fund, Neighborhood Preservation Fund, and State General Fund. New York First $119 million of revenue deposited in the Environmental Protection Fund, the remaining revenue in the Clean Water/Clean Air Fund. North Carolina State and county each receive 50% of revenue from the transfer tax. State share goes to the State General Fund. Ohio Revenue retained by counties. Oklahoma County retains revenue for the county’s Common School Fund. Pennsylvania Allocated to the State General Fund, 15% of the allocation goes to the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund. Rhode Island Thirteen percent of revenue is allocated to State Distressed Community Relief Fund, 13% Housing Resources Commission, 26% to the state, and 48% kept by counties. South Carolina Eight percent allocated to the Heritage Land Trust Fund, 16% to Housing Trust Fund, and the remaining revenue to the General Fund. South Dakota Allocated to county General Funds. Tennessee Allocated to county and state land acquisition funds, historical places, state parks, Civil War preservation sites, and abatement of pollution from agricultural activities. Vermont First $2.5 million allocated to Vermont Housing Finance Agency to be used for affordable housing. The remaining revenue is allocated to state’s General Fund, county, and Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund. Virginia Allocated to the following: Interstate 73 Corridor Development Fund, transportation fund, Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, county and city transportation funds, and public education. Washington Seventeen percent allocated to Education Legacy Trust Account, small amount to cities and counties for administration and collection, and 80% to the General Fund. West Virginia Allocated to the General Fund. Wisconsin Twenty percent is allocated to counties and 80% to State General Fund. Bold: States that allocate a portion of the transfer tax revenue to affordable housing programs. Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM16 Utah’s State Tax Credit Program State tax credits provide an important source of funding for the development of low-income rental housing. In 2022, 25 states had tax credit programs, and another five states have tax credit programs pending (Figure 7). In the 2005 General Session, the Utah Legislature passed H.B. 170 “Extension of Utah Low-Income Housing Tax Credits”, making Utah an early state in offering state tax credits. Since 2005, state tax credits have been used in 147 low-income rental housing projects, helping to finance 8,006 affordable rental units with nearly $26 million in tax credits.7 The state credit program is administered by the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC), a quasi-public corporation created in 1975 by the Utah Legislature to assist in financing affordable housing (owner and rental units) for low- and moderate-income households. UHC creates the criteria for state credit awards and has the authority to determine eligible activities, affordability requirements, and most features of the state credit program. In concept, state credits for low-income rental housing mirror the federal tax credit program. Generally, state tax credits, like federal credits, are sold by the developer to raise equity, reducing the project’s financing costs. However, since state tax credits issued in Utah can only be used against state tax liability, the credits sell for less, currently about 65 cents compared to 97 cents for federal credits.8 Additional features of Utah’s state tax credit program include: • State tax credits can be used for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation. • Additional credits are awarded to projects that have up to 10 units reserved for extremely low-income renters (≤30% AMI). • In the past, the annual ceiling of available tax credits each year was determined by multiplying the state’s population by 34.5 cents. Using this formula, the ceiling of available credits was $1.1 million in 2021. In 2023, however, the Utah Legislature approved an expansion of the state tax credit program to $10 million annually from 2023 to 2029. The annual ceiling of tax credits is divided into two pools; Pool I receives 37% of the available credits and Pool II receives 63%. Pool II’s credits are set aside for permanent supportive housing projects.9 In the case of permanent supportive housing, the credits can be used for services. • Most often, state credits are used to reduce individual income tax, corporate franchise, or income taxes. • State tax credits are only awarded to low-income housing projects that have received federal tax credits. Comparison of State Programs In 2021, 25 states issued state tax credits for the development of low-income housing (Table 14). The first state to pass enabling legislation was California in 1988. As noted, Utah passed enabling legislation in 2005. The popularity of state programs has increased in recent years with the addition of nine states since 2017. An additional five states have made proposals to their legislatures. Most state credit programs allow credit for both 4% and 9% tax credit projects.10 Utah’s state credit program has a credit period of 10 years (i.e., the owner of the credits can use the credits against their state tax liability over a 10-year period). Therefore, the tax credits available in Utah in 2021 of about $1.1 million accrue to $11 million in credit over the 10-year period. Ten of the 25 states have adopted the 10-year credit period. Four states allow only a one-year credit period. Although Utah’s state tax credit program has been effective in terms of providing incentives for the development of affordable units for extremely low-income renters, the 2020 funding level of $1.1 million ranked near the bottom among the 25 states with state tax credit programs (Table 15). That said, the Utah Legislature passed several housing-related bills and provided significant funding for housing programs during the 2023 legislative session, including expanding the state tax credit program. State Tax Credit Programs MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 7: States with State Tax Credits for Low-Income Housing, as of 2022 Source: Novogradac gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 17 Table 14: Selected Features of State Tax Credit Programs, as of 2021 State Tax Credits Available in 2020 Credit Period Type of Credit*Yr . Established Arizona $4,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%2021 Arkansas $250,000 6 years 4%, 9%1997 California $500,000,000 4 years 4%, 9%1987 Colorado $10,000,000 6 years 4%, 9%2013 Connecticut $10,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%1988 Georgia Automatic match to federal credit up to $29,700,000 10 years 4%, 9%2001 Hawaii $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2011 Illinois $23,620,968 1 year 4%, 9%2001 Indiana $30,000,000 cap starting in 2023 5 years 4%2022 Iowa pending pending pending pending Kansas Equal to the federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) amount 10 years 4%, 9%2006 Kentucky pending pending pending Maine $10,000,000 1 year 4%, 9%2020 Massachusetts $40,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2004 Mississippi pending pending pending pending Missouri 50% of the federal LIHTC amount 10 years 4%, 9%1997 Nebraska $8,000,000 6 years 4%, 9%2016 Nevada $10,000,000 1 year 9%2019 New Jersey Amount not reported TBD TBD 2021 New Mexico $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2006 New York $8,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%NA North Carolina pending pending pending pending Ohio pending pending pending pending Oklahoma $4,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%2014 Pennsylvania $10,000,000 10 years NA 2019 South Carolina Amount not reported 10 years 4%2020 Utah $1,121,250 10 years 4%, 9%2005 Vermont $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2000 Virginia $60,000,000 1 year 4%, 9%2021 Wisconsin $42,000,000 6 years 4%2017 *The 4% and 9% low-income housing tax credit programs provide, respectively, 30% and 70% project subsidies for approved low-income projects. The subsidy is derived from the sale by the developer of tax credits. While the program provides a significant subsidy to the developer, the developer gives up significant future rental revenue due to the restricted low rental rates. Source: State websites and Novogradac Table 15: State Tax Credits Available, 2021 State Tax Credits Available California $500,000,000 Virginia $60,000,000 Wisconsin $42,000,000 Massachusetts $40,000,000 Indiana $30,000,000 Georgia $29,700,000 Illinois $23,620,968 Colorado $10,000,000 Connecticut $10,000,000 State Tax Credits Available Maine $10,000,000 Nevada $10,000,000 Pennsylvania $10,000,000 Nebraska $8,000,000 New York $8,000,000 Arizona $4,000,000 Hawaii $4,000,000 New Mexico $4,000,000 Oklahoma $4,000,000 State Tax Credits Available Vermont $4,000,000 Utah $1,100,000 Arkansas $250,000 Kansas Equal to the federal LIHTC amount Missouri 50% of the federal LIHTC amount New Jersey TBD South Carolina TBD State Tax Credits Available Iowa pending Kentucky pending North Carolina pending Ohio pending Source: State websites and Novogradac April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM18 Utah’s rental housing market has one of the lowest eviction rates in the nation. According to Princeton’s Eviction Lab, Utah’s eviction rate was 0.9% in 2019 (about 2,700 renters). Of the 47 states reporting eviction data, Utah ranked 38th (Table 16). The eviction rate is calculated by dividing the number of judgments against renters by the total number of renters. Often the eviction process is terminated as the parties resolve the dispute. In that case, no judgment or eviction is reported, only the filing of an eviction is reported. In terms of filings, Utah ranked 38th of the 47 states with a 2.2% rate, or about 6,600 renters (Table 17). The Rental Housing Association of Utah collects and publishes monthly eviction court filings for the state. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, eviction filings in Utah were around 7,000 annually (Table 18). During the pandemic, the rate of filings dropped by more the 30% to around 4,000. The decline was partly due to the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan, which established eviction moratoriums, rental assistance, and other financial assistance to households. However, as the level of federal assistance phased down, eviction filings increased again in 2022. While eviction filings increased in 2022, they remain below pre-pandemic levels. Without ongoing federal assistance, it is difficult to predict what will happen to eviction filings in Utah in the future. As rent continues to increase, renters may need to commit more of their income to housing. The Utah Office of Homeless Services currently participates in funding eviction prevention through rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention programs. Using a combination of federal and state funding, these programs can provide short- term and medium-term rental assistance and pay rental arrears. Utah also has three funded eviction prevention specialists who help renters by providing them with funds to pay amounts owed and settle evictions. Utah Community Action administers and operates this program. Other non-governmental organizations, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also provide assistance for families facing housing insecurity and eviction. A philanthropic safety net, coupled with Utah's strong economy and low unemployment rate, could contribute to Utah’s low eviction rate. Several states implemented additional eviction laws and policies to assist renters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 19 outlines some of the different measures states have taken since March 2020 to keep people housed. Some of these measures are set to expire while many will be extended or made permanent fixtures of the state’s eviction policy. The Utah Legislature passed H.B. 359 “Eviction Records Amendments” in the 2022 General Session. This bill streamlines the expungement process, allowing a former tenant to have their eviction case sealed by the courts provided the balance due has been paid and the landlord doesn’t object to the expungement. Many landlords and collections attorneys actively use the expungement option to encourage renters to settle their debt and remove the eviction from their record. This bill is meant to restore a tenant’s rental record and allow renters to find housing following a non-payment eviction. Other states intervene before the ruling of an eviction case or even before the case appears in court. For example, some states put a stay on eviction proceedings if the tenant applies for rental assistance through the state. Illinois and Texas require that information regarding the eviction be given to tenants in plain language when they are presented with an eviction filing. Connecticut and California have established legal defense funds to provide tenants with professional legal assistance, as opposed to relying on pro bono work or navigating the process on their own. Eviction filings and judgments are sometimes used as indicators of rental market conditions (e.g., a low eviction rate suggests a low level of housing instability). However, it is important to remember that eviction data, on their own, do not capture the housing instability 40,000 Utah renter households live with due to severe housing cost burdens. State Eviction Laws and Policies Utah’s Eviction Process If a tenant does not pay rent when due, Utah landlords can give written notification that the tenant must pay rent within three business days, or vacate the property. If the tenant does not comply with the notification by either paying or moving in three business days, the landlord can file an eviction. The landlord serves notice of the eviction filing along with a summons that requires the tenant to file an answer within three business days. If the tenant files an answer, then the court schedules a hearing date. Utah law requires a renter who does not pay or move within the three- day notice to pay treble (that is, triple) damages for each day he/she remains in the unit. The tenant is also responsible for any back rent owed as well as attorney’s fees and collection costs incurred during the eviction process. According to the Utah Bar Foundation, Utah is the only state to combine a three-day notice period with treble damages. gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 19 Table 16: States Ranked by Eviction Rate, 2019 State Eviction Rate (2019)Days until Eviction Notice Days until Summons Late Fee Limits Legal Assistance Alaska N/A 7 2 None No Arkansas N/A 3 N/A None No North Dakota N/A 3 3 None No South Carolina 8.9%5 N/A None No Delaware 5.1%5 5 5% of monthly rent No Virginia 5.1%14 10 10% of rent due No Georgia 4.7%N/A N/A None No North Carolina 4.6%10 2 5% of monthly rent No Oklahoma 4.2%5 5 None No Indiana 4.1%10 5 None No Mississippi 4.0%3 5 None No Arizona 3.9%5 2 Reasonable Amount No Maryland 3.6%10 N/A 5% of rent due Yes Ohio 3.5%3 7 None No West Virginia 3.5%N/A 10 None No Nevada 3.4%7 10 5% of monthly rent No Michigan 3.3%7 3 None No New Mexico 3.2%3 7 10% of monthly rent No Rhode Island 3.1%5 5 None No Connecticut 3.0%3 N/A None Yes Kentucky 2.9%7 3 None No Missouri 2.9%10 4 None No Colorado 2.8%10 7 5% of rent due No Tennessee 2.8%14 6 10% of rent due No District of Columbia 2.6%30 7 5% of monthly rent No Louisiana 2.6%5 3 None No Florida 2.5%3 5 None No Kansas 2.3%3 N/A None No Maine 2.3%7 7 4% of monthly rent No Nebraska 2.2%7 10 None No New York 2.2%14 10 5% of monthly rent No Texas 2.2%3 5 10% of monthly rent No Iowa 2.0%3 3 $60/$100 No Wisconsin 1.9%5 5 Specified in lease No Alabama 1.8%7 N/A None No Pennsylvania 1.8%10 7 None No New Hampshire 1.7%7 N/A None No Illinois 1.6%5 10 None No Massachusetts 1.5%28 7 None No Oregon 1.1%10 7 5% of monthly rent No Montana 0.9%3 N/A None No Utah 0 .9%3 3 None No Wyoming 0.9%3 3 None No California 0.8%3 N/A None No Washington 0.8%14 60 No late fees Yes Idaho 0.6%3 5 None No Minnesota 0.6%Not Required 7 8% of rent due No South Dakota 0.5%3 4 None No Hawaii 0.4%5 N/A 8% of rent due No Vermont 0.1%14 10 None No New Jersey 0.0%Not Required N/A None No Source: Law Atlas Policy Surveillance Program, Eviction Lab April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM20 Table 18: Monthly Eviction Filings in Utah, 2017-2022 Month 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 January 674 623 678 646 369 472 February 623 567 495 599 289 481 March 571 546 486 459 342 513 April 563 525 574 216 319 420 May 653 633 609 261 300 459 June 606 629 636 332 356 544 July 667 640 591 373 410 548 August 635 660 620 671 373 644 September 629 648 672 356 524 607 October 638 623 629 322 440 594 November 579 492 518 273 431 534 December 474 458 548 279 389 539 Average 609 587 588 399 379 530 Total 7,312 7,044 7,056 4,787 4,542 6,355 Source: Rental Housing Association State Eviction Filing Rate Maryland 69.6% South Carolina 23.3% Georgia 18.8% District of Columbia 17.2% Michigan 16.6% Delaware 15.9% Virginia 14.9% Mississippi 14.7% New Jersey 12.1% North Carolina 11.7% New York 9.0% Indiana 8.9% Arizona 8.5% Kentucky 7.6% Pennsylvania 7.1% Colorado 6.9% Nevada 6.7% Rhode Island 6.4% Tennessee 6.4% Texas 6.4% Ohio 6.2% New Mexico 6.1% Oklahoma 5.8% Missouri 5.7% West Virginia 4.9% Iowa 4.3% State Eviction Filing Rate New Hampshire 4.3% Florida 4.1% Connecticut 4.0% Alabama 3.8% Nebraska 3.6% Wisconsin 3.6% Massachusetts 3.5% Kansas 3.2% Illinois 2.9% Oregon 2.9% Maine 2.8% Minnesota 2.8% Alaska 2.5% Idaho 2.5% Louisiana 2.3% California 2.2% Utah 2 .2% Vermont 2.1% Washington 1.5% Wyoming 1.5% Montana 1.3% Hawaii 1.2% Arkansas 1.1% North Dakota 1.0% South Dakota 0.7% Table 17: Eviction Filings by State, 2019 Source: Eviction Lab gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 21 Table 19: Eviction-Related Legislation Passed in Response to COVID-19, as of 2022 State Legislation Arizona Stay of evictions for 30 days if an application for rental assistance is underway and the landlord participates in Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). California Eviction Legal Defense Fund provided. Colorado Requires tenant to be informed of legal aid assistance. 30 days stay of eviction with ERA application. Seals eviction record if the tenant prevails. Connecticut The landlord must apply for ERA and give a 30-day notice before filing. The Eviction Legal Defense Fund provides attorneys to low-income tenants. Delaware If an ERA application is submitted during the eviction process, the tenant is given conditional approval for ERA funds. D.C.Stays evictions for 60 days after ERA application. Hawaii Extended eviction period to 15 days, created more avenues for landlord-tenant mediation (set to expire by the end of 2022, may be extended). Illinois Requires eviction notices to give information to the tenant on court-based rental assistance. Indiana Established Pre-Eviction Diversion Program: if both parties agree, stays eviction for 90 days and seals eviction records. Kentucky Landlords accepting ERA money cannot evict for past due rent not covered by ERA and must give 30 days’ notice before eviction (45 days after assistance concludes.) Louisiana ERA-participating landlords cannot evict until 60 days after assistance ends (only applies to COVID-related eviction filings.) Maine Must provide “plain language” notice with information on the eviction process, requesting mediation, and access to rental and legal assistance. Maryland Free legal counsel for evictions by 2025. Massachusetts Pauses eviction proceedings while ERA application in progress. Two-tier eviction process, 14 days for mediation, 14 after to start eviction proceedings. Michigan Pauses eviction proceedings if ERA application is submitted before or during pre-trial hearings; 30 days until proceedings continue. Mississippi Requires summons to provide reasons for eviction, able to pay back rent until the court date, must cease eviction proceedings if tenant applies for ERA. Nebraska Eviction notices must list statutory reasons and must make a diligent effort to inform tenants. Landlord and tenant have the opportunity to provide good cause continuance. State supreme court must report on evictions semiannually. Nevada Stay on eviction proceedings during ERA application. No late fee if rent is paid within three days of the due date. New York Increased housing voucher availability and covers 100% of fair market rent, established landlord rental assistance program to supplement NY Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Cannot evict for one year after ERA assistance. North Carolina Cannot evict until 60 days after the end of ERA assistance. Oregon 60-day grace period after ERA application. Established Landlord Compensation Fund if ERA application denied. Texas Specific language to be included in citations. Housing advocates can help defendants in court. Tenants must be informed of rental assistance program. Evictions stay 60 days if the tenant applies for ERA. Utah Can petition court to expunge eviction record . Washington Fund established for eviction prevention and housing stability (approximately $150 million per year through a $100 document recording fee on real estate transactions). West Virginia Cannot evict until 30 days after the end of ERA assistance. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Endnotes 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income, Table B25119. 2. Downen, J. An Analysis of Labor Supply and Demand in Utah (2019). Fact Sheet. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 3. More Housing Vouchers: Most Important Step to Help More People Afford Stable Homes (May 2021) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 4. HUD definition of homelessness. 5. Information on state housing trust funds come from state housing trust websites and interviews with officials. 6. State of Utah 2018-2019 Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Program Guidance & Rules (26 November 2018) Utah Department of Workforce Services Housing & Community Development. Available from https://nlihc. org/sites/default/files/files/Utah%20Olene%20Walker%20Program%20 Guidance.pdf 7. Utah Housing Corporation. 8. Recent experience of tax credit developers as referenced by Utah Housing Corporation. 9. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) combines rental assistance with support services, counseling, health care services, employment opportunities, etc. PSH generally targets households threatened by homelessness or who have been homeless. 10. The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program, created in 1986 by U.S. Congressional Act, provides an indirect financial subsidy to developers of affordable rental housing. The amount of the tax credit created by the development of a new or the rehabilitation of an existing rental project is either 4% or 9% of the eligible basis of the project. Eligible basis costs include all the “hard” construction costs and most of the “soft” costs (e.g., architectural, engineering, market studies, fees, and contractor profit). Land, interest, insurance, and property taxes are excluded from the eligible basis. Hence, the tax credits issued on a $10 million, 9% LIHTC project, with an eligible basis of $9 million, is $810,000 in tax credit annually for ten years. The tax credits awarded to a project are generally sold by the developer to an investor (Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, American Express), who becomes a partner in the project. The proceeds from the sale of the tax credits become part of the developer’s equity in the project, thus subsidizing the development of the affordable rental project. In Utah, projects receiving tax credits are required to maintain their affordability status for 50 years. Rents at tax credit projects are generally 10% to 20% below market rents, and tenants have incomes on average of about 43% AMI for 9% projects and closer to 60% AMI for 4% projects. The 35,000 tax credit units statewide account for about 11% of Utah’s 333,000 renter-occupied units. 11. Derived from UtahRealEstate.com (HC) HousingPoliciesReport Apr2023 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Chief of Staff Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Nate Lloyd, Director of Economic Research Dianne Meppen, Director of Community Research Laura Summers, Director of Industry Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Public Policy Analyst Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Max Becker, Public Policy Analyst Andrea Thomas Brandley, Senior Education Analyst Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Economist Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow and Scholar Enas Farag, Research Assistant Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Praopan Pratoomchat, Senior Research Economist Heidi Prior, Public Policy Analyst Natalie Roney, Research Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large John C. Downen, Camoin Associates Dan Griffiths, Community-at-Large Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Northbound Strategy Juliette Tennert, Community-at-Large Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Roger Boyer Michelle Camacho Wilford Clyde Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Angela Romero Senator Luz Escamilla Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Christian and Marie Gardner Family Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Wells Fargo Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: October 10, 2023 RE:Zoning Amendments: Affordable Housing Incentives PLNPCM2019-00658 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: Sept 19, 2023 Briefing 2: Oct 3, 2023 Briefing 3: Oct 10, 2023 Set Date: Oct 3, 2023 Public Hearing: Oct 17, 2023 Potential Action: TBD Visit the Council’s Website for more information on various topics relating to affordable housing, including this proposal tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals NEW INFORMATION The Council held a follow up briefing on both the Affordable Housing Incentives proposal and the Thriving in Place draft plan during the October 3 work session briefing. The Council decided to hold another work session to give more time to publicly identify any questions and follow-up items. The goal of the briefing will be for Council Members to share requests, and then allow time for Planning to respond and incorporate potential changes before returning for a follow-up briefing in the coming weeks. Council staff and the Administration will track the list, including items raised during the October 3rd briefing, and get written responses to each question/concern for a future briefing. The following information was provided for the October 3 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. NEW INFORMATION During the September 19 work session, the Council held a briefing on the Affordable Housing Incentives zoning amendment petition. Based on that discussion, several questions were raised, and Council staff is working with the Administration to get responses to those questions. Page | 2 A follow up briefing will be held on October 3 in conjunction with a briefing on the Thriving In Place (TIP) plan. The TIP plan identifies the Affordable Housing Incentives as a priority for implementation and notes funding for new staff will be needed. As part of the discussion on Affordable Housing Incentives, the Council may wish to consider discussing some of the policy questions outlined below. 1. Drafting Administrative Policies and Procedures •During the work session briefing Planning staff mentioned it would take some time to get guidelines and procedures in place to administer the program. Council staff asked for clarification because there was some confusion if that meant design guidelines for the appearance of structures needed to be created. Planning staff clarified they need to create the administrative procedures that outline the process administrative staff will follow to move an application through the process. 2. Design Guidelines •Some questions were raised about how buildings constructed according to the Affordable Housing Incentives would be compatible with neighborhoods and existing development. The draft ordinance notes that base zoning standards apply unless they are specifically modified by this section. However, if there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation applies and takes precedence. According to the draft ordinance, the “development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the Affordable Housing Incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development.” (21A.52.H – Development regulations) There are design standards that apply to rowhouses, sideways rowhouses, cottages as well as for the new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. 21A.52.H, 1-3 – Development regulations. 3. Staffing Adjustments •Administrative staff said they will be able to initially absorb the anticipated workload that creating and administering this program will require. However, they anticipate they will likely come to the Council in future budgets to request additional staff once the program is up and running. 4. Potential Program Participation Fee •At this time Administration has not proposed to include a fee for the program that will help cover the costs of administering it. However, they noted it is likely a fee can be justified. o Does the Council wish to put in a place holder in the ordinance that anticipates the Administration will return to the Council with a request to put a fee in the City Code? 5. Good Landlord Requirements Page | 3 •Council staff is working with Attorney’s and Planning staff to find out if requirements outlined in the good landlord program can be included as a requirement as part of participation in the Affordable Housing Incentives program. 6. Impact Fee Waiver •Council staff is working with the Attorney’s Office to find out if impact fees can be waived for affordable units that are constructed are part of this program. 7. Licensing Requirements for Apartments with Three or Fewer Units •Staff is working with Attorney’s and Planning staff to confirm if apartment complexes with three or fewer units are required to have a business license and be part of the good landlord program 8. Enforcing fines and compliance with code •Questions have been raised about how the City enforces fines that are levied to bring properties into compliance with City Code. Some questions have been raised about the effectiveness of fines and when the City decides to settle with property owners at levels much lower than their accrued amount. •Council staff is working with the Attorney’s Office to get a response to this question. At the time this staff report was drafted, a response was not yet ready. Staff will update the Council once a response is ready. 9. Administering and Enforcement Administering and enforcement of the program was discussed. Planning staff outlined the key provisions related to the enforcement plan: 21A.52.D, E and F •Reporting and Auditing o Property owners must submit an annual report to the Director of CAN by April 30 of each year, demonstrating compliance with the ordinance o That report includes: 1. Property location, tax ID and legal description 2. Property owner name, mailing and email addresses, 3. Information on the dwelling units and tenants receiving incentives includes: a. total number of dwelling units b. number of bedrooms for each unit c. rental rate of each unit d. identify dwelling units that comply with level of affordability identified in the approval process and statement that units are in compliance e. identify change in occupancy to the units, include number of people residing in each unit and change in tenant (Personal data is not required) f. confirm verification for all tenants was performed on annual basis g. identify differences in rent between agreed upon rental rate and actual rent received h. identify instances where an affordable unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, length of time it was not in compliance and remedy taken to address noncompliance o The CAN director has 30 days to provide written notice to property owners whether they are in compliance or not. Page | 4 o In situations of noncompliance, a property owner has 30 days to come into compliance. If they are unable to do so, they will start paying the fine. •Enforcement o Violations of the restrictive covenant will be investigated and prosecuted 1. A lien may be placed on the property 2. A business license may be revoked •Eligibility o Property owner must enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant which must be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder o Notice of sale shall be provided to the City and the City shall have right of first refusal to any sale of the property. o Affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted o Affordable units must be comparable to market rate units within the development 10. Delayed Adoption for Portions of the Affordable Housing Incentives Amendment Some have asked about the possibility of dividing the Affordable Housing Incentives into separate pieces for adoption. The first piece would be to adopt the RMF/mixed use/institutional zoning initiatives. Then the second would be to adopt changes to the single-family zoning districts. 11. Institutional Zone Amendments There were some questions about what incentives apply to the Institutional zoning district. According to the draft ordinance, housing would be allowed on institutional zoned land. These would include row houses, sideways row houses, cottage developments Additionally, the Institutional zoning district will follow the affordability requirements as outlined in table 21 A.52.050.G (see page 7 below) Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. The following information was provided for the September 19 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. Page | 5 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of the City zoning ordinance by establishing Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI). The proposed amendments would allow the following if requirements for affordable units are met in order to streamline and encourage more units to be built in the City at an affordable rate. See more details on each of these changes starting at the end of page 2, and chart on page 3 to see the level/quantity of affordability required for each: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning districts. • On properties currently zoned for single- or two-family homes: o Allow townhomes and housing structures that contain up to 4-unit buildings, o a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; o cottage developments; o Allow twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The proposal was initially envisioned as an overlay. However, since the incentives are different for various zoning districts, the proposal was changed to a specific section of the zoning ordinance, 21A.52 Zoning Incentives. The Affordable Housing Incentives is proposed to be the first section of this new chapter of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission held public hearings and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Additionally, the Planning Commission added a condition that if adopted by the City Council, the incentives plan should be analyzed 24 months after approval, to include a report of the cost and benefits of the changes. Staff note on public notice/engagement: Because of the City-wide breadth and potential impact of this topic, along with the context of the City-wide anti-gentrification study, the Council authorized the mailing of a postcard City-wide, to all residents and property owners, with direction to go to the Council’s main website on the affordable housing topic, that includes information on these issues and others, at tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals POLICY QUESTIONS •Reporting and Enforcement Related Questions o Reporting Requirements – annual reporting and auditing will be a key component of the plan to ensure property owners and builders who use the incentives keep the units at affordable levels. ▪Will the proposed fine structure be enough to ensure compliance by property owners? ▪The Council could consider requiring a biannual report on the affordability compliance of the program. o Option for the City to contract with another entity to administer the program ▪Would the third party be responsible for enforcement? Page | 6 ▪What type of entity might be interested in administering the program? o Will properties that are part of the program be required to get a business license and participate in the Good Landlord Program? o Is there a plan in place to link up the affordable housing with income-restricted individuals, or would the City service as a central resource to connect individuals with housing? •Staffing/Guidelines Questions o The Planning Commission staff report noted additional staff will be needed to administer the program. The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how they will propose funding this additional staffing, how many FTEs would be needed, and the anticipated timeline to onboard and train those FTEs? o Because this ordinance would go into effect prior to the next budget amendment, is existing staff sufficient to accept any applications that may come in prior to the next budget and ensure compliance with design and affordability objectives? o Is there a possibility this ordinance will go into effect before design guidelines are developed/approved? Would funding be needed to develop those design guidelines? Will the development of the design guidelines be an administrative process, or will they be approved by the Planning Commission? o Does the Administration plan to promote this program to the general public to notify them of the program and potential benefits? o How long might it take for the City to get the necessary affordability and design review structures in place? •Thriving in Place Plan Objectives and Community feedback o The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether there are alternative ways to achieve the goals of this proposal (see page 5). o Given the significant community feedback received to date, the Council may wish to discuss concerns that have been noted by some neighborhoods about the potential for these incentives to result in the demolition of existing housing stock, including existing naturally occurring affordable housing. o The purpose statement of the affordable housing incentives notes design is key to the success of the proposal: Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. Does the Council wish to ask the administration to discuss how design guidelines will be able to help implement this vision? o Based on concerns expressed by some residents, the Council may wish to discuss the benefit of additional housing units with the potential for additional traffic in areas where transit is not readily available. o Based on recent discussion about the lack of family-sized housing with much of the new construction in the city, the Council may wish to discuss if this incentive program has ways to provide more family- sized affordable housing. SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report outline key changes of the proposed amendment. The list below, from Attachment B Summary of Incentives, is a high-level summary of the key changes, based on the type of zoning district. •Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts o Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts that currently permit multifamily housing. Page | 7 •Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts o Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, o No additional height permitted. o Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller. o Add development and design standards for rowhouses, sideways rowhouses, cottages, and other building forms. •Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts o Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning districts, provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable. o Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3–4-unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. o Twin and two-family homes would be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. o Add development and design standards for these dwellings. •Other Incentives o Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals o Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. o Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized commercial land. These districts currently permit multifamily housing, but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units, or cottages. •Affordability requirements - Planning staff worked with developers to come up with a model that would provide sufficient return on development to incentivize the development of affordable units in various projects. Table 21A.52.050.G of the ordinance outlines the recommendation based on that analysis. Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report includes a summary of the proforma and scenario analyses. See the table on the next page. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Type Types Incentives Type A. Applicable to the single- and two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: Page | 8 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 7. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 8. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 9. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 10. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 11. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 12. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 13. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Pages 2-3 of the transmittal summarize outreach efforts Planning conducted to get feedback from the community on the proposed change. Outreach efforts included: online surveys, developer discussion, recognized community organization outreach, and open houses, both in person and online. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission both reviewed the proposed changes. The Planning Commission held public hearings in May 2022 and March 2023. Additionally, in the fall and winter of 2022/2023 the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members of the community, including neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. Page | 9 Based on the focus group’s recommendations, changes were made to the final draft. Their recommended changes to the proposal are detailed in the Planning staff’s report and highlighted on pages 7-9 of Attachment A – Updated Affordable Housing Incentives March 2023 to this memo. As noted above, the Council also authorized a City-wide postcard to notify residents and property owners about this proposal as well as the City-wide anti-gentrification plan. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL The Affordable Housing Incentives amendments are intended to encourage the development, construction, and preservation of housing in the city through a variety of methods, including allowing for additional height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and providing planning process waivers or modifications. Purpose The purpose statement of the Affordable Housing Incentives section reads as follows: To encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. There are two primary goals of the Affordable Housing Incentives: 1. Help public and private dollars that go into building affordable housing create more housing units. 2. Create additional opportunities for property owners to provide new, affordable housing units. (April 26, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 2) Affordable Housing Definition The draft ordinance provides the following definition for affordable housing: Shall be both income and, as applicable, rent restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) at least one of the following categories: a.Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b.Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c.Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI Preservation of Existing Housing The Affordable Housing Incentives adds provisions to encourage preservation of existing housing. This includes allowing a second, detached dwelling on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained. Key Concepts Discussed with the Planning Commission Page | 10 Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outline the key considerations of the draft amendments discussed with the Planning Commission. A short summary is provided below. See pages 7-14 for full analysis. 1.Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans a. Planning staff found the proposed amendments are consistent with principles and polices of Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC 2.Affordability level and percentage of units a. See chart on page 3 above. 3.Neighborhood Impacts The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on comments from the Planning Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations: •The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. •Emphasis on the preservation of existing housing •Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts 4.Administration and Enforcement a. Administrative staff anticipates additional staff will be needed to administer the program based on the number of projects that use the affordable housing incentive program. b. Language is included in the draft ordinance that would enable the City to contract with a third party for administration on the incentives. c. Language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement are included in the ordinance. The properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report, and a restrictive covenant would be placed on the property. 5.Infrastructure impacts a. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new housing units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is handled during the building permit process. b. Planning staff also worked with Public Utilities to determine the impact this proposal may have on water supply and demand in the city. Public Utilities provided scenarios for different types of potential development that would result from the proposed changes. i. Average usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000 gallons per month. 1. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month. ii. A sampling of high-rise and wood frame construction with a total of about 725 units averaged water usage of approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit. iii. Two fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units) averaged approximately 3,000 gallons per month, per unit. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 08/08/2023________________________ Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:33 MDT) Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _0_8_/0_8_/_2_0_2 3_________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Incentives STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP Senior Planner sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. However, implementation of the amendments may require additional staff and resources. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Former Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated the text amendment in 2019. The Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the following if requirements for affordable units are met: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts. • Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement Growing SLC. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI that serves as the basis for the current proposal. Staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey on the draft framework. Based on this feedback, developed draft the initial AHI text amendments. Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022. Following the hearing, staff worked with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor to address and revise the draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate changes from the now adopted RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text amendments. Staff presented a revised draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March 22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April 6, 2023. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission added a condition that the incentives be analyzed 24 months after approval with a full report of the costs and benefits of the implementation to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated: Online Surveys and Comment Form: • December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded. • July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded. • February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback through a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded. • March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of approximately 175 since February 2022. Developer Discussions: Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there should be parking reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development difficult in the RMF districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was a preference for form-based zoning districts. Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units. Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings: • June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting (Zoom). o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). • March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the neighborhood. o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program. o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and have general parking and safety concerns. o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and increased park usage would be addressed. o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character. o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted properties. o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting (Zoom). Open Houses and Virtual Events: • July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments. • February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71 reactions, shares, and comments. • April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. There were no attendees. • April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people attended. • April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended. • April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. No one attended. • April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended. • April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person attended. The Glendale and Sugar House Community Councils submitted letters. Community Notification: The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential addresses in the city and owners that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing initiatives in the city and highlighted this proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent. Focus Group: The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members. It was comprised of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in the planning staff’s report. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access Report) d) PC Agenda of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access) f) Planning Commission Memo of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access Memo) g) PC Agenda of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access) h) PC Minutes of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access) i) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) j) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) k) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) Attachment E EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance: Final and Legislative Versions 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Petition Initiation Request 5) Additional Department Comments 6) Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section 21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1 A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 2 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. 1. 2. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein): 2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The minimum 3 building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table 21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are limited to the maximum height of 75 ft. F Front and corner Greenway side yard setback Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Boulevard Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10% of any street facing facade shall be built to the maximum setback line. S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. 4 W Minimum lot width 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 5 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R- RO 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU 35 P 45 PAffordable Housing P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Incentives Development 6 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 7 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN P CB P CS1 P CC P CSHBD1 CG P SNB PAffordable Housing P Incentives Development 8 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 9 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District TSA-UN TSA-MUEC Core Transition Core Transition TSA-UC Transition TSA-SP Core TransitionCore Affordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P 10 SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 P D-2 P D-3 P D-4 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use G-MU Affordable Housing Incentives Development P SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 11 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU Affordable Housing P Incentives Development 12 SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 FB-UN3 P FB-SC FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 P FB-SC P FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows: 21A.52.010 PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS: 13 Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS: Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. A. B. C. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. B.Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. C. D. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: 14 (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or (1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall 15 be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. 6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 16 1.Restrictive Covenant Required: a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a.Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). b.Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable 17 unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. 4. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 18 Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; 19 b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b. (1) Residential districts: Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning District RMU-35 RMU-45 RB 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU RO May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. (2)Commercial Districts: Zoning District SNB Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB CN CC CG May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 CSHBD2 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 20 TSA- Transition May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. (3)Form-based districts: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. (4)Downtown districts: Zoning District D-1 Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 D-3 Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 21 D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. (5)Other districts: Zoning District GMU Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; b. c. d. Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage 22 or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. b. c. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. Density: (1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage requirements. (2) (3) (4) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. Arrangement of dwellings: (A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B)When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. b. 23 c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a.Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 24 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House 25 b.Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 26 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) (7) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. (8)Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1)Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2)Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the (3) (4) 27 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (5)Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; (2) (3) (4) Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 28 1. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Incentives Development Dwelling, Three-family Dwelling, Four-family Dwelling, Row House Dwelling, Sideways Row House Dwelling, Cottage Development SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI. 29 b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050. c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each 30 unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 31 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office (SEAL) July 7, 2023 Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By: ________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives 32 EXHIBIT A Service Fee Additional Information Section Affordable Housing Incentives Fines Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference unit/day 21A.20.040.B 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives. 9 10 11 12 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various 14 sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 incentives; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 24 25 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section 21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That 52 53 Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 2 64 65 66 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That 78 79 Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That 89 Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU 90 Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 1. 2. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3 101 102 103 3.One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: 104 105 FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 106 107 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein): 108 109 110 4 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The following exceptions apply: a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table 124 125 21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 126 127 TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a minimum of 10% of the units areꢀ affordable housing. ꢀ Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are limited to the maximum height of 75 ft. F Front and corner Greenway side yard setback Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Boulevard Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10% of any street facing facade shall be built to the maximum setback line. S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no 5 minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size W Minimum lot width 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. 128 129 130 131 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 132 133 134 135 136 6 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R-RO P 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU 35 P 45 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 137 7 138 139 140 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 141 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 142 143 Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 8 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN P CB P CS1 CC P CSHBD1 CG P SNB PAffordable Housing P P Incentives Development 145 9 146 147 148 149 150 151 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 152 10 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District TSA-UN TSA-MUEC Core Transition Core Transition TSA-UC Transition TSA-SP Core TransitionCore Affordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P 153 11 154 155 156 157 158 159 SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 P D-2 P D-3 P D-4 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 160 161 SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 162 163 164 165 Use G-MU Affordable Housing Incentives Development P 166 167 168 169 170 171 SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 12 172 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU Affordable Housing P Incentives Development 173 13 174 175 176 177 178 SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 179 180 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 FB-UN3 P FB-SC FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P 181 182 183 184 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 P FB-SC P FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 185 186 187 188 SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows: 189 21A.52.010 PURPOSE: 190 191 The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 192 193 21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 194 195 21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS: 14 196 197 Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 198 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS: 199 200 Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. 201 202 203 204 205 A. B. C. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 206 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. B. C. D. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: 15 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or (1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall 16 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. 6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. 328 329 F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 17 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 1.Restrictive Covenant Required: a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a. b. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable 18 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. 4. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. 387 388 389 390 391 392 G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. 393 Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 19 Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 401 402 403 404 405 406 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 407 408 409 410 411 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; 20 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b. (1) Residential districts: Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning District RMU-35 RMU-45 RB 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU RO May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 423 424 425 (2)Commercial Districts: Zoning District SNB Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB CN CC CG May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 CSHBD2 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 21 TSA- Transition TSA-Core May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. 426 427 428 429 430 (3)Form-based districts: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 431 432 433 434 435 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 436 437 438 439 (4)Downtown districts: Zoning District D-1 Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 D-3 Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 22 D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. 440 441 442 (5)Other districts: Zoning District GMU Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. b. c. d. H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage 23 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. b. c.Density: (1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage requirements. (2) (3) (4) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. Arrangement of dwellings: (A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B)When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. b. 24 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a.Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 25 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House 598 599 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House 26 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 b.Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 27 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) (7) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (8) c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1)Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the (2) (3) (4) 28 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (5) d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (2) (3) (4) (5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 711 712 29 713 714 715 716 717 1.At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 718 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 719 720 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Incentives Development Dwelling, Three-family Dwelling, Four-family Dwelling, Row House Dwelling, Sideways Row House Dwelling, Cottage Development 729 730 731 732 733 734 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or 30 747 748 749 750 c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI. b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050. c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 758 759 760 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. 761 762 763 764 d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. 765 766 767 e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 768 769 770 771 DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 772 773 774 f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 31 775 776 777 778 DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 779 780 781 g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 782 783 784 785 DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. 786 787 SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 788 789 790 791 792 SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 801 802 803 804 32 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office (SEAL) Date:___________________________ Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney822823Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives 33 824 EXHIBIT A 825 826 Service Fee Additional Information Section Affordable Housing Incentives Fines Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference unit/day 21A.20.040.B 827 34 2. CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-00658 July 15, 2019 Petition initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski Petition assigned to Sara JavoronokJuly 15, 2019 December 3, 2019 First survey posted. Notice emailed to listserv and posted on social media accounts. June 25, 2020 June 26, 2020 Notice mailed to all Community Councils. StoryMap with framework for proposal and survey posted. Notice emailed to listservs and posted on city social media accounts. July 9, 2020 Planning staff held an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook Live. July 20, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting. August 6, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting. January 28, 2022 February 16, 2022 March 3, 2022 Project website updated and Project Update notice emailed to listservs. Planning staff held a second AMA/Q&A on Facebook Live. Second notice mailed to all Community Councils. Planning staff met with seven Community Councils in March and April 2022. March 16, 2022 March 21, 2022 April 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting. Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting. Flyer mailed to 99,832 commercial and residential addresses in Salt Lake City and owners outside of the city. April 5, 2022 April 5, 2022 Open House held at Sugar House Fire Station #3. Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. April 7, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting. April 12, 2022 April 13, 2022 Open House held at the Unity Center Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting. April 14, 2022 April 14, 2022 Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting. April 19, 2022 April 21, 2022 April 29, 2022 Open House held at Riverside Park Open House held at Lindsey Gardens Park Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to listserv. May 4, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting May 6, 2022 Staff report posted to Planning’s website May 11, 2022 October 25, 2022 March 16, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. The item was tabled. First of four Focus Group Meetings Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting. March 22, 2023 March 29, 2023 April 6, 2023 Planning Commission Briefing Planning Commission Work Session Historic Landmark Commission Work Session April 14, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to the listserv. April 21, 2023 April 26, 2023 Staff report posted to Planning’s website Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00658 – A petition initiated by former Mayor Jackie Biskupski to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to add a new chapter with Affordable Housing Incentives. The proposed amendments are to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives include administrative Design Review and additional building height in various zoning districts, Planned Development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection information. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Sara Javoronok at 801-535-7625 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2019-00658 or on the project page at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2023/03/08/affordable-housing/. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 4. PETITION INITIATION REQUEST 5. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Kristeen Beitel, Public Utilities When weighing increased densification as an incentive for affordable housing, it is important for applicants to consider the potential increase in construction costs resulting from required offsite utility improvements. Densification may place greater demands on water, sewer, and storm drain systems, which could exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Property owners and developers may be required to upgrade the offsite public utilities to ensure sufficient capacity for the new developments. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POSTED From:Clark, Aubrey To:Turner Bitton; Planning Public Comments Subject: Date: RE: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:58:07 PM Attachments:image001.png Turner, Thank you for submitting your comments. I have forwarded it to the Planning Commission, and it will be shared during the public hearing. Thanks, Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers) Administrative Assistant PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701 Email: Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Turner Bitton Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:52 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, I had planned to attend tonight’s planning commission digitally but learned that there is no longer a digital attendance option and I’m at Disneyland so I can’t make it. I wanted to make sure that our support for the Affordable Housing Incentives was formally submitted. In addition to our formal support, I would like to submit this statement for the record: “SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors supports the Affordable Housing Incentives, however based on estimates in the current proposal, we are concerned that projects in single-family neighborhoods will not be financially viability. If the city is serious about promoting the construction of more housing in high- opportunity single-family neighborhoods, some of the current conditions that make those projects financially unfeasible should be removed. The Scenarios in Attachment G show that there is virtually no economic incentive for market rate developers to pursue the AHI’s. However, it has the potential to add more affordable units on SELECT projects that are already pursuing LIHTC’s Especially in multi-family districts, density bonuses need to take into account building code requirements, for example that the maximum number of stories that can be built with a wood-frame structure is five. If the density bonus provided forces builders to use a steel-frame construction technique, the economic benefits of an extra floor of apartments does not overcome the extra cost of using expensive construction materials. In addition, to make the incentives more functional, the incentives should be changed to: 1) Allow lots to be split and to allow for the sale of separate units. 2) Eliminate ALL parking requirements for projects that meet the threshold for the incentives. This would make many projects more affordable, especially in higher density zones. 3) In multi-family districts near rail transit, the incentives in terms of FAR (floor area ratio) and height limits should be much stronger to (a) make more projects financially viable and (b) locate more residents and businesses near rail. Overall, the incentives should be increased to find a broader mix of incentives that produce positive results for market rate developers considering adding affordable units to projects.” Thanks, Turner C. Bitton (he/him) Executive Director SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors www.slcneighbors.org ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Certification of Downtown Plan STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2022 the Utah Legislature adopted a bill that requires cities with a fixed rail transit station to adopt station area plans for each fixed rail transit station that is located within the city and for any fixed rail transit station that is within ½ mile of the city boundary when the station is not located in the city. The bill resulted in Utah Code Section 10- 9a-403.1. The bill recognized that some cities may have already taken action to achieve the same objectives outlined in the bill and provided a process for cities to certify existing plans. The bill requires the city’s legislative body to adopt a resolution acknowledging the objectives in 10-9a-403.1 that the existing plan(s) address the objectives. There are 34 Trax or Frontrunner stations that Salt Lake City is responsible for certifying station area plans. Twenty-eight of these stations are within the city, while six stations are outside the city but there is land that is within ½ mile radius of the station that is in Salt Lake City. To date, the Ballpark Station Area Plan has been certified. This transmittal includes a resolution to certify the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for the 13 stations that are located within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Lisa Shaffer (Sep 20, 2023 09:58 MDT) 09/20/2023 09/20/2023 The station area plan area defined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 includes all the area within a ½ mile radius of the station. Due to the location of the stations and the geography of the Downtown Plan, the ½ mile radius around each station in the Downtown Plan extends beyond the boundaries of the plan. As a result, this resolution includes information about the surrounding community plans that support the objectives of the station area plan outlined in the Utah Code. The attached document includes an analysis of how each of the surrounding plans aligns with the objectives. This information was included to ensure that the full ½ mile radius was addressed in the certification process. PUBLIC PROCESS: None. The purpose of this resolution is to certify plans that have already been adopted by the city and does not include the creation of any new policies. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution Certifying the Downtown Plan Exhibit A RESOLUTION _____ OF 2023 CERTIFYING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN’S COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATION AREA PLANS FOR EACH TRANSIT STATION WHEREAS, Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 requires cities to adopt station area plans for each transit station that is located within the city or within ½ mile radius of the city; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 10.9a.403.1(2)(b)(1) provides a process for cities to certify that plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022 comply with the requirements of Section 10-9a- 403.1; and WHEREAS, the 900 South, 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, City Center, Temple Square, Arena, Planetarium, Old Greek Town, Salt Lake Central Trax, Salt Lake Central Frontrunner, North Temple Trax, and North Temple Frontrunner stations are located within or on the boundary of the area covered by the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan was recommended, after multiple public hearings, for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on August 26, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Plan on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(2) allows a municipal legislative body to adopt a resolution that certifies that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a) have been promoted for plans the city adopted prior to June 1, 2022 instead of requiring the city to adopt new station area plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection10-9a- 403.1(7)(a) have been and are promoted by the Downtown Plan for all of the transit stations identified in this resolution and that the city has taken appropriate actions that demonstrate that the Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan as indicated in Attachment A are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives in said section of Utah Code. WHEREAS, the requirement for a station area plan under Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1 requires a station area plan to include all of the land within ½ mile radius of the transit station; and WHEREAS, the city has evaluated the station area plans adjacent to the Downtown Plan where the ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, that all of the adjacent plans were adopted prior to June 1, 2022, or are other station area plans that have already been certified by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, and has found that these plans and subsequent actions to implement these plans promote the objectives of Utah Code Subsection 10- 9a-403.1(7)(a). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that the City Council hereby certifies that the Downtown Plan and surrounding station area plans have substantially promoted and continue to substantially promote the objectives set forth in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of _____________, 2023. ______________________________________ DARIN MANO, CHAIR ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 18, 2023 Attachment A 1 SEPTEMBER 18 Salt Lake City Planning Division Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com Downtown Station Area Plan Certification Salt Lake City Corporation Dept. of Community and Neighborhoods 2 Introduction Salt Lake City is seeking certification of the Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans to satisfy the Station Area Plan requirements outlined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(i) for plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022. This proposal would essentially use these plans to satisfy the station area plan requirement for 13 different stations: • 900 South • 600 South • Courthouse • Gallivan Plaza • City Center • Temple Square • Arena • Planetarium • Old Greek Town • Salt Lake Central o Trax o Frontrunner • North Temple o Trax o Frontrunner The City respectfully asks to accept this document as the required submission for certifying the plans for these stations. To address the entire ½ mile radius that a station area plan is required under state code to consider, the city must provide information from seven different community plans. The community plans collectively establish the City’s land use element of our general plan. Submitting the required information using the provided submission sheet is cumbersome and challenging due to the number of plans that are included. 3 Background The Downtown Plan was adopted prior to Utah Code 10-9a-403.1. There are 13 transit stations within the Downtown Plan area. A ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundary of the Downtown Plan. Seven additional plans have been adopted by the city, including policies supporting the objectives in 10-9a-403.1. This document provides land use policies from those other adopted plans to satisfy the intent and purpose of the station area plan requirements in the Utah Code. For certification, Salt Lake City views the downtown area as one large station area that includes each of the stations. The Downtown Plan and Surrounding Plans map provides a visual reference for context. The map shows the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map in shades of red and includes five future land use designations: • High-Rise Core • Mid-Rise Transit Oriented • Mid-Rise Corridor • Mid-Rise Streetcar • Low-Rise Transit Oriented Each of these designations allows mixed-use development. Residential density is regulated by building height and setbacks and not by lot area. The primary difference between the designations is building height. On the low end, the Low-Rise Transit Oriented designation allows buildings up to 50 feet in height. This is primarily oriented around the 900 South Station. This area has form-based zoning in place that is capable of producing densities of up to 45 dwelling units per acre. Buildings are currently under construction in the High-Rise Core, which will have densities that exceed 500 dwelling units per acre. The map shows the adjacent plans in shades of blue. The surrounding plans are shown because the ½ mile radius requirement in Utah Code 10-91-403.1 for a station area plan extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Salt Lake City seeks to certify the entire ½ mile radius area by providing descriptions from the surrounding plans that support the objectives for station area plans identified in Utah Code. This is done rather than seeking an exception of impracticability because these areas do support the objectives and have been planned and zoned to accomplish this. Three of the areas that are outside the downtown plan boundaries but within the ½ mile radius have existing station area plans that will be certified through a separate process. The plans, referred to as periphery plans in this document, include: • The Ballpark Station Area Plan (certified in 2023) to the south of 900 South. • Westside Plan, to the west. • The North Temple Boulevard Plan to the west and north. • Capitol Hill to the north. 4 • Avenues Community Plan to the north and northeast. • Central Community Plan to the east. The Station Area Map above shows the downtown future land use designations in shades of red and the surrounding community plans in shades of blue. 5 The below chart shows which plans apply to each station: Station Down- town Avenues Ballpark SAP Capitol Hill Central Community North Temple Boulevard Westside 900 South    600 South   Courthouse   Gallivan   City Center     Temple Square    Arena    Planetarium    Old Greek Town    SL Central (Trax)    SL Central (Frontrunner)    North Temple (Trax)    North Temple (Frontrunner)    There is not a single station in Downtown that falls completely within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. This document provides information to certify existing, adopted plans that cover 13 of the transit stations within the city. Each of the plans listed in the table is referenced at the end of this document. The reference includes a list of policies related to each of the station area plan objectives listed in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The future land use map for each plan is also provided. 6 Certifying Existing Plans Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b) outlines the requirements to certify plans that were adopted prior to June 1, 2022. The Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans were adopted prior to 2022 except for the Ballpark Station Area Plan, which was certified in 2023. To certify an existing plan, the city must demonstrate that the plan substantially promotes the objectives of Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The objectives listed in this section include: 1) Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing; 2) Promoting sustainable environmental conditions; 3) Enhancing access to opportunities; and 4) Increasing transportation choices and connections. Each of these objectives is discussed below, with specific references to the location in the Downtown Plan where the objective is discussed, and has associated policies, or action items. The plans on the periphery of each station will also be cited under each objective. In addition to demonstrating that the objectives are promoted, the city shall also demonstrate that the plans, ordinances, approved land use applications, approved agreements or financing, or investments are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives. It should be noted that Downtown Salt Lake City has been the epicenter in the state of Utah for housing, commerce, transportation, and sustainable building practices since it was founded and continues to be a leader in implementing these objectives. This has occurred over generations, dating to the Plat of Zion, the 1919 City Plan, the Second Century Plan, the 1995 Downtown Plan, and the current Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016. It is Salt Lake City’s position that Downtown Salt Lake City is the most significant example of urban planning in Utah and the Intermountain West and has a long track record of plan implementation. No other station area plan (or a plan by any other name) can demonstrate the objectives to the scale, extent, and long-term commitment in the same manner as Downtown Salt Lake City and we appreciate the plans being certified expeditiously. 7 Promotion of Objectives This section describes how the Downtown Plan and periphery plans support and promote the objectives identified in Utah Code 10-9a.403.1(7)(a). Each of the objectives focuses on the Downtown Plan and then follows with a short explanation of the associated policies found in the periphery plans. The policies in the Downtown apply to all 13 stations seeking certification. Policies that relate to a specific station will be identified under each objective. Information about policies found in the periphery plans will identify which stations the policies apply to. Objective 1: Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(i) The Downtown Plan has a specific goal of 10,000 housing units downtown by 2040. This includes increasing the number of all housing types and sizes, with specific mention of dwellings with three or more bedrooms. As used in the plan “housing choice” incorporates housing at all levels of affordability and includes initiatives to incentivize housing needs. The plan includes initiatives related to providing supportive housing for the homeless population as well. Pages 39-41 of the plan are specific housing-related policies. The policies are also anchored into each district within Downtown. To implement this policy, the city has taken the following actions: • Established financing tools to help lower the cost of housing at various levels below the current market rate. The tools are funded through various financing tools available to the city, including tax increment financing through the city’s redevelopment agency, the “Funding our Future” program that allocates a % of property tax to affordable housing, and utilizing state and federal tax dollars allocated to the city and to affordable housing developers. • Adopted zoning amendments that: o Increase building heights to promote more housing in all the downtown zoning districts; o Removed minimum parking requirements in all the downtown zoning districts; o Allowed a variety of housing types throughout the downtown. • Zoning amendment policies that are in process: o Affordable Housing Incentives: increases development potential and reduces approval processes for proposals that include a certain level of affordable housing. It is anticipated that these actions will help achieve the goal of 10,000 housing units Downtown by 2040. As of the end of 2022, there are 9,076 housing units in the area covered by the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan aligned with favorable market conditions to nearly complete a 25-year goal in 6 years. It is highly likely that the goal of 10,000 housing units has been exceeded at this point. 8 The following is a discussion of the periphery plans that address land use policies for areas that are within ½ mile of each station but fall outside the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. 900 South Station: • Ballpark Station Area Plan: BSAP was certified in 2023 and covers the area that is within ½ mile radius of the 900 South Station. That plan includes land use policies to support increased housing supply and affordable housing in the area. Zoning amendments to implement the plan are underway and expected to be adopted in 2024. • Central Community: Approximately 2 acres of the land on the east side of State Street is located within ½ mile radius of the station but outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The Central Community Plan identifies this land as “Medium Density Mixed Use” with a recommended residential density up to 50 acres. This policy aligns with the goal to increase residential densities within the station area. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan Station • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and 100 South is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding housing options within ½ mile of the identified stations. City Center: • Central Community Plan: the same land use designations that apply to the 600 South, Courthouse, and Gallivan Station apply to this station. • Avenues: A small portion of the Avenues neighborhood is located within ½ mile of this station. The Avenues Plan designates the area as “High Density” and defines that as 20 dwellings per acre or more. This area is also a local historic district with very little opportunity for redevelopment. One surface parking lot has been approved for redevelopment with more than 50 dwelling units per acre. This area of the Avenues has an existing density that ranges from 18-70 dwelling units per acre, which promotes this objective. • Capitol Hill: Most of the land within 1/2 mile of the City Center station that is located on Capitol Hill is institutional or open space. North of the institutional land is a historic district with a high concentration of historic buildings. This area is dense, with densities ranging between 18 dwellings per acre on some blocks up to smaller areas with densities over 50 dwellings per acre. Temple Square and Arena Stations: • Capitol Hill: about 30% of the land within ½ mile of the station is in the Capitol Hill Plan. Most of the land north of South Temple is Institutional and owned by the LDS Church and contains ecclesiastical land uses. The future land use designations 9 on the land north of North Temple are Density or High-Density Mixed Use, both of which recommend residential densities that exceed 50 dwelling units per acre. • North Temple Boulevard Plan: this plan was adopted as a series of station area plans prior to the opening of the light rail line to the airport. The area of the plan that is within ½ mile of the Temple Square station calls for dense development. A lot of the land is owned by the Salt Lake City School District or by the LDS church. However, land that is developable for other uses has a recommended density of over 50 dwelling units per acre and nearly 1,700 housing units have been built. Some of these housing units are in the Arena and North Temple station areas as well. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. Planetarium • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Planetarium Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. Old Greek Town • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Old Greek Town Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Salt Lake Central (this includes a Trax station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Planetarium Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. • Westside Plan: The Westside Plan is located west of I-215 and north of I-80. Although relatively close to these stations, it is separated from each station by I-15 and the freight rail corridor that runs along 600 West. The only connections to the stations are on 400 South over the bridge to 500 West and then back towards the station. Even though the area is within a ½ mile radius of the station, it is nearly a one mile walk to get to the station. However, the area that is within ½ mile is identified as a neighborhood node in the Westside plan, which recommends densities of at least 20 dwelling units per acre with a mix of uses. The zoning to support these policies has been adopted. North Temple (this includes a Trax Station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: About half of the land within ½ mile of this station is in the North Temple Boulevard plan. This includes all the land north of North Temple. The plan supports intense development near this station, with densities above 50 dwelling units per acre and taller buildings. This transitions down towards the edge of the ½ mile radius. The blocks within ½ mile of the station contain Some of the areas north of North Temple and west of I-15 within ½ mile of 10 the Old Greek Town Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. There are nearly 2,000 dwellings that have been constructed since this plan was adopted, with hundreds more under construction or entitled. This plan clearly supports this objective. Objective 2: Promoting sustainable environmental conditions. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(ii) The Downtown Plan supports this objective by supporting housing, jobs, daily needs, culture, and entertainment near transit and bike paths to reduce the need to drive. There are multiple policies that relate to this, including an entire section on livability and urban design to facilitate a sustainable living environment downtown (pages 16-21). The Downtown Plan also includes specific sections that are related to this objective. Goal 2 on page 40 lists six different initiatives that promote sustainable living. Uniting City and Nature, found on pages 71-77, includes sustainability-related goals and action items. The development of the Green Loop, a linear park that surrounds downtown, is identified as a catalytic project to increase green space, reduce the heat island effect, and help manage stormwater in the downtown area (pages 86-87). The city has also adopted citywide policies promoting sustainable environmental conditions that apply to all the community and station area plans. The City’s vision plan, Plan Salt Lake, addresses sustainable issues with guiding principles related to water quality and conservation, air quality, sensitive land preservation, and smart growth. These principles include: • Placemaking; • Diverse mix of uses within neighborhoods; • Connectivity and circulation; • Density; • Compatibility; • Maximizing public investments; • Responsive and resilient infrastructure; and • Green Building. Since the adoption of Plan Salt Lake, the city has updated zoning to align with these principles including: • Capping the amount of water any single land use can use per day to conserve water; • Updating landscaping requirements to promote water-wise approaches, including limiting the amount of non-functional turf grass citywide; • Eliminating parking requirements in Downtown and near transit while reducing parking requirements in the rest of the city; 11 • A demolition and construction waste recycling program to reduce the amount of waste from redevelopment going to landfills; • Removing or drastically reducing minimum lot widths and lot sizes in the downtown area; and • Requiring midblock walkways throughout the downtown. These policies and zoning changes include the areas covered by the periphery plans and all the land within ½ mile of the transit stations listed in this report. Objective 3: Enhancing access to opportunity. (Utah Code Section 10-9a- 403.1(7)(iii) This section of the state code lists several ways that this objective can be achieved: • maintaining and improving the connections between housing, transit, employment, education, recreation, and commerce; • encouraging mixed-use development; • enabling employment and educational opportunities within the station area; • encouraging and promoting enhanced broadband connectivity; or • any other similar action that promotes the objective described in Subsection (7)(a)(iii) The entire Downtown Plan includes land use policies related to encouraging mixed-use development and the connections between them. Pages 13-14 of the plan provide the intent of the Downtown Plan as it directs growth and development. The plan defines livability on page 16. The plan establishes 10 values for downtown, all of which relate to enhancing access to opportunity. Pg 37 outlines the values, and each value has a series of goals, initiatives, and metrics. The detailed goals, initiatives, and metrics can be found on pages 38-77. The Downtown is divided into districts, and these values are also reflected in district-specific goals found on pages 90-131. In addition to the policies in the Downtown Plan, Plan Salt Lake lists city-wide goals related to access to opportunity. Both documents have led to numerous implementation actions related to this objective: • requirements for including midblock walkways that connect through the 10-acre blocks downtown; • updating land use regulations for tech-related land uses to ensure these uses, particularly biotech has options to locate throughout the city; • Increasing building heights to support more mixed-use neighborhoods in the downtown area; • Removing zoning barriers to support the reuse of office space for other uses, including eliminating parking requirements. Some of these zoning changes also relate to the other periphery plans that cover some of the lands within ½ mile radius of the stations Downtown. 900 South Station: (Ballpark Station Area Plan) 12 • Certified in 2022 and covers this objective. • The 900 South Station includes land subject to the Ballpark Station Area Plan. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, and City Center Stations: (Central Community Plan) • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and South Temple is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High-Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding access to opportunity by encouraging mixed-use development and enabling access to job opportunities. The City’s Transit Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establish future improvements to this area through enhanced bus access (demonstrated by the improvements under construction on 200 South) and building cycling infrastructure on 900 South with the 9Line, 800 South, 500 South, 300 South, and 200 South as well as Main Street, 200 East, and 300 East. City Center Station: (Avenues Plan) • The primary role that the area within ½ mile of the City Center station that is located within the Avenues Plan is to provide density to link housing close to the central business district. The blocks in the southwest corner of the Avenues are some of the densest in the city. The Avenues also provide connections to Memory Grove Park and City Creek Canyon, which are important recreation opportunities for the northern part of Downtown and one of the few car-free areas in the city. The Avenues plan supports the preservation of the open space in Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon. Temple Square, North Temple Trax, and Frontrunner Stations: (Capitol Hill Plan) • The land use policies of the Capitol Hill plan are like those of the Avenues, but the plan also supports the large institutional uses and cultural facilities that dominate North Temple. Capitol Hill also is home to schools for students who live in the Downtown area. The plan supports improving connections to both schools along 200 West and 400 West as well as an under-construction pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the freight rail lines and Frontrunner rail line. North Temple Trax, North Temple Frontrunner, Arena, Old Greek Town, Planetarium, Central Station Trax, Central Station Frontrunner, and Temple Square Stations: (North Temple Boulevard Plan) • The land use policies in the North Temple Boulevard Plan support a mix of uses. The plan also includes a connectivity map that recommends improved connections through the neighborhood to access transit. These connections also improve mobility throughout the neighborhood, whether it is the mentioned bridge, cycling infrastructure on 600 West, or the improved sidewalks leading from Frontrunner to 400 West and south to 500 West. Additionally, the plan recognizes establishing 13 the Folsom Corridor Trail, which has recently been constructed, linking the stations to the neighborhoods to the west. Central Station Trax and Central Station Frontrunner Stations: (Westside Plan) • There is a small amount of land that is within ½ mile of the Central Station Trax and Front Runner Stations. This land is identified as a community node, which promotes mixed-use development. Objective 4: Increasing transportation choices and connections. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(iv) The Downtown Plan includes specific sections related to transportation choice and connection: • The “Is Connected” section of the plan (pages 59-61) and the “Is Walkable” section of the plan (pages 62-65) establish specific policies related to how people move around through the downtown. • The plan includes several key moves related to mobility: Downtown Streetcar, Trax Extension, and Green Loop (pages 79-87) including specific actions related to this objective. • The Mid-Block Walkway map on page 99 shows the location of all future midblock connections. As with the other objectives, connectivity, and mobility are mostly guided by citywide plans related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructure. These plans are intended to connect where people live to where they work, shop, recreate, and attend to other daily needs. These plans include specific actions related to improved connections to and through the periphery plans, including: • Expanding the frequency of bus lines • The improvements to 200 South • The Green Loop, • the 300 South and 200 West protected bicycle lanes • The completion of the 9 Line and the Folsom Corridor trails • The trails that connect Memory Grove to the foothills Many of these features connect multiple planning communities and are therefore more appropriately placed in city-wide plans. These plans include the Salt Lake City Transportation Plan, which is currently being updated. The Salt Lake City Transit Plan and the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan include policies that connect all neighborhoods within the city through transit, cycling, and walking infrastructure. As a result, the reference provided herein is to those plans instead of repeating each item associated with each of the periphery plans and within each station area. The city is working on a long-term plan to reallocate space on Main Street to convert it into a pedestrian and bicycling street with limited access to daily deliveries, service, and public safety. 14 Links and References Downtown Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf Avenues Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Aves.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 7 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Ballpark Station Area Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Master%20Plans/Central%20Community/22-10- 27_Ballpark.pdf • Certified in 2023 • See certification for references for how the plan satisfies objectives. Capitol Hill Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Cap.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Central Community Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan North Temple Boulevard Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NTMP.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Pages 28-29 for North Temple Trax and Frontrunner Station; pages 51-53 for 800 West Station Area (includes density descriptions). • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Westside Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 37 (community node designation); page 48 for description and future density. • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 15 Transit Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/wp- content/uploads/sites/11/2021/07/SLC_TMP_FULL_FINAL.pdf • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans- studies/pbmp/ • Objective 3: • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Plan Salt Lake: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf • Objective 1: Guiding Principle 1 and 2 • Objective 2: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: Guiding Principal 1, 2, and 4 Next Steps Salt Lake City has 34 stations that are either within the city boundary or within ½ mile of a station located outside the city boundary. Fortunately, the city has a long history of planning for density, affordable housing, sustainability, transportation, and expanding access to opportunity and many of these stations already have supportive land use policies within existing plans. The city will be seeking certification of existing plans for the 400 South corridor east of downtown as well as the North Temple corridor within the next 18 months. The city will be seeking an exception due to the impracticability of development for stations located at the Salt Lake City International Airport, five stations on the campus of the University of Utah, and one station in West Valley City where a small portion of the land is within SLC but separated by SR-201, where it is a limited access highway and creates a major barrier between the station and the land within Salt Lake City boundaries. This is anticipated to be forwarded to the Wasatch Front Regional Council soon. One station is going through the process of developing a station area plan for the Centerpointe station. The only remaining stations that would need to be addressed are the stations along the S Line, some of which are outside the city boundary, and some are within the city. The city has not yet determined how to approach these stations. In all, the city should have station area plans for 28 of the 34 stations (certified as existing plans or new plans) or an exception granted in the next 18 months. At that point the city is likely to take a break from certifying station area plans so that resources can be directed towards updating other plans that need updates and updating zoning regulations to implement existing plans. City Council Announcements October 10, 2023 For Your Information: A. Board of Canvassers schedule: The County Elections office has confirmed they are unable to provide certified numbers to Salt Lake City prior to Wednesday, December 6th at Noon. Therefore, the Board of Canvassers will need to be scheduled on Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/4/2023 13:09 Elizabeth Boucher 300 North Pedestrian Bridge Hi Chris - I live in Marmalade and bike down 300 North often. I frequently encounter stationary trains and have to take an alternate route to get to my destination. Will you please send me an update on the expected completion date of the 300 North pedestrian bridge? It seems to be moving at a much slower pace than other infrastructure work around the neighborhood. This is a mere inconvenience for cyclists but is more importantly a safety issue for students at West High and West Side neighborhood children. Thanks sincerely for your support of our neighborhood on the City Council - Elizabeth McKnight Center Street Resident 10/5/2023 14:13 Patricia Callahan Yalecrest Crime Hi Dan—Susan Horvath states on ND a few days ago an e-bike was stolen out of their backyard shed. They live 1500 East just north of Harvard Avenue. She’s an Ob/Gyn physician. I read daily complaints about crime in Salt Lake City including in District Six. It seems to me residents want politicians to acknowledge crime is a growing issue. Stating that truth may also prompt folks to be even more vigilant. I chuckle at the new bike lanes. Even if a person can physically & safely ride a bike, nowhere to keep it safe. People lock their bikes in their own locked garages & they still get stolen. Best, Patricia 10/5/2023 16:57 Amber Rasband Land Use…unhoused Land use possibilities for unhoused people on the westside: The old Raging Waters/7 peaks site: Use partial space for something like a city regulated community RV site similar to a KOA campground, make it affordable, limit days for parking, charge a nominal daily parking/ rental fee, for water hookup/waste, cite tow If violation. You asked and asked what we feel like as Westside residents should do with the spot, splash pads, JRP extensions, park, ice ribbon…there will be some sort of construction at some point even though the demolition looks slow going. Doesn’t this land need to be used for recreation anyway since site used federal funds? Why not support those who seem to live in their rolling homes, not a free parking, but a place they can keep their home while they go to and from work. Seems like there’s plenty of RV’s already parking here (as noted yesterday 10/04/2023) without permission/zoning. City could treat it like a pay lot. Thanks for any concern for addressing this option. 10/6/2023 10:00 Brandee Burnam More Affordable Housing- Home Ownership not Renting Ana, Thank you, to you Chris & Alejandro for hosting the Homeless Initiative Update last night. Thank you Ana, for emphasizing that our city, and even more so our neighborhood, that you represent Central City needs more for sale affordable family sized housing opposed to renting. We need a better balance for many reasons, one that comes to my mind as someone focused on crime and safety is those people who tend to have long-term plans to stay in one place, are invested in the area, and community, that take time to get to know their neighbors make it safer when you have a network of people around you that can communicate with, watch, report criminal activity and hopefully deter & prevent crime rather than suffering the results of issues after the fact. People invested in home ownership, gaining equity, and ensuring the success of the area they are in make neighborhoods cleaner, safer, and more economically stable. Central City wants those on all levels of government from the City Council to the Federal government to know we need support and funding for affordable for sale/ownership housing, and we hear this time and time again at our neighborhood council meetings and from many we talk to in our neighborhood through our meetings and events. Please let us know within Central City what we can do as a council to better ensure this which I have mentioned here. What action, steps are necessary to get this message clearly conveyed. 10/6/2023 11:38 Lara Galindo Gentle Density I strongly oppose multiplexes invading my neighborhood in east Sugar House. Please wait until after the election to try to push this terrible idea into code. —Lara Novell 10/6/2023 11:44 Carol Butler Delay zoning decisions! Mr. Dugan, Please delay zoning decisions until after the election. Housing density belongs downtown! Carol Butler 10/6/2023 11:46 Marguerite Henderson No to gentle density Dan, What are you trying to do to our historic neighborhoods? Such as Yalecrest! Stop it! No! You’re going to lose this ridiculous battle! WE DO NOT WANT THIS! Marguerite Henderson Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/6/2023 11:48 Jim Defa Zoning Changes/D6 DAN MY name is Jim Defa I live at 905 s military Dr and I do not want zoning charges that will allow for increased density in our neighborhoods. Please provide me your position in this matter. Jim 10/6/2023 11:56 Aaron Benson Campaign marketing Dan, I recently received a text from a campaign of one of your opponents in the upcoming race, scaremongering about the initiatives to allow up to 4-family housing development throughout the city. I want you to know that your support of upzoning in SLC is the reason I plan on voting for you in the upcoming election. Please continue to support smart, market-oriented methods to improving the housing crisis we face. I direct a small team at a bank headqaurtered downtown, and despite staffing with highly-trained (my staff all have Master's or PhD degrees) personnel, I can't pay them enough to afford housing in the city. Thank you, Aaron Benson10/6/2023 12:02 Timothy Ermish Affordable Housing Issue Dan I am a resident in your district in the Yalecrest district. I strongly oppose, allowing demolition of single- family homes for triplexes and four Plexes in the historic district eliminating single-family home zoning is a mistake that will impact generations to come. Timothy Ermish 10/6/2023 12:04 Jon Dunn 4- plexus I stand with you on this matter. Such a change would destroy the integrity and character of our city. Shame on your opponents for even thinking of such a thing. 10/6/2023 12:05 John Hinckley Against four plexes Sneaky. We are absolutely against zoning allowing 4plexes. We are not impressed with your timing. We vote no!!!! John and Joann 10/6/2023 12:07 Diane Banks Zoning change Do you really support changing zoning to allow 4 plexes in all residential neighborhoods? 10/6/2023 12:21 Gary Nicholas High density housing proposition. We are totally against this idea! High density housing proposition. We are totally against this idea! 10/6/2023 12:22 Linda Harrison Opposition to high density housing You are alienating an entire area of your district by your liberal stance on housing 10/6/2023 12:24 Matthew Cobb NO to zoning changes I DO NOT support zoning changes that allow 4 plexes in single family neighborhoods!! There is no such thing as gentle density, it all leads to over crowding and worsening of our already horrendous street conditions. I live on 1300E in the Harvard/Yale area, both my wife and I are against this. You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig! NO to zoning changes!! Matthew Cobb10/6/2023 12:28 D. boyd Wagstaff Zoning changes I am opposed to the proposed zoning change that will allow greater density city wide. I am very disappointed in what the city is doing to streets, zoning, density and homelessness. D. Boyd Wagstaff 10/6/2023 12:31 Karen Cahoon Zoning Creep In my opinion, the City has been ruined in the last 4 years. 1. Speed bumps in beautiful residential areas. 2. Alteration of streets including planter bump outs that are hazardous and not aesthetically pleasing. 3. Dramatic increase in signage. Why pay money for a sculpture in a round about if you’re just going to surround it with signage that is just more visual pollution and doesnt enhance the sculpture. The speed bumps have increased signage that is just visual pollution. 4. No setback requirements for cheaply built, expensive to rent apartment complexes. No open space requirements. 5. Stupid and ugly parks in the center of streets, that interrupt traffic and parking. when the City can’t even take care of Liberty Park properly. 6. ignorance of the desires of Community Councils. As I understand it, the Yalecrest Council voted against the speed bumps on 13th South. 7. Please do not make any more decisions before the election. 8. I am very much against multi-unit housing in single family areas and as a result I am not voting for Erin or any other Person that is in office now. It appears that you are all in the pockets of developers. 10/6/2023 12:32 Kevin Childress 4 plexes Dan Is it true you are in favor of 4 plexus in currently what is zoned for single family ? If so what is your logic for this? What do you think is the upside and downside of this decision? Thanks Kevin Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/6/2023 12:35 Dori Tidwell Zoning creep I for one would like to not change our zoning laws to accommodate for 4-plexes in single family neighborhoods. This would destroy our neighborhood and the family community where kids and families can safely walk on sidewalks without fear of over crowding with too many cars on the road. This would be a mistake just like turning foothill into basically a freeway has been a mistake. My nephew was hit by a car turning on to foothill, my neighbors son was also hit by a car doing the same, my daughters friend was hit while crossing foothill to get to foothill village. Please do not make our neighborhood into income properties and add congestion to the streets that make it unsafe for people to walk and bike in this community. I would ask you to care about pollution from more cars and people not being able to safely walk around in the neighborhood. Would you have wanted the zoning to change in this way when you had two daughters roaming the neighborhood? Please do not lose sight of why people move to this area and why you found this area to be a great place to raise your family. Thank you, Dori Tidwell 10/6/2023 12:37 Margo Thurman Hearings on Zoning Overlay . Hi Dan, Please hold off the hearings on Zoning Overlay - wait until after the election. Thank you very much. Margo Thurman 10/6/2023 12:39 Jeffrey Slatter Density housing If you push this proposal through before the election and you are lucky enough to win again I will personally lead a recall drive to get you out of office. Listen to your district! 10/6/2023 12:42 Shauna Bell Zoning Have you polled your constituents? I am personally against putting high density housing in single family dwelling neighborhoods.-- Shauna Bell 10/6/2023 12:43 Jeffrey Campbell Density Please hold off on adding more people to to our east side neighborhoods. We’re full!!!!! 10/6/2023 12:44 Jon Dunn FOURPLEXES ABSOLUTELY NOT! If it’s your desire to destroy the character and charm of our city, Fourplexes in neighborhoods is sure fire means of accomplishing your goals. That is a shortsighted solution to the housing issue. There are many areas of downtown the would meet your housing needs without destroying existing neighborhoods. 10/6/2023 12:45 David Morrow Proposed overlay map/D6 Vote no on the proposed overlay map. The City is going in the wrong direction. 10/6/2023 12:48 Sylvia Hartley Zoning creep I am strongly opposed to zoning that allows more density in our old historic neighborhoods. I hope you will not push for this with the hearings before the election. Sylvia Hartley 10/6/2023 12:49 David FAWSON Zoning overlay Dan, I am not in favor of any zoning changes that allow for any more incrochmenton single family neighborhoods. Please do t allow fourplexes or higher in our neighborhoods! Dave Fawson I voted for you last election. 10/6/2023 12:51 Steve Whipple 4-plexes in single family neighborhoods Councilman Dugan, I do not support a zoning overlay that would allow 4-plexes in single family neighborhoods and would increase water usage, reduce family housing, and potentially reduce public school enrollment. I am asking you to wait until after the election to make decisions that will alter our neighborhoods for generations to come. Steve Whipple Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/6/2023 12:53 Amy Reid Proposed Local Historic Districts in Yalecrest Hi Dan, I am a resident at REDACTED in Yalecrest. We've met a few times. My husband and I were the applicants for our Local Historic District and I've been advising Paula Harline on the Princeton LHD. I am a third year graduate student at Utah State in the Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Department and a Research Historian working for Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies. I'm very concerned with Salt Lake City's approach to historic preservation in Yalecrest. As you know, the entire neighborhood is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As development and affordable housing pressures mount, it is more critical than ever to have a long-view perspective and protect key areas of our city. The small section of Yalecrest from 1300-1500 east on Harvard, Princeton and Laird is remarkably historically intact. These streets are loved by residents all over the valley and tell a collective story. As a property owner, I view myself as a steward of history. By allowing duplex and fourplex construction in this area you will decimate the character and livability (privacy, sunlight, etc). I support the push to allow for ADUs. It makes a lot more sense to allow for basement apartments and over the garage dwellings. It does not make environmental sense to tear down and rebuild. A lot of research has been done on the environmental benefits of maintaining older homes over demolishing and rebuilding. Developers are the ones who benefit in this scenario. Since the Planning Commission already gave an unfavorable recommendation on the Laird LHD, I'm calling on you as our councilman to lobby your colleagues to see past the black and white viewpoint on affordable housing many seem to be taking, and protect this small area of historically significant homes for our city and state. History belongs to all residents. In a time of great growth and change we need visionaries who understand how the intangibles of history and beauty greatly benefit our lives. We need someone with vision who can protect important areas from developers who have so much power in our state. I think we both know anything built in these few blocks will not be affordable and in the process we will be destroying history, beauty and the environment. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you. Best, Amy Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/6/2023 12:54 Alice Rathofer Constituent Message Dear Counselman Dugan, I have just learned of your vote to change the zoning on a lot on 1600 East and to look at changing single-family housing zoning. These two votes I find quite disturbing and really not what District 6 needs as far as housing. One major concern is traffic on the neighborhood streets that would increase with multi-family housing zoning. Parking of vehicles on the neighborhood streets would increase and this would be problematic especially during winter snowstorms and would inhibit snow removal. Some of the neighborhood streets are narrow and really cannot accommodate more vehicles using and parking on the streets. I live on Skyline Drive and the amount of traffic has increased 10 fold since I purchased my property 30 years ago. This is no longer a quiet neighborhood as far as traffic is concerned with trucks and other vehicles making noise as early as 0630H. There is still noisy traffic well into the night happening past midnight. Clearly adding multi-family housing would only increase this traffic, parking, and noise issue exponentially. This would destroy our neighborhoods. By adding multi-family housing to long existing single family housing neighborhoods you would change the entire dynamic and feel of these neighborhoods. This would make them less attractive to purchasers who want a quiet neighborhood in which to raise their families. Thus lowering the value of the existing homes in the neighborhoods which would in turn lower the taxable value of these existing homes. This would, also, affect the sale of older homes which would be demolished and have your multi-family housing built on lots that may or may not be large enough to accommodate this kind of structure. I can see someone buying my property to put in a multi-plex building, adding more off street parking and removing the house and $100,000.00's in landscaping including removal of the 18 large established healthy trees in my backyard just to make space for a building that takes up the entire lot. You should realize that this would increase the radiated heat from a large parking area and the lack of lawn and trees. With the drought and the lowering of the Great Salt Lake levels Salt Lake City and the State of Utah needs to stop encouraging more people to move here where there is not enough water to go around now. Adding more housing, especially in well and long term established neighborhoods will not solve the low-income housing needs of the city or state. Bottom line...this is a really, really bad idea. Sincerely, Alice Rathofer 10/6/2023 12:56 Nancy Alcabes Zoning overlay Good Afternoon Councilman Duggan, I’m writing with regard to the consideration of a zoning overlay. I live in District 6 and am opposed to the aforementioned initiative. It feels like many things that are going on in the neighborhood are happening without sufficient education and constituent input. This is one such initiative. I urge you not to pass this initiative lest we end up with more than just new speed bumps without notice and input. Whether I support the speed bumps or not, isn’t the point. It’s that it seemingly just happened. Zoning changes are too important not to be undertaken slowly and carefully. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy D. Alcabes 10/6/2023 12:57 John Hinckley Zoning overlay . Hi Dan - I’m very concerned about the talk I’m hearing about zoning overlay. I don’t believe now is the time to consider this. You and I are neighbors and such a proposal would create many many problems for our area. I encourage you to put the current homeowners above the developers or the political agenda of over zealous government officials or employees. I would hope you’re not in favor of such a proposal. I would like to hear back from you but won’t hold my breath. I’ve communicated with you before and have never gotten a response - although you or your staff say, “you always get back”. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/6/2023 12:59 Matt Keane How do you know what the rental rates are if the city has no idea how many rentals there are The city has NO idea how many rental units there are in Salt Lake there are literally dozens of them not on your books right in my little part of Yalecrest. These are private rentals and you are not privy to the rent rate so yow do keep making these claims ? As an owner of rental units in salt lake since 1995 I’ll ask you again how do claim to know what rent rates are ??? I’ve lived here my whole 53 years and you newcomers that think you no better are a real insult. You want to give a gift to the rich to pay for a few under cost units … You suck ! I own my own real estate brokerage and bozos like you need up stay in your lane !!!! 10/6/2023 13:02 Rose Gacnik-Flores Zoning Hearings Dear Councilman Dugan: Could you tell us when and where the hearings are scheduled on a zoning overlay that would allow 4-plexes in single family neighborhoods? Thank you. Your constituents, Rose Gacnik and Robert Flores 10/6/2023 13:03 Christena Gates Density . Please don’t rush the density as my representative. We have enough density in our neighborhood with all the condos by Donner Way and Kennedy Drive. Plus we also have apartments!!!! We don’t need more traffic on Kennedy as well as Foothill Drive with more condos or apartments behind the old Red Robin restaurant…Our vote is NO more density above Foothill Drive. 10/6/2023 13:06 Rob Macintyre Zoning changes Dear Mr Dugan, I wanted to take an opportunity to voice my opposition to any zoning changes allowing multi unit buildings to be built in single family home neighborhoods. I realize that Salt Lake has an issue with housing and especially affordable housing, but my opinion is that multi unit dwellings belong in the more urban centers of the city, not in the established single family home communities that are currently existing. I feel that there is ample room to add these types of facilities in parts of the city that need some revamping before thinking of rezoning areas not zoned for them already. Thanks for your consideration, Robert MacIntyre 10/6/2023 14:35 Ralph Woodward Thank you! Thank You! Dear Mayor Mendenhall and City Council Members: We of the Salt Lake Children's Choir wish to express our sincere appreciation for the grant award of $1,750 we recently received from the Salt Lake City Arts Council. We realize that municipal expenditures have to be carefully managed and monitored, and we are grateful that the decision was made to assist us in our decades-long endeavor to contribute to the education and artistic development of young people--as well as the general cultural climate of our community. In addition to being financially essential, such support helps provide the necessary motivation to continue our efforts into the future. We applaud your efforts to serve us all in this great city and are pleased to be a part of efforts towards the betterment of our community. With deep appreciation, Ralph B. Woodward, Founder- Director 10/6/2023 16:11 Sue Wiesley Affordable housing I am very concerned with the parking issue that comes with density housing. In my neighborhood of 15 th & 15th we have parking issues. We have people that can’t park in front of their houses due to the bike lane. So they park on my street. There are people living on 17S who park on my street because they don’t want their cars hit. We also have college students. Do I even need to say how cars that situation brings? Where will people park? Most households have at least one car. No that’s the 50s. If you have 2 adults living in that house, there are 2 cars. And if you have kids driving. So please tell me. Where are we all to park? Sincerely Susan Wiesley Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/7/2023 7:36 David Leta 1/2 Proposed Affordable Housing Incentives The Board of the East Bench Community Council (EBCC) has reviewed the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) that are being recommended by the SLC Planning Commission (Commission) to the Salt Lake City Council (Council) for adoption. While the EBCC agrees that there is a need for more affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City, and that all districts within the City have a shared responsibility to make such housing more available, we also think that it is equally important to preserve the character, micro-culture and owner expectations of the various diverse neighborhoods within the City. Moreover, not all neighborhoods have equal access to mass transit or to connector and arterial roadways. Increasing density, without appropriate infrastructure to support this higher density, is inviting failure. Our concerns center on the Single- Family Incentives. Most of the residences and lots within the EBCC district currently are zoned as "single family," namely, R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, and FR-1, FR-2, and FR-3. The AHI proposes to allow various types of non-single family dwellings within these historically single family neighborhoods, including: (a) Two- family, twin, or duplex homes; (b) 3-4 unit buildings – triplexes or fourplexes; (c) Townhouses, or single family attached units, as sideways rowhouses or rowhouses in groups of 3-4; (d) A second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; and (e) Cottage developments, which are single family homes in groups of two to eight that are generally arranged in a courtyard layout. We oppose expansion options (b), (c) and (e) above in these neighborhoods, especially because there is inadequate infrastructure for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists to support the higher density that would result. The city has four districts that generally allow two- family or duplex homes in addition to single family homes. These are the R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts. We believe that a more reasonable, measured and accommodating approach, at this time, would be to only allow expansion options (a) and (d) above within the current "single family" zones, and, in addition, include the following restrictions to the extent those restrictions do not exist in the AHI proposal : (1) at least one of the homes on the lot would have to be "owner occupied,” unless the owner is the representative of an estate, LLC, partnership or trust, or a lender that acquires the property through a foreclosure sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, (2) existing set-backs and height restrictions would have to be maintained, unless adjoining property owners, including those immediately above and below the subject property, consent to a variance, (3) existing parking requirements would be relaxed to permit on-street parking, and (4) one of these units must be designated as an affordable unit and meet the affordability requirements (See 21A.52.050.H.1.c.4 and Table 21A.52.050.G in Attachment A). This modification has the following advantages over the current proposed AHI: (i) it increases the stock of affordable housing, but not to an extreme; 10/7/2023 7:36 David Leta 2/2 CONTINUED!! Proposed Affordable Housing Incentives (ii) it is more consistent with the existing character, culture, and expectations of current owners; (iii) it prevents existing neighborhoods that are primarily owner-occupied homes from becoming primarily tenant properties with absentee owners, and (iv) while increasing the burden on infrastructure, it does not create an excessive burden. Thus, we urge the Council to reject the AHI proposal in its current form, but support approval of a modification to the AHI as indicated above.10/7/2023 15:33 Camilla Flint Affordable Housing Incentives I support streamlining approval processes for smaller projects. We live in the fairpark neighborhood and have had an empty house behind us for some time in poor condition. It was finally torn down, but has yet to be replaced. As soon as that can be approved and a new house there that people can live it, I expect the litter and dumping that we have had in our backyard to decrease dramatically. We also wish to expand on our home. It is getting too small for our family, but we cannot afford anything bigger in the city and we don't want to have to move. If we could get permitted to tear down a prior addition that is not in great shape and build a new larger addition on, it would enable us to stay in the city. Camilla Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/9/2023 11:10 Bernard HART What can the City Council do? Hi All, An observation: A number of the campers that the current Mayor and SLCPD are moving all around the city were homeless when Rocky Anderson was Mayor. Yup. Mayor Anderson solved the homeless problem, but there are as many chronically homeless individuals in shelters and camping now as when he was the Mayor who ended homelessness in our city. And after Mayor Mendenhall's years on the City Council and as the Mayor of Salt Lake City, the number of chronically homeless in Salt Lake City is exactly the same as when Mayor Anderson was Mayor in 2008. Mayor Mendenhall and her main Homeless Advisor were also on the City Council when the Council approved the new, latest solution that wasn't, the now in place shelter system. The numbers indicate that nothing has really changed in the last 20 years. Same number of chronically homeless in the City, a number of whom were campers during former Mayor Anderson's administration. I wonder how many times these forever homeless individuals were moved by SLCPD and how many citations they received and how many "let us help you" programs they were in and how many outreach people they talked with and how much time they spent in jail and in detox? Total cost to taxpayers: About $1.8 Million per long time homeless individual over a period of 20 years x 20/30 individuals. About $36 - $54 Million Dollars total to meet the needs of 20 -30 longtime campers over 20 years. Yup..real data...54 MILLION....and this does not include Op Rio Grande funding. And because nothing has really changed, we can expect the same or increased levels of expenditures for long-time campers over the next 20 years. That is unless we change something. https://www.cato.org/blog/evidence-calls-housing-first-homelessness-strategy-question And between Mayors Anderson and Mendenhall we had one Mayor who used creative bookkeeping practices to make himself look good and then bragged about how Salt Lake City solved its homeless problem....and another who created the current, non-solution/solution, the shelter system that was needed to solve the homeless problem that the two previous Mayors had already solved. Hmmm. I know there are Council Members who would like to see something better for their community. There are things the Council can do that it is not currently doing, initiatives that might actually improve the situation. I would like to talk about those things. How do we make it happen? Bernie 10/9/2023 11:15 Donna Williams Reaffirm your commitment to America’s closest ally, Israel. Dear Council Member Alejandro Puy , Israel is once again under attack. On October 7th, Hamas, the Iran- backed terror group controlling Gaza, launched an unprecedented surprise attack on Israel. Since the attack began, reports have confirmed at least 700 Israelis have been murdered, 100 people have been kidnapped, almost 2000 people have been wounded, with hundreds in critical condition, and more than 5,000 rockets have been fired against Israeli towns and civilians. As your constituent, I am asking you to reaffirm your commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship and to reassert the importance of bipartisan support for the State of Israel. The United States and Israel share an unbreakable bond based on shared values. A secure and thriving Israel is paramount to America’s national security. From cooperation on technological and medical advancements, to security collaboration, a thriving, multidimensional U.S.-Israel partnership benefits Americans from all walks of life. Israel is under constant threat, both from terrorists such as Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, and from anti-Israel activists who question Israel’s right to exist. This latest string of violent attacks highlights the precarious situation Israel faces and the need for America to stand with Israel against the many challenges she faces. The vital relationship between the U.S. and Israel must be celebrated and closely safeguarded, both in times of peace and crisis. Your support for the Jewish state is of paramount importance to millions of Americans across this country. Thank you for supporting a safe and secure Israel. Sincerely, Donna Williams Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2023 13:06 James Webster 1/2 CIP for Miller Bird Refuge My name is James Webster, the CIP applicant for restoration of the Miller Bird Refuge creekside path, stabilization of WPA rock walls listed in the Living New Deal historic register and elimination of an upper path with non-code compliant stairs that are impassible during the winter. This pathetic afterthought was never included on the 2014 construction documents. Restoration of the CIP designated creekside path will enable ADA compliance as was the cas from 1987 until the demolition of this path by Public Lands. In 1987 the city retained MNG, a Portland landscape architectural firm to design and supervise the construction of pathways and a new steel bridge to enable park visitors to circumnavigate the Bird Refuge as no pathway existed along the Military Dr or East side and trespassing through private LDS Church property has become a problem. Pathway construction involved Crib-Lock concrete retention along sections of Red Butte Creek and the Diestel Rd or West side path. About 850’ of timber walls with Manta Ray anchors capable of retaining 50,000 lbs of lateral hydrostatic pressure. MNG also designed an automated athletic or golf course irrigation system that operated flawlessly for 27 years as can be confirmed by Kyle Shields of the Parks Department. MNG worked in close co-operation with SLC Engineering, SLC Public Utilities and SLCo Flood control. It was determined that the maximum five-foot wide Red Butte Creek channel was to be perpetuated according FEMA and hydrological engineers with the county. The maximum flow in the IRS Refuge had been restricted to less than 170 CFS (cubic feet/second) by the 30” culvert under 800 South. At this outlet, in 1888 Flood Control director Neil Stack designed a 4’ high retention wall given a scouring/erosion problem that also served to further stabilize the creekside path. This wall replaced a Crib-Lock structure. Adjoining neighbors contributed native plants such as the Netleaf hackberry, Wood’s Rose, Alder, and Saskatoon serviceberry along the WPA rock wall to stabilize footings and discourage burglaries. For 35 years residents had volunteers to provide maintenance as supervised by Lee Bollwinkle and other Parks staff. Residents who had established the Miller Park Committee crafted a master plan for long-term maintenance, improvements and were asked by Florence Reynolds, PE with SLC Public Utilities to draft the city’s Following the Chevron oil spill of 2010 the Miller Park Committee and park users participated in numerous public engagement discussions mentored by the city’s ombudsman Robin Carbaugh. During this discussions and subsequent exchange with Parks staff residents became aware of a intent to demolish the creekside path. This was strongly opposed by the community as over 150 concerned park visitors sugned various petitions demanding the perpetuation of the existing pathway loop. Notable signatories were Sen. Garn, County Councilman Randy Horiuchi, SLC School Board Chair Laurel Young, and Utah ABA President and Regent W. Eugene Hansen. The community presented these petitions to Mayor Becker. It was the intention of the Miller Park Committee that had been in contact with Chevron officials that some form of good-will funding could be established for long-term Bird Refuge maintenance. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2023 13:06 James Webster 2/2 CONTINUED!! CIP for Miller Bird Refuge Instead, the city decided to pursue a $1,000,000 “settlement” with Chevron Oil. Subsequent to the clean-up power washing it was clearly evident that the bird habitat had been Re-established and no structural damage to the Red Butte Creek riparian corridor had occurred. This was verified by EPA oil monitoring stations mandated by the state and consulting geo hydrologist Richard White, PE. Public Lands hired Baltimore based Biohabitats and a local partner Design Workshop to literally destroy the Bird Habitat notwithstanding overt violations of the city’s own Riparian Ordinance and federal Migratory Bird Laws. This plan, known as “Miller Bird Refuge and Bonneville Glen Restoration” called for the demolition of retention walls and the creekside path, removal of the perfectly functioning automated irrigation system (that was deemed “antiquated” by Public Lands), the arbitrary 400% widening of Red Butte Creek in violation of FEMA and SLCo Flood Control standards, importation of large boulders from Willard to construct 53 check dams (“drop and pool riffles”), removal of unique stands of native Gamble oak on LDS property (opposed by Elder L. Tom Perry who cancelled this completely unnecessary demolition), the clear-cut of over 85 century-old Black locust trees and the removal of the native plants neighbors had contributed. The construction document approved by city departments in December 18, 2913 include demolition of retention for oaths and native trees, a new residential irrigation system and the arbitrary equally spaced check dams. HOWEVER, the construction of an upper path that involved excavation of WPA stone wall footings and the addition of 6 tiers on top of the 1987 timber wall are NOT indicated on these documents. This unauthorized alteration of the wall MNG had designed and violated the bonding required by SLC Engineering. This wall was NEVER designed, intended nor approved for this arbitrary loading has been subsequently displaced by the upper path and hydrostatic pressure. This afterthought apparently resulted from PL’s epiphany that once the lower or creekside path had been demolished park visitors had no means of access along the Military Dr. side. According to SLC Engineering, and is verified by the absence of any engineering design on the contract documents, no means of anchoring this wall are apparent nor is there any indication that a competent architect or engineer has anything to do with this. Go all of the above reasons, and with the assistance of Lewis Kogan, RLA in Parks I submitted the CIP. It was approved by Mayor Erin Mendenhall then in the Council. To date, Pl has never never initiated any contact with me as the applicant and with the exception of stabilizing the WPA stone wall the 12 “projects” PL proposes have absolutely no relevance to my CIP application and Mayor Biskupsky’s 8-year old grant. For your reference I hold two masters degrees in landscape architecture, architectural history and urban planning from Harvard and MIT. My experience in riparian trail design, environmental approval and slope stabilization over a 44 yr professional career qualifies me a a critic of PL’s incompetence misallocation of Chevron and CIP funding. Riparian Overlay Ordinance. 10/10/2023 13:07 Roma Riddle Miller Bird Park One reason I bought my home in Yalecrest more than three decades ago was because of its proximity to Miller Park. I have always enjoyed walking through particularly in the summer months because it is much cooler and i especially enjoy being near the water. I ask you to please restore the lower creek side trail. Miller park does not need redevelopment but rather restoration. I am baffled as to why the recommendations of Jim Webster, applicant of the CIP grant, have been disregarded when clearly he has more knowledge of the issues the park faces and how to address them than anyone else in the room. Roma Riddle resident of Yalecrest Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/10/2023 13:49 Eva Recinos Affordable Housing Good evening. I received the flyer about housing and it seems like a very good idea. I have been here where I rent for 3 years. I am a single mother of 2 children.. Recently at the beginning of September they increased us, well in my case, $450 and before I paid $850, my budget doesn't have more, and I have to see where I will come up with the additional $450. This increase is abusive and impudent on the part of the person in charge of the apartments since it is not a good area where we are, we do not have green areas, the parking lots do not have numbers when it snows, they do not clean, and she increase like that out of nowhere I sent an email to the state upset with this abusiveness of people they told me that they were going to give me some source of information and the month already started and nothing and the truth is I am interested in that project and I hope to qualify because this increase in rent is not good, the truth is, the economy and low salaries are difficult. I hope they are taken into account and there is some source of information about apartments that you can provide me with! Thanks and happy night! 10/10/2023 20:18 Anonymous Constituent affordable Rents, abd affordable homes rents exceed the 1,800 per month limit, many adults struggle to eat, and pay utilities. most poeple don't have partners or spouse to share cost of living. those of us lucky to be in homes, pay 150% more in property taxes to supply city needs in school systems, but bever get a break. our utilities go up with price in demand of resources. Don't the leaders in Sakt Lake City realize, you can build many more apartments, but if the rents aren't affordable you just wasted land for homes with yards poeple really want. poeple don't nessesarily want green space to share with hundreds of others. poeple, want privacy, and respect. State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024 James Wood Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Dejan Eskic Senior Research Fellow and Scholar The pandemic years created unmatched volatility in Utah’s housing market. September 2023 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu Table of Contents Analysis in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Homebuilding Whiplashed by Interest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Residential Construction Concentrated in Five Cities .............5 Existing Homes Sales Fall to Lowest Level in Eight Years . . . . . . . .6 Real Estate Commissions Total $1.5 Billion .......................6 Median Days on Market Declines in 2023 ........................7 Residential Real Estate Listings Impacted by Interest Rate Volatility ................................................7 Homebuilding Contraction Likely to Increase Utah’s Housing Shortage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Market Conditions and the Housing Shortage ...................9 Occupied Housing Units as a Measure of the Housing Shortage ...........................................10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Market Conditions . . . . . . . .10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Demand and Supply .......10 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Prices ......................10 Housing Price Change for Utah’s Counties and Large Cities, 2022-2023 ............................................12 The Inverse Relationship of Housing Prices and Interest Rates ...13 Measuring Housing Affordability: Median Multiple and Housing Opportunity Index .................................14 Mortgage Payments Increase Despite Drop in Housing Prices ...15 Renters Locked Out by Rent Increases ..........................15 Utah’s Housing Forecast: 2023-2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 1 State of the State's Housing Market, 2022-2024 The pandemic years created unmatched volatility in Utah’s housing market. The volatility in these past two years surpassed 50 years of housing history. Building permits for residential units increased by 26% in 2021, only to fall by 26% in 2022. These COVID-19 pandemic years now join the Great Recession as one of those unique moments in Utah's housing market. The Great Recession produced 16 consecutive quarters of declining housing prices, while the pandemic produced the shortest and steepest homebuilding expansion and contraction on record. Key Findings • Utah’s ten-year home building and real estate boom ended abruptly in 2022 - First quarter home building activity and real estate sales in 2022 seemed to indicate another exceptional year for Utah’s housing market. But over the following nine months the mortgage rate increased from 4.0% to 6.5%, undercutting homebuyer demand. Consequently, the year-over number of residential units receiving building permits fell by 35% from April to December, sales of existing homes dropped 23%, and the median sales price of a home fell by 10%.1 • The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy affected all types of residential construction - Year-over comparisons show single-family residential construction was hardest hit with a Analysis in Brief Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits in Utah, 2010-2022 Note: Does not include group quarters, manufactured homes, and cabins. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 32% drop in building permits in 2022, followed by a 27% decline in apartment unit permits, and a 9.5% decline in condominium, town home, and twin home permits. • The housing market contraction continued through Q2 2023 - Through June 2023, the year-over number of residential units receiving building permits in Utah fell 37%, existing homes sales fell 20%, and the median sales price of a home fell by 7.5%.2 • Utah’s housing shortage is likely to increase by 2024 - Utah's housing shortage decreased from 56,800 units in 2017 to 28,400 units in 2022; however, as homebuilding activity contracts, new households will outnumber new housing units. Consequently, Utah's housing shortage will likely increase to over 37,000 units by 2024.3 • Housing price increases peaked in 2022, then slowed, and declined in 2023 - The year-over median sales price of a home peaked in February 2022 with a record 28.2% increase.4 Over the next 10 months price increases slowed, falling to 1.1% by December and turned negative in January with a decline of 5.3%. Declines continued through the first four months of 2023, reaching 10.3% in April. By July, the year-over decline had narrowed to 2.0%.5 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM2 • A correction in prices was inevitable - The median sales price of a home in Utah increased from $336,300 in February 2020 to $500,000 in February 2022.6 A price increase of this magnitude (49% in 24 months, the largest two-year increase on record), requires a future price correction. That correction began in March 2022 and continued through July 2023. The correction, however, looks to be modest with less than a 5% decline in year-over price. As such, this appears to be a one- year (2023) pause in price increases, likely followed by a price increase in 2024. • Despite the dip in housing prices, housing affordability continues to prevent homeownership opportunities for many households - In Q2 2023, the median income household in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area could afford only 21% of the homes sold in that area.7 In an affordable housing market the median income household should be able to afford 50% of homes sold. Of the 241 metropolitan areas surveyed, 203 are more affordable than the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area. State comparisons show that housing prices in Utah have increased by 72% since Q1 2018. Only seven states had greater price increases.8 • Homeownership is a fading dream for many renter households - Only 15% of Utah’s renter households have enough income to purchase a modestly priced $300,000 to $400,000 home. High interest rates and housing prices will continue to exclude a growing share of renters from home ownership. These long-term renters will face a rental market with rising rents and low vacancy rates. The average rental rate in Wasatch Front counties has increased at a rate of 6.5% to 7.0% annually since 2011, nearly double the rate of increase in the median income of renters. The average rental rate in Salt Lake County is now $1,570, which requires an income of $60,000 to qualify as a tenant.9 • Housing forecast for 2023 and 2024 - The 2023 forecast for the number of residential units receiving building permits in Utah is 22,750, the lowest level since 2016. Real estate sales of existing homes are likely to fall to 37,500 in 2023, the lowest level since 2014. Both homebuilding activity and real estate sales, however, are expected to increase in 2024. The 2023 forecast for the median sales price is $500,000, just 2% below the statewide median in 2022. By year-end 2023, the mortgage rate will likely be near 7.0% but will trend lower in 2024 averaging 6.5% for the year.10 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3 Introduction Homebuilding Whiplashed by Interest Rates The 2022-2024 edition of the Kem C. Gardner Institute’s State of the State’s Housing Market provides a detailed analysis of current housing market conditions in Utah. The report provides information on five areas: (1) residential construction activity, Table 1: Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits by Type of Unit in Utah, 2010-2022 Year Single Family Units Condominium Units Apt . Units Total 2010 5,947 1,169 1,723 8,839 2011 5,389 1,388 2,130 8,907 2012 7,655 1,228 2,880 11,763 2013 9,857 2,469 2,539 14,865 2014 8,712 3,122 6,742 18,576 2015 9,933 2,536 4,607 17,076 2016 10,668 3,034 5,735 19,437 2017 12,113 4,874 5,061 22,048 2018 12,766 5,741 5,185 23,692 2019 11,872 5,752 9,366 26,990 2020 15,569 7,016 8,816 31,401 2021 17,528 7,895 14,143 39,620 2022 11,873 7,146 10,367 29,386 YoY % Chg. 2021-2022 -32.2%-9.5%-26.7%-25.7% Note: Does not include group quarters, manufactured homes, and cabins. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (2) existing homes sales, (3) the housing shortage, (4) prices and affordability, and (5) a 2023 and 2024 forecast. Each section provides a statistical time series presented in tables and figures as well as an analysis of past trends and current conditions. Table 2: Share of Utah Residential Building Permits Issued by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Year Single-Family Units Multifamily Units Condominium, Townhome, Twin Home Units Apt . Units Multifamily Share of Total 2010 67.3%13.2%19.5%32.7% 2011 60.5%15.6%23.9%39.5% 2012 65.1%10.4%24.5%34.9% 2013 66.3%16.6%17.1%33.7% 2014 46.9%16.8%36.3%53.1% 2015 58.2%14.9%27.0%41.8% 2016 54.9%15.6%29.5%45.1% 2017 54.9%22.1%23.0%45.1% 2018 53.9%24.2%21.9%46.1% 2019 44.0%21.3%34.7%56.0% 2020 49.6%22.3%28.1%50.4% 2021 44.3%20.0%35.7%55.7% 2022 40.4%24.3%35.3%59.6% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute The historic expansion and contraction of the housing market in 2021 and 2022 reflects the Federal Reserve’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic emerged, the Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to record low levels to avert a depression. The low interest rates ultimately led to higher inflation rates by 2022, which the Federal Reserve sought to counter with a historically rapid increase in interest rates. Consequently, mortgage rates doubled in less than a year. Predictably, Utah’s housing market felt the full force of the Federal Reserve’s policy, both on the upside and the downside. The policy affected all types of residential construction. Year- over comparisons show single-family residential construction was hardest hit with a 32% drop in building permits in 2022, followed by a 27% decline in apartment unit permits, and a 9.5% decline in condominium, town home, and twin home permits (Table 1). The weakened market conditions continued into 2023. Building permit data from the U.S. Census Bureau show Utah’s year-over January to June residential permits for all types of units fell 37.2% (Figure 1). Only four states, Montana, New York, Wyoming, and Alaska have had sharper declines. Nationally, permits for all types of units fell 17% over the January-June period. Single-family permits dropped 41% in Utah compared to 21% nationally. The rise in mortgage rates gave additional momentum to the shift from low density housing (single-family) to high density housing (condominiums and apartments). More high-density housing has been developed in Utah since 2021 than at any other time; 15,000 condominium units and 24,500 apartment units received building permits in the past two years. Sixty percent of all residential permits issued in 2022 were for apartments, condominiums, town homes, and twin homes, the highest share on record (Table 2 and Figure 2). September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM4 Figure 1: Percent Change in Number of Residential Units Receiving Building Permits by State, 2022-2023 (Year-over change January to June 2022-2023) Source: U.S. Census Bureau State Building Permit Survey Data -51.0% -44.1% -43.9% -38.0% -37.2% -34.1% -33.5% -32.9% -32.8% -29.9% -29.9% -28.2% -28.2% -28.1% -27.7% -27.5% -25.2% -24.8% -24.6% -23.8% -23.7% -21.0% -20.4% -20.1% -18.0% -17.8% -17.1% -16.5% -16.4% -15.5% -14.6% -14.1% -13.5% -13.4% -12.9% -12.3% -12.3% -10.6% -10.4% -9.5% -7.3% -4.5% -3.0% -2.3% -2.0% 1.6% 2.6% 9.6% 13.2% 26.9% 30.9% -60.0%-50.0%-40.0%-30.0%-20.0%-10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0% Alaska Wyoming New York Montana Utah Nebraska Idaho Minnesota South Dakota Massachusetts Kansas Nevada Arkansas District of Columbia New Mexico Washington Maine Arizona Colorado Missouri Oklahoma Louisiana Texas Maryland Mississippi Michigan Iowa South Carolina Illinois North Dakota Virginia West Virginia Indiana Wisconsin Florida New Jersey Delaware California Georgia Tennessee Pennsylvania Oregon Ohio Hawaii North Carolina Alabama Vermont Rhode Island Kentucky New Hampshire Connecticut gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5 Residential Construction Concentrated in Five Cities A handful of Utah cities accounted for a significant share of residential construction activity in 2022. The top five cities statewide are ranked by number of new units by type (single- family, condominium, townhome, twin home, and apartments) in Table 3 (the three multifamily designations of condominium, townhome, and twin home are referred as “condominiums” in the text below). St. George led all cities in permits issued for single-family with 834 units. Washington City ranked 4th with 581 new homes. The other three cities are all located in northern Utah County in the Silicon Slopes area: Eagle Mountain (724 units), Saratoga Springs (583 units), and Lehi (500 units). Building activity in these top five ranked cities represent 27% of single-family permits issued statewide. Lehi was the dominant city in condominium development in 2022. The city issued permits for 914 units, roughly one out of every eight new condominiums units statewide. Salt Lake City ranked 2nd with 540 units. Two of the three remaining top five cities, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain, are in northern Utah County. The fifth city, South Jordan (309 units), is nearby in Salt Lake County. The top five cities represented 36.5% of all new condominium units statewide in 2022. Twenty percent of all new apartment units in 2022 were in Salt Lake City and the apartment boom in downtown Salt Lake City continues unabated by the pandemic. The city issued permits for 2,679 apartment units in 2022. The top five cities for Figure 2: Share of Utah Residential Building Permits Issued by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table 3: Top Five Utah Cities for Number of Permits Issued for Residential Units, 2022 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Single-Family Units Units Share of State St. George 834 7.0% Eagle Mountain 724 6.1% Saratoga Springs 583 4.9% Washington 581 4.9% Lehi 500 4.2% Total 3,222 27 .1% Condominium, Townhome, Twin Home Units Units Share of State Lehi 914 12.8% Salt Lake City 540 7.6% Saratoga Springs 502 7.0% Eagle Mountain 345 4.8% South Jordan 309 4.3% Total 2,610 36 .5% Apartment Units Units Share of State Salt Lake City 2,063 19.9% West Valley 1,048 10.1% Lehi 835 8.1% Draper 571 5.5% Unincorporated Salt Lake County 477 4.6% Total 4,994 48 .2% Total Residential Units Units Share of State Salt Lake City 2,679 9.1% Lehi 2,249 7.6% St. George 1,493 5.1% West Valley 1,183 4.0% Saratoga Springs 1,159 3.9% Total 8,763 29 .8% apartment development in 2022 accounted for nearly half of all new apartment units statewide. Apartment development is not as sensitive to higher interest rates as single-family and condominium development due to the two-to-three-year lead time for approvals and financing. Consequently, projects that are underway with approvals and financing in strong economic periods may draw building permits during times of weak market conditions. 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM6 Existing Homes Sales Fall to Lowest Level in Eight Years Utah realtors did not fare much better than homebuilders in 2022. Existing home sales dropped by 19.4% in 2022, well below the 26% decline in homebuilding. Statewide residential real estate sales totaled 40,686 units in 2022, the lowest level in eight years (Figure 3). Single-family sales fell to 29,804 homes, a decline of 19.3% while condominium, townhomes and twin homes had a nearly identical decline of 19.5%, a total of 10,266 homes (Figure 4). As a percentage of total sales, multifamily units (condominiums, townhomes, and twin homes) have steadily increased their share of sales. In 2000, multifamily sales accounted for 14% of total sales. By 2022 their share had increased to 25%. Residential sales fell in every Wasatch Front county in 2022. Salt Lake County had the steepest decline at 25.4%, while sales in the other three counties declined about 15% (Table 4). The declines have continued for each county over the first six months of 2023 with Salt Lake County reporting the largest decline of 24.6%. Statewide sales are down 20.6% through June 2023. Figure 3: Utah Residential Real Estate Sales, 2005-2022 (Number of units) Table 4: Residential Real Estate Sales in Wasatch Front Counties and the State, 2021-2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Figure 4: Utah Residential Real Estate Sales by Type of Unit, 2010-2022 Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com Real Estate Commissions Total $1 .5 Billion Although sales fell in 2022, the value of residential sales was the second highest ever at $25 billion, down only 10% from 2021 (Table 5). The value of residential sales held up better than the number of sales due to the increase in home prices. Consequently, residential real estate brokers and agents did remarkably well, not only in 2022, but over the last several years. The near doubling of housing prices since 2017 raised total commissions by a similar amount in 2022 (increasing from $891 million to $1.5 billion), the second highest year ever. That said, the booming real estate market and growth in commissions attracted more agents to the profession and, consequently, total commissions are divided among a growing number of agents. The sales business has become more competitive for the individual agent as the number of licensed realtors in Utah grew from about 15,000 agents in 2017 to an all-time high of 20,000 in 2022.11 County 2021 2022 % Change Davis 4,877 4,088 -16.2% Salt Lake 18,014 13,447 -25.4% Utah 11,549 9,901 -14.3% Weber 4,465 3,749 -16.0% State 50,504 40,686 -19 .4% County January-June 2022 January-June 2023 % Change Davis 2,141 1,829 -14.6% Salt Lake 7,368 5,554 -24.6% Utah 5,274 4,308 -18.3% Weber 2,088 1,630 -21.9% State 21,976 17,457 -20 .6% 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 2030405060708090100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Condominium, Townhome Twin Home Single Family Total 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,40120192020 2021 2022Single Family Condominium Apartments Single Family Condominium Apartments Total67.3%40.4%13.2%24.3%19.5%35.3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 Table 5: Utah Residential Real Estate Commissions, 2010-2022 (Millions) Median Days on Market Declines in 2023 An important indicator of real estate market conditions is the median days on market (MDOM). This metric measures the number of days from the listing of a home to a signed purchase contract, i.e., the number of days a home is unsold. The historic MDOM average from 2000 to 2022 is 45 days. During the Great Recession (2008-2011), when housing demand was devastated by the financial crisis, the MDOM increased to a high of 87 days and averaged 81 days. This is in sharp contrast to the era of low interest rates which begin in 2014 (Figure 5). Low rates spurred housing demand by effectively making housing more affordable. For five years (2016-2020) the days on market averaged around 20 days but fell to a low of seven days by 2021 as the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy resulted in mortgage rates dropping below 3%. The sensitivity of the days Residential Real Estate Listings Impacted by Interest Rate Volatility Low interest rates produced a strong demand for housing from 2020 to early 2022, which in turn drove down the number of active listings (Figure 7). Homes for sale quickly cleared the market, depleting the number of active listings. By Q1 2022, statewide active listings fell to 2,000 homes. The number of listings in the first quarter is typically well over 6,000 homes. Once interest rates began to rise in Q2 2022, the number of active listings also rose as homes took longer to sell and new listings from prospective sellers added to the number of listings. The increase, however, was short-lived. By Q1 2023, the number of active listings peaked as sellers pulled back resulting in fewer new listings. Many homeowners became reluctant sellers, scared off by steep prices and the high mortgage rates they would face as buyers. Consequently, the number of active listings fell for six consecutive months, falling from 10,221 in October to 6,528 in April 2023. With the spring housing market, the prime time for selling a home, active listings have increased in the past three months. Although active listings have increased, the number of listings entered (new listings) is well below the levels of the last four years. The number of entered listings in July (2019-2022) Year Value of Sales Commissions 2010 $6,007.4 $360.4 2011 $5,987.5 $359.3 2012 $7,207.9 $432.5 2013 $8,918.5 $535.1 2014 $9,642.8 $578.6 2015 $11,842.9 $710.6 2016 $13,364.5 $801.9 2017 $14,859.2 $891.6 2018 $16,417.7 $985.1 2019 $18,376.5 $1,102.6 2020 $23,478.1 $1,408.7 2021 $27,836.6 $1,670.2 2022 $25,001.5 $1,500.1 on market indicator to the mortgage rate is shown in Figure 6. As the Federal Reserve began their interest rate hikes in spring 2022 the days on market moved in short order to 20 days by July. From July to January the indicator rose to 52 days, the highest level since the Great Recession. But since then, it has fallen to 24 days by July indicating that demand may be recovering despite relatively high mortgage rates. Figure 5: Utah Residential Real Estate Median Days on Market, 2000-2022 (Annual Average) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Figure 6: Utah Residential Real Estate Median Days on Market by Month, Jan 2021 to July 2023 (Annual Average) 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 MDOM Historic Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010201220142016201820202022 Condominium, Townhome Twin HomeSingle FamilyTotal 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 201020112012201320142015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,386 31,401 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single FamilyCondominium Apartments Single FamilyCondominiumApartments Total 67.3% 40.4% 13.2% 24.3% 19.5%35.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2010201220142016201820202022 26,062 53,806 50,504 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 200620082010201220142016201820202022 24 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 Source: UtahRealEstate.comSource: UtahRealEstate.com September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM8 Figure 7: Utah Active Residential Real Estate Listings, Jan 2019 to July 2023 Figure 8: Entered Residential Real Estate Listings in Utah, 2019-2023 8,198 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l Se p t No v Ja n Ma r Ma y Ju l 8701020304050607080901002000200220042006200820102012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022MDOMHistoric Average 45 Days MDOM Historic Average 45 Days 10,266 29,804 40,686 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010201220142016201820202022 Condominium, Townhome Twin HomeSingle FamilyTotal 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000201020112012201320142015 2016 2017 2018 39,620 29,38631,40120192020 2021 2022Single FamilyCondominium ApartmentsSingle FamilyCondominiumApartments Total67.3%40.4%13.2%24.3%19.5%35.3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%201020122014201620182020202226,06253,80650,50440,686010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000200620082010201220142016201820202022 24120102030405060 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2021 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2022 2023 52 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Homebuilding Contraction Likely to Increase Utah’s Housing Shortage A commonly used measure for a housing shortage compares increases in households against increases in housing units. This measure assumes that an additional household requires an additional housing unit. This assumption is consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau’s methodology, which reports occupied housing units and households as equal and interchangeable estimates. A housing shortage occurs when growth in households exceeds growth in housing units, historically an uncommon condition in Utah. A review of changes in households and housing units shows that from the 1970s through the 2000s, the decadal growth in housing units exceeded growth in households by nearly 15% (Table 6). The surplus is, in part, explained by the addition of units that are not occupied by a full-time resident (household), such as second homes, recreational condominiums (timeshare units), and cabins. From 2010 to 2017, however, the housing-units-to- households relationship flipped, with additional households outnumbering additional housing units, thus creating Utah’s first prolonged housing shortage. Each year, from 2010 to 2017, the growth in households was greater than the growth in housing units, although the gap gradually declined over the seven-year period (Figure 9). The cumulative shortage from 2010 to 2022 totaled 28,415 housing units (Figure 10). This should not be interpreted as leading to 28,415 homeless households. Rather, the shortage created record low rental vacancy rates in both rental units and owner-occupied units. In other words, the shortage removed vacant units from the housing market, and created an unhealthy condition leading to higher housing prices, higher rental rates, and few housing alternatives especially for moderate to low-income households. By 2018, the housing shortage began to ease as the building boom finally caught up with household growth and new housing units exceeded the number of new households. In that year, new housing units totaled 24,245 while households increased by 23,139, thus reducing the housing shortage by Table 6: Change in Utah Households and Housing Units by Decade, 1970–2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decade Increase in Households Increase in Housing Units Increase in Housing Units Compared to Increase in Households 1970s 150,669 174,241 Higher by 15.6% 1980s 88,670 108,382 Higher by 22.2% 1990s 164,008 170,206 Higher by 3.8% 2000s 176,411 213,227 Higher by 20.9% Total 579,758 666,056 Higher by 14.9% averaged 6,000 listings compared to only 4,335 in July 2023 (Figure 8). Due to the years of mortgage rates below 4% (2019 to spring 2022), many homeowners now have mortgages carrying interest rates below 4%. At the end of 2022, 62% of mortgage holders nationally had a mortgage rate below 4% (according to Redfin News). Many of these low mortgage rate homeowners have become unwilling sellers in a period of high rates, thus reducing the number of entered listings. The effect of years of low interest rates and the subsequent rapid rise in 2022- 2023 is now limiting the supply of new listings with implications for Utah’s housing shortage and housing affordability. Source: UtahRealEstate.com Source: UtahRealEstate.com gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 9 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Figure 10: Cumulative Housing Shortage in Utah, 2011-2024(f) Figure 9: Increase in Utah Housing Units vs . Increase in Utah Households, 2010-2024(f) (f) = forecast (2023–2024) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (f) = forecast (2023-2024) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute about 1,100 units. Over the next four years more housing units were built than new households created, shrinking the housing shortage to a little more than 28,000 units. But the rapid rise in mortgage rates threatens to undo some of this recent progress. Although new housing units did exceed new households in 2022, residential construction projections indicate the five-year decline in the shortage may soon end. Household growth is expected to exceed housing unit growth in 2023 and 2024 by about 8,800 units. This shortfall would push the housing shortage up by 31% to 37,255 units (Table 7). Market Conditions and the Housing Shortage Another measure of a housing shortage looks at conditions “on the ground.” The housing market has three entry points: buying a new home, buying an existing home, or renting a unit. For the past several years these points of entry have shown the Table 7: Utah’s Housing Shortage, 2010-2024(f) (f) = forecast Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institutew stress of demand outstripping supply, however, in 2022 these indicators told a mixed story. The rental market showed demand outpacing supply as rental vacancy rates in the Wasatch Front counties were around 4%. An acute shortage of affordable rental housing—rental units affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 50% area median income (AMI)— persisted with tax credit, public housing, and housing voucher programs all carrying long waitlists. The story is mixed because of the historically rapid increase in mortgage rates, which doubled in less than 12 months and created a sudden and unexpected shock to the housing market. The psychological and financial impact on homebuyers cut into the demand for both new and existing homes. Consequently, these two points of entry, new home or existing home purchase, as indicators of a housing shortage, at least in the short-term, have been rendered less meaningful. To be brief, does the 26% decline in new housing units and the 19% decline in the sales of existing homes signal a significant shrinkage of the housing shortage? Or what does the rise of MDOM from six days in March 2022 to 45 days in December 2022 tell us about the housing shortage? The interest rate increase of 2022 interrupted and created short-term (hopefully) distortions of demand for new and existing homes. Perhaps, it is best not to interpret the impact of short-term wild swings in demand as indicators of long-term housing market conditions, particularly in the case of the housing shortage. Year Increase in Housing Units Increase in Households Cumulative Shortage 2010 9,079 24,460 2011 9,085 22,615 28,911 2012 11,918 20,998 37,991 2013 15,009 17,631 40,613 2014 18,810 20,210 42,013 2015 17,294 24,151 48,870 2016 20,064 24,426 53,232 2017 23,002 26,000 56,230 2018 24,245 23,139 55,124 2019 27,610 24,461 51,975 2020 31,797 24,312 44,490 2021 40,144 26,689 31,035 2022 29,529 26,909 28,415 2023 (f)22,750 27,349 33,014 2024 (f)23,500 27,741 37,255 September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM10 Occupied Housing Units as a Measure of the Housing Shortage A third method for measuring housing shortages comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, which provides estimates of total and occupied housing units. The bulk of vacant units is composed of second and recreational homes followed by vacant rental units and finally vacant “for sale” homes. The estimates from four decennial censuses for Utah show that on average 90.6% of all housing units are occupied units. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey for Utah shows that 92.6% of all housing units are occupied. The number of vacant units in 2021 is the smallest of the five-time periods selected. Fewer vacant units and more occupied units suggest that the market is experiencing a housing shortage. If we apply the average of 90.6% from the decennial censuses to the total occupied units in 2021 of 1,1,90,154 units, the number of vacant units would increase by 23,220 and the number of occupied units would Table 8: Utah Total Housing Compared to Occupied Housing Units by Decade, 1990-2020 and 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Market Conditions Year Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Percent Occupied 1990 598,000 537,000 89.8% 2000 769,000 701,000 91.2% 2010 981,821 880,025 89.6% 2020 1,151,414 1,057,252 91.8% 1990-2020 Average 90.6% 2021 1,190,154 1,101,499 92.6% 2021 Occupied at 90.6%1,190,154 1,078,279 90.6% Estimated Shortage 23,220 The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Demand and Supply The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on Utah’s housing market. Like the Great Recession, the pandemic was a unique moment in Utah’s housing history. The Great Recession featured the most prolonged period of price declines—16 consecutive quarters—while the pandemic triggered the steepest rise in prices in Utah’s real estate history. In a matter of 24 months the median sales price of a home increased by 51%; (from $335,000 Q1 2020 to $505,000 Q1 2022). What caused the historic rise in prices? Certainly, the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy served to stimulate demand but there were other factors at play. The pandemic brought large scale investors, flush with cash, into the housing market, which added to demand. In some urban markets investors accounted for 20% of homes purchases in 2021.12 The rise of remote work due to the pandemic gave a boost to net in- migration, which also added to housing demand. Net in- migration grew from 26,142 to 38,191 from 2020 to 2022. While not all these individuals were remote workers, a common real estate anecdote during this period recounted the arrival of out- of-state remote workers and their willingness and ability to pay top dollars for Utah real estate. Unfortunately, this heightened demand struck when Utah was facing a housing shortage of 44,000 units—a shortage equivalent to about 18 months of homebuilding. And of course, the shortage was made worse by construction delays from the pandemic’s disruption of the construction supply chain. And finally, a non-pandemic related supply constraint was the rise of short-term rentals. From 2019 to 2021 the number of short- term rental homes in Utah increased by 27% to 18,743 homes thus reducing the supply of long-term housing. The Pandemic’s Impact on Housing Prices With the squeeze on supply and the surge in demand, an accelerated increase in housing prices was inevitable. Given the magnitude of the increase, 53% in twenty-four months (Q2 2020 to Q2022), a correction was also inevitable.13 According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s price index, housing prices went from a year-over quarterly increase of 29.7%, to a decline of 4.3% in 18 months, exhibiting much greater volatility than prices nationally. The interest rate induced price swings highlight the volatility of housing prices in Utah. In the four price cycles since 1992, the rate of change of Utah housing prices have been higher on the upside and lower on the downside (Figure 11). The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) publishes quarterly housing price data for each state and the largest one hundred metropolitan areas. The FHFA’s Housing Price Index (HPI) is an important source of comparative price data for states and metropolitan areas. “The house price indexes measure changes in single-family home values based on data from all fifty states and over 400 cities that extend back to the mid- 1970s. The HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. This information comes from reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties decline by a like number, easing the housing shortage. The third measure using occupied housing units indicates Utah faced a housing shortage of at least 23,000 units in 2021 (Table 8). gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 11 whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since 1975.”14 FHFA ranked Utah 50th or last in the percent change in housing prices in Q1 2023. Utah’s 4.3% decline was the largest among the seven states experiencing declines, all of them western states (Figure 12). While prices fell in most western states the rest of the country experienced price gains. Twenty- eight states had increases of at least 5%. South Carolina led all states with a year-over increase of 9.5%. The fiscal and monetary response to the pandemic brought a necessary but short-term price correction to Utah’s housing market. Despite the past 12-month decline Utah still ranks second in the long-term increase in housing prices. From 1991 to Q1 2023 Utah’s housing price index increased by 564.7%, second only to Colorado’s 565.04% increase Table 8. And in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area, the long-term increase has been even greater than the statewide increase. Of the largest one hundred metropolitan areas, the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area ranks first with an increase of 628.2% from1991 to Q1 2023 (Table 9). The year-over first quarter index shows a 4.9% decline in prices in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area, which ranks 90th among the one hundred metropolitan areas. San Francisco had the largest decline of the 100-metropolitan area, 10.1%, followed by Austin, Texas at 8.5%. The FHFA index tracks price changes but not the absolute price of a home. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), however, publishes quarterly data on the median sales price of a single-family home in 185 metropolitan areas. The four Utah metropolitan areas included in the report all show declines in home prices in the first quarter.15 Both St. George and Provo- Orem had double-digit declines, nevertheless the price of a Figure 11: Year-Over Percent Change in Utah and U .S . Housing Price Index, 1992-2023 Table 9: Percent Change in Utah and Salt Lake Area Housing Price Index, 2023 Figure 12: Year Over First Quarter Change in FHFA Price Index, 2023 Note: State rank excludes District of Columbia. Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000$420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000 4,3356,10801,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2019202020212022202305,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2022202328.2%-10.3%-2.0%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul202220236.265.64.64.2 0 1234567 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Period Utah Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area YoY % Change State Rank YoY % Change Metropolitan Rank Q1 2022 – Q12023 (one year)-4.3%50th -4.9%90th Q1 2018 – Q1 2023 (five years)71.9%8th 66.3%21st Q1 1991 – Q1 2023 564.7%2nd 628.2%1st Table 10: Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes in Select Utah Metropolitan Areas, 2023 Source: National Association of Realtors Metropolitan Area Median Sales Price Q1 2023 Ranking by Highest Price Q1 YoY % Change Salt Lake $522,700 27th -6.1 St. George $512,200 29th -13.4 Provo-Orem $492,600 32nd -13.3 Clearfield-Ogden $451,900 37th -4.6 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000$420,000$440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000 4,3356,10801,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2019202020212022202305,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2022202328.2%-10.3%-2.0%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul202220236.265.64.64.2 0 1 234567 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency median priced home in both metropolitan areas is relatively high. Out of 185 metropolitan areas, St. George, with a median price of $512,000, ranks 29th highest and Provo-Orem ranks 32nd. The Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area ranks 27th in housing prices; only 15% of the 185 metropolitan areas surveyed have higher median sales prices (Table 10). September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM12 Housing Price Change for Utah’s Counties and Large Cities, 2022-2023 The National Association of Realtors’ price data relies on information from the multiple listing services (MLS) in each state. Locally, UtahRealEstate.com provides (MLS) price data on real estate listings and sales transactions. The year-over second quarter price data show that county-level prices varied across Utah. Table 11 provides data on every county but price changes for small counties with limited sales transactions are less reliable than counties with a larger number of transactions. The 14 counties with fewer than 50 sales transactions in either Q2 2022 or Q2 2023 are in italics. One county, Daggett, had no reported sales information. Table 11: Change in Median Sales Price of Homes by County, 2022-2023 (Single-family, townhome, twin home, condominium) Note: Counties in italics had fewer than 50 sales transactions. The small sample size makes year-over comparisons less reliable. Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data County Q2 2022 Q2 2023 Change Beaver $368,500 $239,900 -34.9% Box Elder $452,500 $403,800 -10.8% Cache $450,000 $425,000 -5.6% Carbon $255,000 $229,350 -10.1% Daggett NA NA NA Davis $545,000 $519,000 -4.8% Duchesne $274,000 $323,350 18.0% Emery $260,000 $225,000 -13.5% Garfield $415,000 $429,000 3.4% Grand $697,000 $675,000 -3.2% Iron $380,000 $410,000 7.9% Juab $390,000 $435,000 11.5% Kane $453,500 $395,000 -12.9% Millard $272,500 $305,000 11.9% Morgan $736,950 $692,950 -6.0% Piute $318,000 $365,000 14.8% Rich $673,000 $540,000 -19.8% Salt Lake $556,000 $520,000 -6.5% San Juan $640,870 $400,000 -37.6% Sanpete $432,000 $365,000 -15.5% Sevier $315,000 $281,000 -10.8% Summit $1,285,000 $1,375,000 7.0% Tooele $490,544 $449,425 -8.4% Uintah $279,500 $318,000 13.8% Utah $545,000 $487,500 -10.6% Wasatch $969,988 $1,016,143 4.8% Washington $600,000 $523,500 -12.8% Wayne $550,000 $560,000 1.8% Weber $450,000 $425,000 -5.6% State $535,000 $493,990 -7.7% Sales transactions include all types of housing (single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home). The median sales price in counties with more than 50 transactions increased in only four counties and declined in ten. Rural counties with a smaller number of sales transactions are more likely to report a price increase. Price increases were strong in Summit and Wasatch counties, the two most expensive housing markets in the state. The median sales price in Summit increased by 7.0% to $1,375,000 and in Wasatch County by 4.8% to $1,016,143. Ten counties experienced year-over price declines in Q2 2023 (Table 12). Five counties reported double-digit declines.16 Washington County, for example, saw a 12.8% decline in the median sales price. The four Wasatch Front counties also saw declines, with the largest in Utah County (-10.6%) and the smallest in Davis County (-3.7%). Price changes in the 14 counties with a significant level of sales transactions (50 transactions or more) are shown in (Figure 13). Statewide the median sales price declined 7.7% in the second quarter, falling from $535,000 in 2022 to $493,990 in 2023. Nearly all Utah’s largest cities had year-over second quarter price declines as well. Five cities had double-digit declines, led by Eagle Mountain, where prices fell 13.7% (Table 13). Only two of Utah’s largest cities saw increases: Herriman and Draper. The median sales price in Herriman increased by 0.5% to $571,956. South Jordan saw a larger gain of 7.5%, with the median sales price increasing to $785,000. Table 12: Change in Utah Median Sales Price in Select Counties, 2023 Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data County % Change Q2 to Q2 Number of Transactions in Q2 2023 Counties with Increase in Median Price Duchesne 18.0%54 Summit 7.0%240 Uintah 13.8%87 Wasatch 4.8%157 Counties with Decline in Median Price Box Elder -10.8%180 Cache -5.6%335 Carbon -10.1%75 Davis -4.8%1,056 Salt Lake -6.5%3,190 Sanpete -15.5%56 Tooele -8.4%356 Utah -10.6%2,300 Washington -12.8%520 Weber -5.6%929 gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 13 Table 13: Change in Median Sales Prices in Utah’s Largest Cities, 2022-2023 (Largest 20 cities by population) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Population Rank City Q2 2022 Q2 2023 % Change 1 Salt Lake City $570,000 $523,000 -8.2% 2 West Valley City $471,400 $435,000 -7.7% 3 West Jordan $559,950 $505,000 -9.8% 4 Provo $448,500 $437,250 -2.5% 5 Orem $510,000 $458,000 -10.2% 6 Sandy $660,000 $624,900 -5.3% 7 St. George*$572,500 $499,071 -12.8% 8 Ogden $365,000 $349,900 -4.1% 9 Layton $524,000 $488,000 -6.9% 10 South Jordan $642,500 $590,000 -8.2% 11 Lehi $539,344 $495,000 -8.2% 12 Millcreek $642,500 $590,000 -8.2% 13 Taylorsville $481,500 $464,000 -3.6% 14 Herriman $569,000 $571,956 0.5% 15 Logan $408,000 $394,950 -3.2% 16 Murray $527,500 $470,000 -10.9% 17 Draper $730,000 $785,000 7.5% 18 Bountiful $541,424 $540,000 -0.3% 19 Riverton $607,500 $541,000 -10.9% 20 Eagle Mountain $569,355 $491,500 -13.7% Figure 14: Monthly Median Sales Price of Homes in Utah, Jan 2022 to July 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Figure 13: Change in Utah Median Sales Price by County, 2023 (Year-over change Q2) $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Median price falls 16% in eight months, peak to trough The Inverse Relationship of Housing Prices and Interest Rates The sharpest price decline in Utah’s real estate history occurred from May 2022 to January 2023. In just eight months the median sales price of an existing home statewide fell 16% (Figure 14). Statewide the median sales prices peaked in May 2022 at $545,000. By January 2023, it had fallen to $460,000. There is no other comparable short-term decline, when housing prices fell so far so fast, in either the Great Recession or the decade of the 1980s. The trough of this price cycle was likely established in January 2023 with the statewide median price of $460,000. From January to May 2023 the median sales price increased each month, reaching $499,000, however, in June and July the price stalled at nearly $500,000 (Table 14). Nevertheless, the recovery in prices so far in 2023 is encouraging, indicating that the downward pressure on prices is winding down. Furthermore, the monthly year-over price decline decelerated over the last three months, narrowing to a 2% decline in July 2023 compared to July 2022 (Figure 15). Thus, the month-to-month and year- over data, along with the declining days on market suggest that price declines may have hit bottom in spring 2023. It is no coincidence that the historic decline coincided with the most rapid short-term increase in mortgage rates ever. From March 2022 to January 2023 the average 30-year mortgage rate rose from 3.76% to 6.48%. The rise in the mortgage rate was due indirectly to the Federal Reserve’s increase in the federal funds rate. The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate eleven times from March 2022 to July 2023 to slow economic growth and cool inflation. In a little more than a year the Federal Reserve has increased the federal funds rate from zero in Q1 2022 to 5.5% in July 2023 (Table 15).17 Summit Salt Lake Wayne Washington Wasatch Utah Uintah Tooele Sevier Sanpete San Juan Piute Millard Kane Juab Iron Grand Garfield Emery Duchesne Carbon 7.0% -6.5% -12.8% 4.8% -10.6%13.8% -8.4% -15.5% 18.0% -10.1% -10.8% Box Elder Beaver Cache, -5.6% Rich Weber, -5.6% Davis, -4.8% Morgan Dagget -10% or more -5% to -10%-1% to -5% 1% to 5%5% to 10%10% to 15% 15% or more <50 Transactions Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Utah Association of Realtors for Washington County data September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM14 $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000$460,000$480,000$500,000$520,000$540,000$560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,3356,108 0 1,000 2,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Figure 15: Percent Change in Utah Median Sales Price of a Home, Jan 2022 – July 2023 (Year-over monthly percent change, single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Table 15: Change in the Federal Funds Rate, March 2022 to May 2023 *Basis points. 25 bps is equivalent to a quarter of a percent increase in the Federal Funds rate. Source: Federal Reserve Date BPS* Increase Federal Funds Rate March 17, 2022 25 0.25% - 0.50% May 5, 2022 50 0.75% - 1.00% June 16, 2022 75 1.50% - 1.75% July 27, 2022 75 2.25% - 2.50% September 21, 2022 75 3.00% - 3.25% November 2, 2022 75 3.75% - 4.00% December 14, 2022 50 4.25% - 4.50% February 1, 2023 25 4.50% - 4.75% March 22, 2023 25 4.75% - 5.00% May 3, 2023 25 5.00% - 5.25% July 26, 2023 25 5.25% - 5.50% Measuring Housing Affordability: Median Multiple and Housing Opportunity Index One measure of housing affordability is the median multiple, which is a price-to-income ratio of the median house price divided by the median household income. The affordability rating of the median multiple is shown in Table 16. From 2000 to 2018 the median multiple in Utah was under 4.0. Housing $545,000 $460,000 $499,800 $400,000 $420,000 $440,000 $460,000 $480,000 $500,000 $520,000 $540,000 $560,000 18.3%17.2% -12.0% 10.9% 29.7% -4.3% UT 4.3% US -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Utah US 56,230 28,415 37,255 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 4,335 6,108 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024(f) Housing Units Households Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 28.2% -10.3% -2.0% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l 2022 2023 6.26 5.6 4.64.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 9.53 9.53 8.76 8.27 7.73 7.67 7.35 7.30 7.22 7.04 6.81 6.73 6.48 6.46 6.30 6.26 6.24 5.99 5.91 5.50 5.07 4.82 4.80 4.72 4.65 4.60 4.28 4.224.17 3.67 2.35 0.73 0.67 -1.07 -1.57 -1.60 -2.62 -2.86 -3.60 -4.35 MA 3.86 CT 8.07 RI 7.63 NJ 6.85 MD 1.59 DE 5.33 NH 4.97 VT 8.82 7.86 Table 16: Utah Median Multiple Affordability Rating, 2022 Source: Demographia International Housing Affordability Housing Affordability Rating Median Multiple Ratio Affordable ≤3.0 Moderately Unaffordable 3.1 to 4.0 Seriously Unaffordable 4.1 to 5.0 Severely Unaffordable 5.1 & over Figure 16: Utah Median Multiple Affordability Rating, 2000-2022 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and UtahRealEstate.com Table 14: Change in Utah Median Sales Price by Month in Utah, Jan 2022 to June 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Median Price YoY % Chg . 2022 January $485,000 27.63% February $500,000 28.24% March $520,500 27.89% April $535,000 24.42% May $545,000 23.86% June $530,000 17.78% July $510,000 11.58% August $504,990 9.78% September $495,000 6.45% October $495,000 6.68% November $486,581 3.55% December $480,000 1.05% 2023 January $460,000 -5.15% February $468,000 -6.40% March $484,000 -7.01% April $480,000 -10.28% May $499,990 -8.26% June $502,500 -5.18% July $499,800 -2.00% gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 15 Table 17: Ratio of Median Housing Price to Median House - hold Income in Utah and Major Metropolitan Areas of the Western U .S ., 2022 Source: Demographia International Housing Affordability, 2023 Metropolitan Area Median Multiple Phoenix 6.0 Salt Lake City 6.6 Portland 6.7 Las Vegas 6.9 Seattle 6.9 Denver 7.0 San Diego 9.4 San Francisco 10.7 Los Angeles 11.3 Table 18: Housing Opportunity Index by Utah Metropolitan Area, Q1 2022 to Q2 2023 Source: National Home Builders Association and Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index Metropolitan Area Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Salt Lake 44.3 24.1 22.5 18.7 24.9 21.3 Ogden-Clearfield 55.5 31.1 31 27.5 42.7 38.3 Provo-Orem 35.0 16.5 15.6 16.1 27.2 23.5 St. George 32.3 21.8 19.5 16.3 27.4 24.7 have benefitted from the rise in housing prices. Their equity gains offsetting the deterioration in affordability. Hence, the median multiple and HOI are mechanistic in that they only consider income and housing price. Nevertheless, they are meaningful indicators of the deterioration of housing affordability and of particular relevance to households not yet homeowners. Mortgage Payments Increase Despite Drop in Housing Prices The monthly mortgage payment on the median priced home in 2021 was $2,466 and the income required to finance the mortgage was $98,640. The mortgage payment increased to $3,648 in 2022 and to $3,750 in 2023 (Table 19). The income required to finance the mortgage payment in 2023 was $150,000 up 2.8% from a year ago and 52.1% from two years ago. This sharp two-year increase in the cost of the median priced home precludes a growing share of households from homeownership and threatens the housing opportunities of future generations. Of course, half of all homes sold are priced below the median. Do these lower priced homes provide a realistic home ownership opportunity for most renters or first-time home buyers? Sales data show that 25% of homes sold (June 2022 through June 2023) were $400,00 to $500,000 and another 19% were $300,000 to $400,000 (Table 20). But even these lower priced homes require relatively high levels of income to qualify for homeownership. A home priced between $300,000 to $400,000 would require an income of roughly $100,000 to $130,000 and for a home priced from $400,000 to $500,000 the income required ranges from $130,000 to $160,000 (Table 21), daunting income requirements for most first-time homebuyers and renters. Even homes priced well below the median would likely require two incomes in a household and several years’ experience in the job market. Renters Locked Out by Rent Increases Only a small share of Utah renter households have sufficient income, $100,000 to $130,000, to purchase a $300,000 to $400,000 home (Table 22). High interest rates and housing prices exclude a growing share of renters from home ownership. Long- term renters will face a rental market with rising rents and low vacancy rates. The average rental rate in Wasatch Front counties increased at a rate of 6.5% to 7.0% annually since 2011, nearly double the rate of increase in renter’s income. The average rental rate in Salt Lake County is now $1,570, which requires an income of $60,000 to qualify as a tenant (Table 23). In the past two years the average rental rate in each of the four Wasatch Front counties has increased by over 25% (Table 24). In Weber County rental rates are up over 30% in two years. The prolonged period of low vacancy rates, nine years with the vacancy rate below 5%, has put upward pressure on rental rates (Table 25). was moderately unaffordable. But by 2019 and 2020 the ratio moved up to the 4.1 to 5.0 range, a seriously unaffordable rating. By 2021 and 2022, the acceleration in price increases pushed the median multiple to 5.61 in 2021 and 6.26 by 2022, signifying a severely unaffordable housing market (Figure 16). The Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area has a median multiple of 6.6, comparable to Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle, and Denver (Table 17). Another measure of affordability is the quarterly Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) published by the National Home Builders Association and Wells Fargo. The HOI is “the share of homes sold (existing and new) in a metropolitan area that would have been affordable to a family earning the local median income.” The HOI is like the median multiple in that it has two major components: income and housing prices. The HOI, however, estimates the share of homes affordable to the median income family, rather than a ratio of the median multiple. The HOI of the four metropolitan areas in Utah show declining affordability throughout 2022 and into 2023 (Table 18). Over six quarters the HOI for Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area fell from 44.3 in Q1 2022 (meaning the median income family could afford 44.3% of homes sold in that quarter) to 21.9 in Q2 2023. In an affordable housing market, the median income family should be able to afford at least 50% of the homes sold. Neither of these affordability measures, however, considers the housing wealth of the median income family. Most homeowners September 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM16 Table 20: Residential Sales in Utah by Price Range (June 2022 through June 2023) Source: UtahRealEstate.com Price Range (1,000s)Homes Sold % Share ≤$200.0 416 1.2% $200.0 to $299.9 1,925 5.4% $300.0 to $399.9 6,985 19.5% $400.0 to $499.9 9,240 25.7% $500.0 to $599.9 5,953 16.6% $600.9 to $699.9 3,964 11.0% $700.0 to $799.9 2,389 6.7% $800.0 to $899.9 1,400 3.9% $900.0 to $999.9 862 2.4% $1,000.0 to $1,999.9 2,026 5.6% ≥$2,000.0 735 2.1% Total 35,895 100 .0% Table 21: Income Required to Purchase Utah Homes in Select Price Ranges, 2023 (Q2 2022 to Q2 2023) Source: UtahRealEstate.com and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Sales Price Range of Monthly Payment Income Range Required Number of Homes Sold Percent of Home Sold $300,000- $400,000 $2,289-$3,018 $98,100 to $129,342 6,985 19.5% $400,000- $500,000 $3,018-$3,747 $129,342 to $160,585 9,240 25.7% Table 22: Household Income for Utah Renter Households, 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Income Category Renter Households Percent Share Less than $5,000 17,685 5.3% $5,000 to $9,999 10,773 3.2% $10,000 to $14,999 15,667 4.7% $15,000 to $19,999 14,198 4.3% $20,000 to $24,999 13,771 4.1% $25,000 to $34,999 38,060 11.4% $35,000 to $49,999 58,536 17.6% $50,000 to $74,999 73,252 22.0% $75,000 to $99,999 40,203 12.1% $100,000 to $149,999 33,905 10.2% $150,000 or more 17,390 5.2% Total 333,440 100 .0% Table 23: Average Rental Rate for All Types of Units in Wasatch Front Counties, 2011-2022 AARC = Average Annual Rate of Change Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 $791 $753 $701 $655 2012 $810 $788 $720 $684 2013 $850 $807 $756 $678 2014 $892 $868 $796 $698 2015 $960 $924 $839 $754 2016 $1,027 $1,041 $933 $810 2017 $1,087 $1,097 $1,005 $864 2018 $1,153 $1,138 $1,060 $937 2019 $1,218 $1,181 $1,102 $995 2020 $1,229 $1,196 $1,136 $1,040 2021 $1,484 $1,432 $1,369 $1,265 2022 $1,570 $1,523 $1,483 $1,387 AARC 6.4%6.6%7.0%7.1% Table 19: Mortgage Payment Calculations for the Median Priced Home in Utah, Q2 2021 to Q2 2023 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, and twin home) Category Q2 2021 Q2 2022 Q2 2023 % Chg . 2022-2023 % Chg . 2021-2023 Median sales price of home $440,000 $535,000 $494,250 -7.6%12.3% 5% down payment $22,000 $26,750 $24,713 -7.6%12.3% Amount to finance $418,000 $508,250 $469,519 -7.6%12.3% Interest rate 3.00%5.27%6.51%------ Principal and interest payment $1,762 $2,813 $2,971 5.6%68.6% Private mortgage insurance 1% of the loan $348 $423 $391 -7.6%12.4% Home Insurance $100 $100 $100 0.0%0.0% Property tax @0.007% of home value $256 $312 $288 -7.7%12.5% Total mortgage payment $2,466 $3,648 $3,750 2.8%52.1% Income Required to Finance Median Priced Home $98,640 $145,920 $150,000 2.8%52.1% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Freddie Mac, UtahRealEstate.com gardner.utah.edu I September 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 17 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 4.8%5.2%-1.4%2.3% 2012 2.4%4.6%2.7%4.4% 2013 4.9%2.4%5.0%-9.0% 2014 4.9%7.6%5.3%2.9% 2015 7.6%6.5%5.4%8.0% 2016 7.0%12.7%11.2%7.4% 2017 5.8%5.4%7.7%6.6% 2018 6.1%3.7%5.5%8.5% 2019 5.6%3.8%4.0%6.2% 2020 0.9%1.3%3.1%4.5% 2021 20.7%19.7%20.5%21.7% 2022 5.8%6.4%8.3%9.6% Table 25: Rental Vacancy Rates in Wasatch Front Counties, 2011-2022 Year Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber 2011 5.2%5.0%5.8%6.5% 2012 5.0%3.2%6.6%6.1% 2013 5.1%4.4%4.6%6.9% 2014 4.9%3.6%4.6%4.7% 2015 4.1%4.1%4.0%4.2% 2016 3.2%4.0%3.4%2.3% 2017 4.1%4.1%3.5%3.2% 2018 4.3%4.4%3.0%2.5% 2019 4.4%3.2%3.0%3.0% 2020 4.8%4.2%2.8%4.1% 2021 2.9%2.3%2.0%2.7% 2022 4.6%3.8%4.2%4.3% Table 24: Annual Percent Increase in Average Rental Rate by County, 2011-2022 Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Utah’s Housing Forecast: 2023-2024 Utah’s housing fundamentals remain strong; however, demographic and economic growth are forecast to slow slightly in 2023 and 2024. Net in-migration will likely edge lower due to high housing costs, fewer remote workers, and slower job growth. Employment growth will fall around 2.0%, the lowest level since the Great Recession (except for the pandemic year 2020). A weaker economic environment will add to Utah’s home building and real estate challenges. The forecast for the number of homes receiving building permits in 2023 is 22,750, the lowest level since 2015. Sales of existing homes will fall to 37,500 in 2023, the lowest level since 2014. However, both home building activity and real estate sales are expected to increase in 2024. Market indicators suggest that the decline in housing prices is near bottom, and year-over increases are likely in the third and fourth quarters. The 2023 median sales price is forecast at $500,000, just 2% below the statewide median in 2022. The mortgage rate is expected to be near 7.0% by year- end 2023 and trend lower in 2024 to 6.5%. Finally, little progress on housing affordability is likely as price increases return and the housing shortage grows. Table 26: Forecast for Residential Construction and Residential Real Estate Sales in Utah, 2021-2024 (Single-family, condominium, townhome, twin home) Source: Freddie Mac, UtahRealEstate.com, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Category Numeric Change Percent Change 2021 2022 2023 2024 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Residential building permits (units)40,144 29,883 22,750 24,000 -25.6%- 23.9%5.5% Existing home sales 49,678 40,072 37,500 42,000 -19.3%-6.4%12.0% Median sales price of homes $446,000 $510,000 $500,000 $520,000 14.4%-2.0%4.0% Mortgage rate 2.96%5.34%7.00%6.50%--------- Endnotes 1. Freddie Mac archive of mortgage rates, UtahRealEstate.com, and Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah. 2. UtahRealestate.com and U.S. Census Bureau’s Building Permits by State. 3. Gardner Policy Institute, State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024. 4. As measured by median sales price from UtahRealEstate.com; February 2021 median sale price of $389,900, February 2022 median sales price $500,000. Statewide median price for all types of housing, single-family, condominium, town home, and twin home. 5. UtahRealEstate.com 6. Median sales price of home (single-family, condominium, town home, twin home) in Utah from UtahRealEstate.com. 7. National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index, Q2 2023. 8. Federal housing Finance Agency, Housing Price Index by State. 9 . U.S. Census Bureau, Table B25119 Median Household Income by Tenure, and CBRE Apartment Market Report for the Greater Salt Lake Area, 2022. 10. Gardner Policy Institute, State of the State’s Housing Market, 2022-2024. 11. National Association of Realtors. 12. Redfin News, Investors Are Buying Roughly Half as Man Homes as They Were a Year Ago, February 15, 2023. 13. The FHFA price index for Utah increased from 532.84 in Q2 2020 to 813.03 in Q2 2022, a 53% increase. 14. For more information see https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/ Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx. 15. Logan Metropolitan Area is not included in the NAR quarterly report. 16. The source for Washington County data is the Utah Association Realtors rather than UtahRealEstate.com. 17. The federal funds rate is a short-term interest rate to guide overnight lending among banks. While the Federal Reserve does not set the mortgage rate the federal funds rate indirectly affects long-term mortgage rates. Other factors influencing the mortgage rate include the inflation rate, job creation, and overall economic conditions. Source: CBRE Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 2022 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Chief of Staff Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Nate Lloyd, Director of Economic Research Dianne Meppen, Director of Community Research Laura Summers, Director of Industry Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Public Policy Analyst Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Parker Banta, Public Policy Analyst Melanie Beagley, Public Policy Analyst Preston Brightwell, Dignity Index Field Director Andrea Thomas Brandley, Senior Education Analyst Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Economist Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow and Scholar Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Madeleine Jones, Dignity Index Field Director Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Praopan Pratoomchat, Senior Research Economist Heidi Prior, Public Policy Analyst Natalie Roney, Research Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large John C. Downen, Camoin Associates Dan Griffiths, Community-at-Large Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Northbound Strategy Juliette Tennert, Community-at-Large Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Roger Boyer Michelle Camacho Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Jeremy Hafen Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Angela Romero Senator Luz Escamilla Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Christian and Marie Gardner Family Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Wells Fargo Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu (HC) State of State Housing Sep2023 Utah policymakers have significantly expanded affordable housing programs in response to the housing crisis. As this effort continues, a comparison of state housing programs provides valuable policy insight. A Comparison of State-Funded Affordable Housing Programs April 2023 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu James Wood Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Max Becker Public Policy Analyst Table of Contents Analysis in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Need for Affordable Rental Housing ..................2 Low Vacancy Rates and High Rental Rates ................3 Job Growth in Relatively Low Paying Jobs ................3 The State’s Expanding Role in Affordable Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Chronology of Housing Legislation .......................4 Summary of 2023 General Session Housing Legislation ...5 Summary of Utah Housing Legislation 1995 to 2023 ......6 Selection of the “Best Fit” Programs for Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .7 State-Funded Rental Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 HUD Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers .................9 State-Funded Housing Vouchers .........................9 State-Funded Short-Term Housing Assistance Programs ...9 State-Funded Transitional Housing Assistance Programs ..9 State Housing Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) ..............12 A Comparison of State Trust Funds ......................13 Real Estate Transfer Tax ..................................13 State Tax Credit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Utah’s State Tax Credit Program ..........................16 Comparison of State Programs ..........................16 State Eviction Laws and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figures: Figure 1: Rental Vacancy Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2001-2022 (mid-year) ....................3 Figure 2: Annual Percent Increase in Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2011-2022 (mid-year) ......3 Figure 3: Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) .........................3 Figure 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 .................7 Figure 5: State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 ..............................................9 Figure 6: States with Real Estate Transfer Tax, as of 2020 ...14 Figure 7: States with State Tax Credits for Low-Income Housing, as of 2022 ....................................16 Tables Table 1: Very Low and Extremely Low-Income Renters with Severe Housing Cost Burdens, 2015-2019 ...........2 Table 2: Projected Annual Labor Demand by Minimum Education Level, 2020-2026 .............................3 Table 3: Major Legislation Supporting Utah State Housing Programs, 1995-2023 ..........................6 Table 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 .........................8 Table 5: Vouchers and Waitlists Administered by Public Housing Authorities, 2020 ........................8 Table 6: Characteristics of State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 ..........................10 Table 7: Short-Term Rental Assistance Programs, as of 2020 .............................................11 Table 8: State-Funded Transitional Housing Programs, as of 2020 .............................................11 Table 9: Annual State General Fund Appropriations for the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, 1995-2023 ...........12 Table 10: State Funding Levels for Housing Trust Funds, 2022 ...........................................13 Table 11: States with Trust Funds but Undetermined State Funding, as of 2022 ..............................13 Table 12: State Real Estate Transfer Tax Rates, 2020 ........14 Table 13: Revenue Allocation of Real Estate Transfer Taxes by State, 2020 ...................................15 Table 14: Selected Features of State Tax Credit Programs, as of 2021 ...................................17 Table 15: State Tax Credits Available, 2021 ................17 Table 16: States Ranked by Eviction Rate, 2019 ............19 Table 17: Eviction Filings by State, 2019 ...................20 Table 18: Monthly Eviction Filings in Utah, 2017-2022 .....20 Table 19: Eviction-Related Legislation Passed in Response to COVID-19, as of 2022 ......................21 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 1 A Comparison of State-Funded Affordable Housing Programs Analysis in Brief Housing instability and homelessness threaten the economic well-being of at least 40,000 extremely low-income renter house- holds in Utah. These households have annual incomes of less than $24,000 and must devote at least half of their income to housing and utilities. Many states have programs to help reduce this insta- bility and increase the number of affordable housing units. This report specifically focuses on four state-funded programs or policies that provide direct assistance to very low-income renters: (1) rental assistance, (2) state tax credits, (3) housing trusts, and (4) eviction policies. Key Findings • Utah has a shortage of several thousand affordable rental units – The need for affordable rental housing will likely continue to grow due to the high cost of homeowner- ship, rising rental rates, and historically low vacancy rates. • The Utah Legislature took significant steps in the 2023 General Legislative Session to ease the shortage of affordable housing – They passed six housing-related bills providing assistance to the homeless, first-time homebuy- ers, low-income housing developers, and home builders. A review of housing legislation from 1996 through 2023 suggests this was the most productive session for housing assistance in recent history. • Rental assistance programs reduce housing instability for very low-income households in many states – Thirty-one states have state-funded rental assistance programs. Many programs directly supplement the income of very low-income households through one-time rent payments, rental assistance to those leaving correctional systems or state psychiatric hospitals, loans for the first month’s rent, and housing vouchers patterned on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. • The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) is Utah’s primary state-funded housing program – OWHLF has participated in the development of 24,561 affordable rental units since first funded in 1995 (at $2.4 million). State General Fund appropriations, however, have not increased since the creation of the trust fund. • Utah’s state tax credits for low-income housing helped fund 8,000 units across 147 affordable rental housing projects – Utah’s tax credit program facilitates the development of affordable units for extremely low- income renters. In 2021 the available credit of $1.1 million ranked second lowest among the 25 states with tax credit programs (only Arkansas’ credit level was lower). That said, Utah’s Legislature increased the program to $10 million annually during the 2023 legislative session, aligning Utah’s funding with most state tax credit programs. • Utah’s state-funded programs have focused on the supply side of the affordable housing crisis – State tax credits, OWHLF gap financing, and funding of homeless shelters support the development of additional affordable units; however, these programs provide little housing assistance to the 40,000 extremely low-income renters (≤30%). Supply-focused programs can’t reach these renters due to the high cost of construction. Consequently, many states have added demand-focused programs to their affordable housing arsenal, programs that provide direct assistance to renters through rental assistance, state housing vouchers, and expanded eviction assistance. Expanding direct assistance programs would provide a lifeline to the state’s most vulnerable renters and broaden Utah’s efforts in addressing the affordable housing crisis. 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM2 This report continues the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s research on housing prices and affordability in Utah. In 2020, the Gardner Institute published Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? That report focused on the most effective city and county policies for improving housing affordability. While the 2020 study addressed housing affordability, this study has a narrower focus, affordable housing. For clarification, affordable housing refers to a specific type of housing, generally government-assisted rental housing, targeted for very low– to extremely low–income households. Housing affordability is a much broader term and refers to the general level of housing prices relative to the general level of household income as opposed to a specific type of housing. The Need for Affordable Rental Housing At least 40,000 renter households in Utah are extremely low- income renters (≤30% of Area Median Income, AMI), meaning they pay at least 50% of their income towards housing and utilities (Table 1). These households receive no rental assistance and live in market-rate rental units. They face housing instability and financial stress. For example, the nearly 17,000 extremely low-income households in Salt Lake County have an income of $2,000 per month or less and a monthly housing cost of at least $1,000. This severe housing cost burden underscores the need for state housing policies that increase housing opportunities for extremely low-income and very low-income renters (≤50% AMI). Introduction Table 1: Very Low and Extremely Low-Income Renters with Severe Housing Cost Burdens, 2015-2019 (Housing costs ≤50% of renter’s income) County Extremely Low-Income Renter Households ≤30% AMI Very Low-Income Renter Households 30%-50% AMI Total Renter Households Income ≤50% AMI Total Renters % Share of Renters with Incomes ≤50% AMI Salt Lake 16,795 5,215 22,010 123,265 17.9% Utah 7,435 2,195 9,630 53,700 17.9% Weber 3,320 430 3,750 22,235 16.9% Davis 3,035 565 3,600 24,035 15.0% Cache 2,345 440 2,785 14,215 19.6% Washington 1,675 955 2,630 16,915 15.5% Iron 1030 110 1,140 6,130 18.6% Summit 435 145 580 3,215 18.0% Box Elder 445 80 525 3,905 13.4% Tooele 330 180 510 3,900 13.1% Carbon 415 65 480 2,055 23.4% Wasatch 270 145 415 2,670 15.5% Sanpete 300 45 345 1,925 17.9% Uintah 315 4 319 2,545 12.5% Duchesne 275 35 310 1,705 18.2% Grand 90 170 260 1,460 17.8% Sevier 155 10 165 1,610 10.2% Kane 80 10 90 595 15.1% San Juan 75 10 85 835 10.2% Beaver 75 4 79 590 13.4% Emery 75 0 75 845 8.9% Millard 60 10 70 1,105 6.3% Garfield 30 30 60 360 16.7% Juab 40 0 40 745 5.4% Morgan 15 0 15 495 3.0% Wayne 15 0 15 260 5.8% Rich 15 0 15 180 8.3% Piute 10 0 10 85 11.8% Daggett 0 0 0 20 0.0% Total 39,155 10,853 50,008 291,600 17 .1% Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3 Low Vacancy Rates and High Rental Rates In the past two years, the rental vacancy rates in Salt Lake and Utah counties (the state’s two largest apartment markets) dropped to historically low levels of 2-3%. These low rates follow nine years of vacancy rates below 4% (Figure 1). The 2014 to 2022 period marks the longest stretch of rental shortages in the counties’ histories. Low vacancy rates inevitably lead to higher rental rates as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The average overall rental rates in each county doubled since 2012, and rates rose by about 30% in the past two years (2020 to 2022 mid-year). Since 2012, renter income grew at about half the pace of rental rates. From 2012 to 2021, the median income of renters in Salt Lake and Utah counties increased by about 50%, while rental rates doubled.1 Job Growth in Relatively Low Paying Jobs The demand for affordable housing is expected to grow as future job growth concentrates in low-wage jobs. “The Utah Department of Workforce Services projects that nearly 70% of annual job openings from 2020 to 2026 will center on occupations typically requiring at most a high school diploma”2 (Table 2). Jobs that required only a high school diploma or no formal education will generally be low paying jobs. Thus, the rising share of workers in low wage jobs will lead to a greater need for affordable housing. Table 2: Projected Annual Labor Demand by Minimum Education Level, 2020-2026 Education Level % of Annual Demand High school diploma or equivalent 39.2% No formal educational credential 29.4% Bachelor’s degree 17.2% Postsecondary certificate 6.3% Some college no degree 2.6% Doctoral or professional degree 2.0% Associate degree 1.9% Master’s degree 1.5% Source: “An Analysis of Labor Supply and Demand in Utah,” (September 2019) Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and Utah Department of Workforce Services. 3.2% 2.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 2 0 . 7 % 9. 4 % 1 9 . 7 % 7 . 1 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 1: Rental Vacancy Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2001-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 3.2% 2.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 2 0 . 7 % 9. 4 % 1 9 . 7 % 7 . 1 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 2: Annual Percent Increase in Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2011-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 3.2%2.4%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022mid-year 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r 20 1 1 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 20 1 7 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 mi d - y e a r Salt Lake Utah 20.7%9.4%19.7%7.1% 0%5%10%15%20%25% Salt Lake Utah Salt Lake Utah $7 5 5 $1 , 6 2 3 $7 1 6 $1 , 5 3 4 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 Figure 3: Average Rental Rates in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, 2010-2022 (mid-year) Source: Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, CBRE, 2022 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM4 The State’s Expanding Role in Affordable Housing Programs Utah’s Housing and Community Development Division (HCDD) within the Department of Workforce Services is the primary state agency overseeing housing programs. The division administers the Section 8 Landlord Incentive Program, the development of tools to assess municipal housing needs, and the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF). The OWHLF, established in 1995, is Utah’s main state-funded housing program (discussed on p. 12) H.B. 347 (2021) expanded the state’s administrative and funding role related to housing programs. This bill created the Office of Homeless Services (OHS) and was the culmination of four years of legislative activity targeting homelessness. During this four-year period, the Utah Legislature passed several bills that provided support for affordable housing. In 2023, the Legislature further expanded housing funding and policies. The historical chronology outlined below gives a brief description of these legislative achievements. Chronology of Housing Legislation n H .B . 295 Providing Affordable Housing (1996 General Session) – H.B. 295 was the first substantive affordable housing bill passed by the Utah Legislature. This bill directed municipalities to create a plan for housing moderate-income households. Municipalities also needed to assess their need for affordable housing annually and evaluate zoning practices to better implement affordable housing plans. This bill allocated $250,000 for the state to help municipalities meet these requirements. n Hiatus from housing legislation (1996 to 2017) – From 1996 to 2017 the Legislature did not create any notable affordable housing or related programs. By 2016, however, there was a growing concern that a shortage of affordable housing and increasing homelessness could become serious problems in the state. Since then, the Legislature has passed a number of bills related to homelessness and housing affordability. n H .B . 441 Housing and Homeless Reform Initiative Amendments (2017 General Session) – Following the Great Recession, Utah experienced an increase in its homeless population. The Legislature passed H.B. 441 in the 2017 General Session to address the growing need for homeless aid. This bill provided the Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account with $10.1 million to open three new resource shelters that could house 700 people each. The bill also closed the largest shelter in Salt Lake County, which provided shelter for up to 1,100 people. n H .B . 430 Affordable Housing Amendment creates Commission on Housing Affordability (2018 General Session) – H.B. 430 created a Commission on Housing Affordability. The commission consists of 20 members, including three legislators, directors from various state agencies and municipalities, and 12 members appointed by the governor from the home building and real estate development community. The commission provides recommendations for affordable housing legislation. In 2022, the Legislature modified the commisson’s membership and repealed the sunset provision. n S .B . 34 Affordable Housing Modifications (2019 General Session) – In 2019, the Legislature passed S.B. 34, “Affordable Housing Modifications,” which changed the state code to require every local community’s general plan to include three components: (1) land use, (2) transportation, and (3) moderate-income housing. This provision was originally outlined in H.B. 295, which was passed 23 years prior to S.B. 34. The new bill provides additional direction and detail for moderate-income housing development, broadens some requirements to all cities, and requires specific communities to provide more robust housing strategies and an annual report on the implementation of those strategies. n S .B . 39 and the Utah Housing Preservation Fund ($10 million to OWHLF, 2020 General Session) – S.B. 39 “Affordable Housing Modifications” provided the largest, one-time General Fund appropriation to OWHLF since its creation in 1995. OWHLF received a $10 million appropriation, half of which was for gap financing on private activity bond-financed multifamily housing, and the other half to match private dollars for the preservation or construction of affordable housing. The private match funds came from the Utah Housing Preservation Fund started by a $20 million joint commitment from the Ivory Foundation, Intermountain Health, and Zions Bank. The fund specifically works to maintain and preserve affordable rental units aging out of assistance programs as well as naturally occurring affordable housing. The Utah Non-Profit Housing Corporation manages the fund, which continues to grow with the support of significant private investment from Utah’s business and philanthropic community. Interestingly, a June 2020 special legislative session, called due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced the $10 million appropriation by 50%. gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5 n H .B . 82 Single-family Housing Modifications (2021 General Session) – H.B. 82 made prohibiting most accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by municipalities and counties illegal. This change in zoning law is intended to increase the number of affordable “mother-in-law” apartments, which are less expensive and easier to build than new houses or apartment buildings. The legislation also includes provisions to limit the use of ADUs as short- term rentals. n S .B . 217 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act (2021 General Session) – S.B. 217 enacted the Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act, which established objectives and requirements for a municipality or public transit county to create a housing and transit reinvestment zone. Tax increment financing provides funding for the reinvestment zone. The objective is to promote transit-oriented development that, in turn, increases the availability of affordable housing near public transportation locations. n H .B . 347 Homeless Services Modification (2021 General Session) – H.B. 347 created the Utah Homelessness Council. This bill also centralized and coordinated services for the homeless under the direction of the state homelessness coordinator. n S .B . 238 “Homeless Services Modifications” (2022 General Session) – S.B. 238 included the largest allocation for homeless services and affordable housing in Utah’s history. This bill allocated $55 million of American Rescue Plan Funds to the Department of Workforce Services to fund affordable housing projects in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These funds will provide an estimated 1,078 affordable units across Utah. n H .B . 440 Homeless Services Amendments (2022 General Session) – H.B. 440 allows certain municipalities to receive increased funding from the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Restricted Account. The funds mitigate the impact of homeless shelters and established a formula for the disbursement of funds. Summary of 2023 General Session Housing Legislation The 2023 legislative response to Utah’s high housing costs culminated with the passage of six housing-related bills and significant funding for housing programs. The session likely ranks as the most productive for housing assistance. The legislation (listed below) provides assistance to the homeless, first-time homebuyers, low-income housing developers, and home builders. n S .B . 174 Local Land Use and Development Revisions (2023 General Session) – This bill streamlines city and county subdivision processes by limiting subdivision requests to only one public hearing. If the application complies with existing zoning requirements, city officials are required to approve it with no subsequent public hearings. n S .B . 199 Local Land Use Amendment (2023 General Session) – S.B. 199 prohibits municipal residents from challenging, through referendum, a municipal council’s unanimous approval of a housing development. n S .B . 240 First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (2023 General Session) – This bill sets aside $50 million to help first-time homebuyers purchase newly constructed homes. The new single-family home, condominium, or townhome can cost no more than $450,000. The state can provide a loan up to $20,000 for down payment assistance, closing costs, or buying down the interest rate. The loan is a lien on the home and would be paid back if the owner refinances or sells the house. The program has the potential to assist at least 2,500 homebuyers. n H .B . 364 Housing Affordability Amendment (2023 General Session) – H.B. 364 expands the state tax credit program from $1.2 million in 2022, to $10 million annually from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2028. The allocation period for state tax credit projects remains at 10 years, therefore a $1 million dollar allocation in 2023 would become a $10 million tax credit in the aggregate (over the 10-year period). April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM6 n H .B . 499 Homeless Services Amendments (2023 General Session) – H.B. 499 provides funding to increase homeless shelter options during the winter months and creates an emergency response plan during freezing temperatures. The bill requires each Wasatch Front County to convene a county winter response task force for the purpose of preparing a winter response plan. The legislation also requires Wasatch Front counties to provide shelter(s) for the homeless during winter months. The legislation modifies the formula used by the Office of Homeless Services to disburse funds from the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Restricted Account and prohibits a municipality from receiving funds from the account if the municipality does not enforce an ordinance that prohibits homeless camping. Selected Appropriations for Housing Programs, FY 2024 Office of Homeless Services: • $50 million (one-time) for deeply affordable housing. – $20 million from General Fund. – $30 million from federal funds (American Rescue Plan Act) • $5 million (on-going) for attainable housing grants. – Gap financing for deeply affordable projects (grants to projects, not renters; to assist with rent flow; similar to project-based housing). • $12 million (on-going) dedicated to Office of Homeless Services for shelter operations, winter response, request for grant applications, and non-congregate shelters. • $1 million (one-time) for shelter planning of non- congregate shelters. • $2.5 million (one-time) for homeless shelter cities mitigation reform restricted account. Department of Workforce Services: • $10 million (one-time) for Utah Housing Preservation Fund. • $10 million (on-going) for state tax credits for low-income housing. Summary of Utah Housing Legislation 1995 to 2023 Since the passage of H.B. 295 (1996), housing-related legislation in Utah has targeted five areas: (1) new construction and preservation of affordable housing, (2) administrative policies and support, (3) homeless assistance, (4) affordable housing and public transportation, and (5) municipal zoning ordinances. Table 3 summarizes the legislation. Table 3: Major Legislation Supporting Utah State Housing Programs, 1995-2023 New Construction and Preservation of Affordable Housing Administrative Policies and Support Homeless Assistance Affordable Housing and Public Transportation Municipal Zoning Ordinances Annual funding of Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (established 1985, annual state funding (1995) H.B. 295 requires the needs assessment of municipalities (1996) H.B. 441 initial funding for new homeless resource centers (2017) S.B. 217 establishes requirements for municipalities to create reinvestment zones at TODs with tax increment financing (2021) H.B. 82 made it illegal in most cases for cities to prohibit the development of accessory dwelling units. (2021) S.B. 39 additional one-time funding for OWHLF and creation of the Utah Housing Preservation Fund (2020) H.B. 430 creates Commission on Affordable Housing (2018) H.B. 347 creates the Office of Homeless Services and the Utah Homelessness Council. (2021) S.B. 174 streamlines the subdivision process (2023) S.B. 238 provides $55 million in federal funds to develop deeply affordable housing (2022) S.B. 34 requires the municipality’s general plan to include provisions for moderate-income housing (2019) S.B. 238 provides $55 million in federal funds for deeply affordable housing (2022) S.B. 199 limits referendums challenging housing development (2023) S.B. 240 provides loans to first- time homebuyers (2023) H.B. 347 creates the Office of Homeless Services (2021) H.B. 440 provides increase in funds for municipalities with shelters and allows capacity increases for shelters (2022) H.B. 364 expands to state tax credit program from $1.2 million annually to $10 million (2023) H.B. 499 funding for increased homeless shelter services during winter months. (2023) H.B. 359 allowing eviction expungement if both parties agree (2022) Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute and Utah Housing Coalition gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7 Selection of the “Best Fit” Programs for Utah To understand what state-funded affordable housing programs may be a “best fit” for Utah, the Gardner Institute conducted a literature review and internet search of state housing programs and policies. In addition, the Gardner Institute contacted several state agencies, local associations, and national non-profit organizations about their understanding of affordable housing policies. Groups contacted include the Utah Housing Corporation, Utah Division of Housing and Community Development, Utah Apartment Association, Salt Lake County Division of Housing and Community Development, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Official (NAHRO), National Low Income Housing Coalition, and others. The Gardner Institute also contacted many out of state housing offices about their state programs. Unfortunately, these inquiries received limited responses. State websites therefore proved to be the best source of information. While useful in identifying and describing state programs, these websites contained very little information on the outcomes (metrics) of housing programs. The Gardner Institute’s 2020 study of Utah municipalities, Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? also encountered a scarcity of outcome data. The evaluation of the pros and cons of a program or policy is only meaningful and effective if outcome data are available. Consequently, the selection of “best fit” programs relied heavily on the Gardner Institute’s experience with local housing markets, the need for affordable housing, the political environment, and agency capacity. This experience is coupled with information gleaned from state websites. In summary, the Gardner Institute selected to review four state-funded programs and policies that provide direct assistance to very low-income renters: (1) rental assistance programs, (2) housing trust funds, (3) state low-income housing tax credits, and (4) eviction policies. Rental assistance programs are selected as a “best fit” because they provide direct financial assistance to low-income renters and have been implemented in 31 states (Table 1). Housing trust funds and state tax credits are selected as “best fits” because of their program histories in Utah, established administrative structure, and general political acceptance. A comparison of state eviction policies is also included because of eviction's impact on housing insecurity and future housing stability. State-Funded Rental Assistance Programs Thirty-one states have rental assistance programs entirely funded by state revenue (Figure 4, Table 4). Many of these programs have been in operation for over 20 years. This section focuses on state-funded programs that are directed to renter households. The programs do not support the construction of additional affordable units, as state tax credits and housing trust programs do, but rather provide direct rental assistance to qualified, very low and extremely low-income households. High priority is often given to households with special needs, such as serious and persistent mental illness, youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, the homeless, and individuals facing an imminent threat of homelessness. Rental assistance programs are divided into three categories: short-term, transitional, and long-term programs. Long-term programs include housing vouchers. Vouchers are of special interest since the Utah Commission of Housing Affordability has considered proposals for homeless voucher assistance programs in the past. Consequently, housing vouchers receive special attention in this section. Utah's rental assistance program is funded by a combination of state dollars and federal funds, such as HUD HOME program funds. Figure 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 Source: Based on data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM8 Table 4: States with Rental Assistance Programs Entirely Funded by the State, as of 2020 State Rental Assistance Types of Rental Assistance Short- Term Transi- tional Long- Term Vouchers Alabama Alaska n n n Arizona n n n n Arkansas California n n Colorado Connecticut n n Delaware n n n Florida n n Georgia n n n Hawaii n n n Idaho n n Illinois n n n n Indiana Iowa n n n n Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine n n Maryland Massachusetts n n n n n Michigan Minnesota n n n n Mississippi n n Missouri n n State Rental Assistance Types of Rental Assistance Short- Term Transi- tional Long- Term Vouchers Montana Nebraska n n n Nevada n n New Hampshire n n New Jersey n n n n New Mexico n n n n n New York n n North Carolina n n n North Dakota n n Ohio Oklahoma Oregon n n Pennsylvania n n n Rhode Island n n n n South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee n n n Texas Utah Vermont n n n n Virginia Washington n n West Virginia Wisconsin n n Wyoming Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition Table 5: Vouchers and Waitlists Administered by Public Housing Authorities, 2020 Housing Authority Vouchers Waitlist Open Length of Waitlist EHV Beaver City Housing Authority 14 yes No waitlist 0 Housing Authority of Carbon County 185 yes 18 months 15 Cedar City Housing Authority 277 no 1 year (131 individuals on list)15 Davis Community Housing Authority 813 no 3 years 0 Emery County Housing Authority 58 yes 12 months 0 Logan City Housing Authority 351 yes 12 to 18 months 0 Myton City Housing Authority (Vernal)28 yes 18 months 0 Housing Authority of the City of Ogden 1,037 yes 14 months (980 on list)29 Housing Authority of the City of Provo 884 yes 1-3 years 34 Roosevelt City Housing Authority 63 yes 6 months 0 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City 2,624 no 5 years (5,000 households on list)99 Housing Connect (Salt Lake County H.A.)3,102 no 4 years (6,500 on list)131 Housing Authority of Southeastern Utah 53 yes No waitlist 0 St. George Housing Authority 256 no 3 years (500 applicants)21 Tooele County Housing Authority 193 yes 2.5 years 0 Housing Authority of Utah County 1,023 yes 2 years 40 Weber Housing Authority 173 yes 4 years 0 West Valley City Housing Authority 505 yes 4 years 0 Total 11,639 384 EHV = emergency housing vouchers provided by American Rescue Plan (2021) funding. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of local housing authorities and U.S. Treasury Department gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 9 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 5: State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition HUD Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers Housing vouchers are the single most effective rental assistance program for very low and extremely low-income households. HUD’s Housing Choice Program (Section 8) provides long-term rental assistance to 11,639 Utah households. At least 35,000 more Utah households qualify for vouchers but do not receive assistance because of limited funding. Most of these households are extremely low-income (≤30% AMI), living in unstable, overcrowded housing conditions, and most likely to experience homelessness. Vouchers are the only housing assistance program that can effectively reach a significant number of these households. Utah's 18 local public housing authorities administer the federal Housing Choice vouchers (Table 5). Housing Connect (formerly Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake) administers about 3,100 vouchers, accounting for 27% of all vouchers in the state. The Gardner Institute surveyed all 18 housing authorities regarding the length of their waitlists. Only two housing authorities, Beaver City and Southeastern Utah, have immediate availability. The remaining 16 have waitlists ranging from six months to five years with a hundred to 6,500 individuals on the lists. The length and number of individuals on the waitlists confirm that voucher demand far exceeds supply. State-Funded Housing Vouchers The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported in 2021 that “only 1 in 4 households that are eligible for a voucher receive any form of federal rental assistance.”3 In response to the federal voucher shortage, 14 states have established ongoing annual state-funded voucher programs (Table 6). The 30-year-old Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) is well-established. The MRVP awards vouchers to a select number of low-income renter households at or below 80% AMI with at least 30% of their income going towards rent and utilities. MRVP has tenant and project-based options and has over $100 million in funds annually. MRVP is like Connecticut’s program, in that they do not restrict vouchers to special needs populations; however, they do give priority to the homeless. Eleven other state programs prioritize the homeless, mentally ill, youth aging out of foster care, elderly, and victims of domestic violence. Table 6 provides greater detail on these state programs. State-Funded Short-Term Housing Assistance Programs In addition to the 14 state-funded voucher programs, eight states have short-term housing programs funded entirely by ongoing state revenues (Table 7). A substantial share of the assistance available in the short-term programs goes directly to the renter. Short-term programs focus on preventing homelessness and often include variations of eviction prevention programs, which in some cases are limited to special needs populations, youth, and the mentally ill. Below is a brief description of each state-funded program. Utah has provided funding and support for short-term housing assistance over the past several years, which includes a significant share of federal funding. State-Funded Transitional Housing Assistance Programs Nineteen states have transitional housing programs funded exclusively by ongoing state revenue (Table 8). Most transitional housing programs provide temporary housing assistance for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness.4 Length of stay varies from a few weeks to a few years. Housing assistance is available for a rental unit (both single units and multifamily unit structures). Many programs are described as rapid rehousing, transitioning individuals from unstable housing conditions to stable housing conditions. These transitions often include support services such as mental and substance use disorder treatment, employment, and financial counseling. Several transitional programs offer assistance to special needs populations other than the homeless— youth aging out of foster care, individuals with serious and persistent mental illness exiting care facilities or state institutions, individuals exiting substance use residential facilities, individuals released from incarceration, and victims of domestic violence. Rather than focusing on individuals, some programs provide operating funds to organizations assisting the homeless (e.g., shelters, food pantries). Table 8 provides a brief description of each state-funded program. Although state-funded housing programs generally play a secondary role to federally and locally funded programs, they provide targeted support for the lowest income and most difficult-to-reach special needs populations. Consequently, state programs augment and complement the more traditional federal and local housing assistance programs. April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM10 Table 6: Characteristics of State-Funded Housing Voucher Programs, as of 2020 State Name Income Target Funding Source Special Needs Populations Tenant Based Project Based Required Share of Tenant Level of Funding Year Est . AZ Bridge Subsidy Program ≤30% AMI State Individuals with serious mental illness. Participants expected to transition eventually to Federal Housing Choice vouchers. yes no Tenants pay 30%-40% of their income $8 million pre- 2016 CT Rental Assistance Program (RAP) ≤50% AMI State None yes no 40% of rent and utilities, 30% for the elderly and disabled $64 million --- DE State Rental Assistance Program (SRAP) 40% AMI State Youth exiting foster care, individuals exiting long-term care facilities. yes no 28% of tenant’s income $6 million 2011 GA Housing Voucher and Bridge Program Three times the SSI federal benefit level State Supportive housing to individuals with mental illness. The program focuses on chronically homeless, mentally ill individuals. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $17.4 million Pre- 2014 HI Rent Supplement Program ≤80% AMI State None specified.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $1.5 million pre- 2016 IL Rental Housing Support Program ≤30% AMI, 50% of resources for households at ≤15% AMI State Homeless or at risk of homelessness, elderly.no yes 30% of income $9.8 million 2005 Bridge Subsidy Program ---State Individuals with serious mental illness living in an institutional setting. Applicants must be on the waiting list for federal vouchers. yes no 30% of tenant’s income $9.9 million pre- 2018 IA Home and Community-Based Services Rent Subsidy Program ≤30% AMI State Assistance for people who receive medical services through Medicaid 1915c waivers. To qualify, patients must qualify for care in an institution. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $600,000 --- MA Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) ≤80% AMI State General but priority to homeless or at risk of homelessness and victims of domestic violence. yes yes 30% to 40% of tenant’s income $115 million in 2020 1992 Alternative Housing Voucher Program (AHVP) ≤80% AMI State Non-elderly disabled persons. At least one member of the household must be less than 60 years old and disabled. Homeless or risk of homelessness, victims of domestic violence, mental illness. yes no 25% to 30% of tenant’s income $8 million in 2020 1995 MN Supplemental Housing Assistance Housing costs greater than 40% of income State Under 65 years of age, relocating from an institution, or eligible for Medical Assistance personal care attendant services. Disabled individuals. yes no 40% of the tenant’s income $43.5 million pre- 2017 Bridge Assistance ≤50% AMI State Individuals with serious mental illness. The highest priority is given to individuals discharged from an inpatient mental health setting. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $8.1 million pre- 2019 NE Housing Related Assistance Program ≤30% AMI State Adults with serious mental illness.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $2.9 million 2006 NJ State Rental Assistance Program (SRAP) 75% of participants at ≤30% AMI, and the remaining participants at ≤40% AMI State, including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund General but also homeless or at risk of homelessness, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. yes yes 30% of the tenant’s income $18.5 million from the Gen. Fund and $20 million from the Housing Trust Fund Pre- 2018 NM Linkages Supportive Housing Rental Assistance ≤30% AMI Funded by the State’s Behavioral Health Collaborative Homeless adults with serious mental illness.yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $2.8 million 2007 Transition Supportive Housing ≤30% AMI State Voucher for mentally ill youth aging out of foster care. yes no 30% of the tenant’s income $900,000 2007 NC Key Rental Assistance ≤30% AMI State Persons who are disabled and/or experiencing homelessness with extremely low incomes. yes no 25% of the tenant’s income, 30% if the landlord pays utilities $5.5 million 2004 VT Housing Support Fund for Housing Subsidy ≤30% AMI State Persons with serious and persistent mental illness enrolled in the Community Rehabilitation and Treatment Program. yes no 30% of tenant’s $27.2 million 1988 Source: State websites and National Low Income Housing Coalition gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 11 Table 7: Short-Term Rental Assistance Programs, as of 2020 State Program Description Massachusetts Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT) – Homeless prevention program for households who are at risk of becoming homeless. Most assistance is in the form of one-time payments. Can fund up to $4,000 per household to prevent homelessness. Missouri Rental Assistance Program – Provides funds for one-time payments that restore housing stability by paying off rent and utilities in arrears. Assisted households must be receiving mental health or substance use disorder services. Nevada Welfare Set Aside Program – Funds allocated to local government to assist eligible persons or families with housing needs. Participants must have income under 60% AMI. Funds targeted for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness. New Jersey Homeless Prevention Program - Provides limited financial assistance to low and moderate-income renters in imminent danger of eviction due to temporary financial problems. New Mexico Move-In Assistance and Eviction Prevention - Provides assistance to qualified households for rent, damage deposits, and utility deposits. Applicants must have documented serious and persistent mental illness or co-occurring substance use disorder. Pennsylvania Housing Assistance Program - Offers a variety of supportive services to families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Tennessee Children and Youth Homeless Outreach Project - Provides outreach and case management for homeless families or those at risk of homelessness and identifies youth with severe emotional disturbance. The program assists parents in securing needed mental health services for their children. Wisconsin Housing Assistance Program - Provides funds for housing, support services, and administrative costs to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to independent living. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Table 8: State-Funded Transitional Housing Programs, as of 2020 State Program Description Alaska Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) – Provides operating support for Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Rapid Rehousing and Prevention Programs. The purpose of the HAP program is to support activities that prevent displacement from permanent, affordable housing and rapidly return displaced persons to permanent housing while also providing safe temporary housing. The program is funded through state capital funds. Arizona Arizona State Housing Fund – Provides funds for Rapid Rehousing, which is currently in its third year of operation. Households seeking assistance in this program must meet the HUD definition of homeless. The program provides 6-9 months of financial assistance and support- ive services for up to a year to assist a household at ≤30% AMI to become independent and take over the rent. California California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program – Provides funds for five primary activities: (1) housing relocation and stabilization services (including rental assistance), (2) operating subsidies for permanent housing, (3) flexible housing subsidy funds, (4) operating support for emergency housing interventions, and (5) systems support for homeless services and housing delivery systems. Idaho Transition Funding Program - Provides housing assistance for individuals transitioning out of the correctional system. The program is aimed at preventing recidivism. Funds may be used to assist with rent payments and living expenses for up to 30 days. Illinois Emergency and Transitional Housing Program – Provides comprehensive shelter services to homeless persons and persons at risk of becoming homeless. The program provides funding for meals, shelter, and support services to not-for-profit organizations and local governments. Illinois Homeless Youth Services - Participants must be homeless youth. The program is designed to increase the safety of youth, ensuring their basic need while also providing safe and stable housing. Iowa Aftercare Rent Subsidy Program – Provides support for youth who are aging out of foster care and are participating in the Aftercare Services Program. The youth must be an active participant in aftercare services, making progress toward an identified goal of obtaining or maintaining stable housing. Maine Bridging Rental Assistance Program (BRAP) – Provides transitional rental subsidy for persons suffering from serious and persistent mental illness. Participants pay 51% of their income towards rent. Massachusetts HomeBASE – Provides housing assistance for rehousing families in the Emergency Assistance (EA) program and eligible families in domestic violence shelters and residential substance use treatment programs. HomeBASE provides up to $10,000 in eligible rehousing expenses over a 12-month period. Minnesota Transitional Housing Program - Provides support to agencies that provide housing and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. The agencies provide case management and rental assistance in the form of tenant or project-based assistance to people who are homeless. Funding can also be used for an agency’s operating and service costs. Assistance is limited to 24 months and has no income restrictions. Mississippi Creating Housing Options in Communities for Everyone (CHOICE) - The program provides assistance to individuals being discharged from a state psychiatric hospital after a stay of more than 90 days. It also assists individuals with intellectual disabilities leaving a nursing facility or intermediate care facility after a stay of more than 90 days. New Hampshire Homeless Housing and Access Revolving Loan Fund - Loans for first month rent and security deposit for homeless individuals. Participants must be residing in a shelter. Repayment shall commence no later than 120 days after the loan is disbursed. New Mexico Crisis Housing Program - Provides temporary, transitional housing for persons with serious mental illness being discharged from psychiatric centers, hospitals, jails, or other institutional settings who would otherwise be homeless. The program offers a 120-day maximum stay in short-term housing with support services. April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM12 Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have at least one state housing trust fund, which provides a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing. In total, these housing trust funds had $2.3 billion in 2022, effectively leveraging funds to increase the supply of affordable housing. While there are hundreds of local housing trust funds (that work in partnership with national and state housing trust funds), this section discusses state-level housing trust funds. Trust funds typically fund the preservation and building of low-income and affordable units. To receive aid, most projects must provide a certain amount of housing for people earning 80%, 50%, or 30% of AMI. Typically, the fund provides rental assistance or loans for disabled persons and the elderly. Some states allow low-income renters to apply for assistance directly through the housing trust fund, although this is rare. State housing trust funds have multiple revenue sources and a variety of funding structures.5 Some are self-sustaining and do not require regular state government allocations. Others receive annual funding from their state legislature. The size and scope of most housing trust funds reflect the state’s affordable housing need. Most have a dedicated funding source (such as a tax or fee) that provides the fund’s annual allocation. The two most popular dedicated funding sources for state housing trusts are a document recording fee and the real estate transfer tax. A document recording fee is usually $80 to $100 and paid at the time of sale. A real estate transfer tax can be a flat fee or an ad valorem tax (based on value) up to 2% of the cost of the home. Interest on real estate escrow accounts also provides funding for some trusts. These funding sources, along with federal funds and payments on current loans, make up the budget for most states’ housing trusts. Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) Utah’s state housing trust fund, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, was established in 1995 and reclassified as a loan fund in 2001. In 2003, the Legislature allowed the fund to provide loans and grants to develop affordable housing. OWHLF funds four programs: (1) the multifamily program, (2) the Single-Family Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Program, (3) the Home Choice program (for individuals with disabilities), and (4) individual development accounts.6 Annually, 15% of allocated federal HOME funds must be set-aside for community housing development organizations (CHDO). North Dakota North Dakota Homeless Grant - Provides financial assistance to facilities and programs within North Dakota to identify sheltered and unshel- tered homeless persons at risk of homelessness. Grants help fund the services necessary to help those persons experiencing a housing crisis regain stability in permanent housing. Oregon Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) - EHA funds are designed to prevent and reduce homelessness. Eligible uses are street outreach, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing, emergency, and transitional shelter, supportive in-home services, data collection, and community capacity building. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Transition (NHT) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance – Provides housing funds for people transitioning out of institutional housing. The NHT Program was developed to assist individuals who want to move from a nursing facility back to a home of their choice in the community. Rhode Island The State Rental Assistance Program – Provides funding to help the chronically homeless achieve housing stability. The primary goal is to address the barriers and challenges that cause individuals and families to be chronically homeless while also working to stabilize program participants in housing through the provision of wraparound services after the family or individual obtains housing. Tennessee The Inpatient Targeted Transitional – Provides funding to assist persons awaiting discharge from regional mental health institutes. The program gives temporary financial assistance for up to 6 months of rental and utility payments, transportation, medication co-pay, etc. Vermont Vermont Rental Subsidy Program – Provides funds for a state-funded rapid rehousing initiative providing rental assistance to households experiencing homelessness whose monthly income would otherwise be insufficient to afford a rental unit. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Year State Funding 1995 $ 2,400,000 1996 $ 2,500,000 1997 $ 3,500,000 1998 $ 2,250,000 1999 $ 2,500,000 2000 $ 1,500,000 2001 $ 2,000,000 2002 $ 2,313,000 2003 $ 2,525,000 2004 $ 2,084,500 2005 $ 2,284,500 2006 $ 2,836,400 2007 $ 3,286,400 2008 $ 2,736,400 2009 $ 3,246,400 Year State Funding 2010 $ 2,295,700 2011 $ 2,242,900 2012 $ 2,242,900 2013 $ 2,242,900 2014 $ 2,242,900 2015 $ 2,242,900 2016 $ 3,242,900 2017 $ 2,242,900 2018 $ 4,803,900 2019 $ 2,242,900 2020 $ 2,242,900 2021 $ 2,242,900 2022 $ 2,242,900 2023 $ 2,242,900 Table 9: Annual State General Fund Appropriations for the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, 1995-2023 Source: Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund State Housing Trusts gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 13 OWHLF receives funding from state general revenue, the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the federal National Housing Trust Fund (HTF), and payments on outstanding loans. Since 2010, the state appropriates about $2.2 million annually from the General Fund (Table 9). Each year the fund typically receives another $3 million to $5 million in non-state-funded support. OWHLF reports that each dollar spent in 2021 was leveraged to $31.38. Over the last 27 years, 24,561 affordable units have been funded by OWHLF. In 2020 and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), Utah received federal money from the CARES Act to support the homeless population. The OWHLF received $13 million of CARES Act funding in 2020 and 2021 and received another $44.6 million from the American Rescue Plan in 2022. A Comparison of State Trust Funds Utah ranks 21st among the 24 states with publicly available data on state funded housing trusts (Table 10). Fifteen of the state housing trust funds rely on a document recording fee, 11 on a real estate transfer tax, and five on a real estate escrow tax. Of the funds with publicly available data, the vast majority received more state funding than the OWHLF in 2022, although it should be noted that many of these states also have larger populations. The amount of state funding in the 24 state trusts was disaggregated from other sources of revenue, then compared and ranked on a state-by-state basis (Table 10). Sixteen additional states have trust funds, but the amount of state funding could not be determined due to the combining of funds with other sources of revenue (Table 11). While Utah does not have the same scale of affordable housing needs as larger states, most other states have additional programs beyond their housing trust fund to provide low-income housing. Until recently, Utah relied on the OWHLF to provide most of the state-funded affordable housing assistance. Starting in 2017, however, the Utah State Legislature appropriated over $100 million in assistance to homeless programs and $56.5 million to the Utah Housing Preservation Fund (a large share of this recent funding, particularly for homeless programs, were federal dollars provided by the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan). Real Estate Transfer Tax Many states use a real estate transfer tax as a source of ongoing revenue for their housing trust funds. The tax is imposed on the sale of residential and commercial property and is equivalent to a sales tax on the transfer of a property’s title and deed. The seller officially pays the tax in several states but that is negotiable and may differ from who bears the economic burden of the tax. Thirty-five states have a real estate transfer tax (Figure 6). The average transfer tax rate is 0.004% (Table 12). Table 10: State Funding Levels for Housing Trust Funds, 2022 State Funding Source State Funding New York General Fund $194,751,071 Florida Documentary stamp taxes $62,500,000 Pennsylvania Realty transfer tax, document recording fees $39,123,701 Louisiana Initial surplus funds $20,123,000 Delaware Document recording fees, General Fund $18,000,000 Maine Real estate transfer tax $13,260,000 Illinois Real estate transfer tax $11,584,000 Connecticut Document recording fees $10,909,733 Vermont Real estate transfer tax $10,800,000 Nevada Real estate transfer tax $10,404,597 Iowa Real estate transfer tax $9,434,060 New Mexico 2.5% of annual severance tax bond capacity $9,000,000 Arizona State Unclaimed Property Fund $6,000,000 South Dakota Corporate excise tax $5,394,456 Kentucky Document recording fees $5,084,000 New Hampshire Other $5,000,000 Texas General Revenue $4,736,262 Missouri Document recording fees $4,093,799 Georgia General Fund $2,962,892 Indiana Program income, smokeless tobacco tax $2,648,305 Utah General Fund $2,242,900 Kansas Bond and fee revenues $2,000,000 Maryland Interest on title escrow accounts $1,984,396 Wisconsin Interest on real estate escrow account $250,000 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of states Table 11: States with Trust Funds but Undetermined State Funding, as of 2022 State Funding Source California Document filing fees Colorado Vendor fees Hawaii Real estate conveyance tax Massachusetts G.O. bonds, document recording fees Michigan General Fund Minnesota Interest on real estate escrow Nebraska Documentary stamp taxes New Jersey Realty transfer tax North Carolina General Fund North Dakota Tax credit contributions Ohio Document recording fees Oklahoma Initial capitalization appropriations Oregon Public purpose funds, interest, and fees Tennessee Tennessee housing development authority funds Virginia General Fund Washington Interest on escrow accounts, document recording fees Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute survey of states April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM14 A portion of real estate transfer tax revenue is often allocated to the county administering and collecting the tax. Use of the revenue varies widely, from allocation to the state general fund to conservation, land preservation, public infrastructure, education, and housing trust funds. Twelve of the 35 states listed in Table 13 allocate a portion of the transfer tax revenue to affordable housing programs (state names are bolded). MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI5MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI4 MDMANHDECTVTNJRIMONMMNWAWVWYOHNDMTMSMECOGAOKNCORNVNYCAVAAZSDTNARNEUTPAWILAALKYSCTXMIKSFLIDINIAILAKHI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded VouchersStates with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax CreditTax Credit PendingNo Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 6: States with Real Estate Transfer Tax, as of 2020 Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition An Example of a Utah Residential Real Estate Transfer Tax In 2022, the total value of residential real estate sales in Utah was nearly $25 billion; 40,639 sales transactions with an average price of $614,248.11 At four-tenths of one percent (the average of the 12 states that allocate funds to affordable housing programs), a Utah transfer tax would generate $100 million in revenue, while a rate of one-tenth of one percent rate would raise about $25 million in funding. At one-tenth of one percent, the average transfer tax would cost $614 per transaction, less than the sales tax on a new car. State Tax Rate Alabama 0.0010% Arkansas 0.0033% California (local)0.0011% Colorado 0.0001% Connecticut 0.0075% Delaware 0.0300% Florida 0.0070% Georgia 0.0010% Hawaii 0.0020% Illinois 0.0010% Iowa 0.0016% Kentucky 0.0010% Maine 0.0044% Maryland 0.0050% Massachusetts 0.0046% Michigan 0.0075% Minnesota 0.0033% Nebraska 0.0023% State Tax Rate Nevada 0.0026% New Hampshire 0.0150% New Jersey 0.0025% New York 0.0040% North Carolina 0.0020% Ohio 0.0010% Oklahoma 0.0015% Pennsylvania 0.0100% Rhode Island 0.0046% South Carolina 0.0037% South Dakota 0.0010% Tennessee 0.0037% Virginia 0.0025% Washington 0.0128% West Virginia 0.0033% Wisconsin 0.0030% Average 0 .0040% Table 12: State Real Estate Transfer Tax Rates, 2020 Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Significant Features of the Property Tax. Available from https://www.lincolninst.edu/real-estate-transfer-charge/state-transfer-tax- wisconsin-2020 gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 15 Table 13: Revenue Allocation of Real Estate Transfer Taxes by State, 2020 (States in bold allocate at least some of the tax revenue to affordable housing) State Revenue Allocation Alabama Allocated to county and state treasury. Arkansas Allocated for open space, recreation, and preservation, Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resource Grants and Trust Fund. California Fifty percent of revenue goes to local governments to update planning documents and zoning ordinances and 50% to support of homeless programs. Colorado Allocated to the county treasurer to defray costs incurred for filing, recording, and releasing title or lien to real property. Connecticut Revenue split between county (general revenue) and state (General Fund). Delaware Seventy-five percent of revenue to the state Division of Revenue and 25% to the state treasurer to be allocated to municipalities and counties where transfers occur. Florida Allocated to Land Acquisition Trust Fund, State Transportation Trust Fund, Grants and Donations Trust Fund, and state and local housing trust fund for Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program. Georgia Allocated proportionally, based on millage rate, to the state and other tax jurisdictions. Hawaii Ten percent Land Conservation Fund, 50% or $38 million, whichever is less, into Rental Housing Revolving Fund, and the remainder to the General Fund. Illinois Fifty percent to the Illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund, 35% to the Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development Fund and 15% to the Natural Areas Acquisition Fund. Iowa States portion is allocated at 65% to the State General Fund, 30% to the Housing Trust Fund, and 5% to the Shelter Assistance Fund. Kentucky Allocated to county General Fund. Maine Allocated to the General Fund, Maine’s Housing Opportunities for Maine Fund, and 10% to the county for services in collecting the tax. Maryland Allocated to the General Fund. Massachusetts Allocated to the state (General Fund) and county where property transfer occurs. Michigan Allocated to State School Aid Fund. Minnesota Allocated to State General Fund after deduction for counties cost of administration and collection. Nebraska Twenty-two percent was allocated to the transferring county, 42% to Affordable Housing Trust Fund, 11% to the Site and Development Fund, 11% to Homeless Shelter Assistance Trust Fund, and 14% to Behavioral Health Services Fund. Nevada State portion allocated to the General Fund. County and city portions are allocated for the development of affordable housing. State Revenue Allocation New Hampshire One-third of transfer tax revenue is allocated to the State Education Trust Fund. Law requires the state treasurer to transfer the sum of $5,000,000 from the transfer tax revenue to the Affordable Housing Fund. New Jersey Allocated to the county to cover the cost of collection and administration, the remainder goes to Shore Protection Fund, Highlands Protection Fund, Neighborhood Preservation Fund, and State General Fund. New York First $119 million of revenue deposited in the Environmental Protection Fund, the remaining revenue in the Clean Water/Clean Air Fund. North Carolina State and county each receive 50% of revenue from the transfer tax. State share goes to the State General Fund. Ohio Revenue retained by counties. Oklahoma County retains revenue for the county’s Common School Fund. Pennsylvania Allocated to the State General Fund, 15% of the allocation goes to the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund. Rhode Island Thirteen percent of revenue is allocated to State Distressed Community Relief Fund, 13% Housing Resources Commission, 26% to the state, and 48% kept by counties. South Carolina Eight percent allocated to the Heritage Land Trust Fund, 16% to Housing Trust Fund, and the remaining revenue to the General Fund. South Dakota Allocated to county General Funds. Tennessee Allocated to county and state land acquisition funds, historical places, state parks, Civil War preservation sites, and abatement of pollution from agricultural activities. Vermont First $2.5 million allocated to Vermont Housing Finance Agency to be used for affordable housing. The remaining revenue is allocated to state’s General Fund, county, and Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund. Virginia Allocated to the following: Interstate 73 Corridor Development Fund, transportation fund, Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, county and city transportation funds, and public education. Washington Seventeen percent allocated to Education Legacy Trust Account, small amount to cities and counties for administration and collection, and 80% to the General Fund. West Virginia Allocated to the General Fund. Wisconsin Twenty percent is allocated to counties and 80% to State General Fund. Bold: States that allocate a portion of the transfer tax revenue to affordable housing programs. Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM16 Utah’s State Tax Credit Program State tax credits provide an important source of funding for the development of low-income rental housing. In 2022, 25 states had tax credit programs, and another five states have tax credit programs pending (Figure 7). In the 2005 General Session, the Utah Legislature passed H.B. 170 “Extension of Utah Low-Income Housing Tax Credits”, making Utah an early state in offering state tax credits. Since 2005, state tax credits have been used in 147 low-income rental housing projects, helping to finance 8,006 affordable rental units with nearly $26 million in tax credits.7 The state credit program is administered by the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC), a quasi-public corporation created in 1975 by the Utah Legislature to assist in financing affordable housing (owner and rental units) for low- and moderate-income households. UHC creates the criteria for state credit awards and has the authority to determine eligible activities, affordability requirements, and most features of the state credit program. In concept, state credits for low-income rental housing mirror the federal tax credit program. Generally, state tax credits, like federal credits, are sold by the developer to raise equity, reducing the project’s financing costs. However, since state tax credits issued in Utah can only be used against state tax liability, the credits sell for less, currently about 65 cents compared to 97 cents for federal credits.8 Additional features of Utah’s state tax credit program include: • State tax credits can be used for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation. • Additional credits are awarded to projects that have up to 10 units reserved for extremely low-income renters (≤30% AMI). • In the past, the annual ceiling of available tax credits each year was determined by multiplying the state’s population by 34.5 cents. Using this formula, the ceiling of available credits was $1.1 million in 2021. In 2023, however, the Utah Legislature approved an expansion of the state tax credit program to $10 million annually from 2023 to 2029. The annual ceiling of tax credits is divided into two pools; Pool I receives 37% of the available credits and Pool II receives 63%. Pool II’s credits are set aside for permanent supportive housing projects.9 In the case of permanent supportive housing, the credits can be used for services. • Most often, state credits are used to reduce individual income tax, corporate franchise, or income taxes. • State tax credits are only awarded to low-income housing projects that have received federal tax credits. Comparison of State Programs In 2021, 25 states issued state tax credits for the development of low-income housing (Table 14). The first state to pass enabling legislation was California in 1988. As noted, Utah passed enabling legislation in 2005. The popularity of state programs has increased in recent years with the addition of nine states since 2017. An additional five states have made proposals to their legislatures. Most state credit programs allow credit for both 4% and 9% tax credit projects.10 Utah’s state credit program has a credit period of 10 years (i.e., the owner of the credits can use the credits against their state tax liability over a 10-year period). Therefore, the tax credits available in Utah in 2021 of about $1.1 million accrue to $11 million in credit over the 10-year period. Ten of the 25 states have adopted the 10-year credit period. Four states allow only a one-year credit period. Although Utah’s state tax credit program has been effective in terms of providing incentives for the development of affordable units for extremely low-income renters, the 2020 funding level of $1.1 million ranked near the bottom among the 25 states with state tax credit programs (Table 15). That said, the Utah Legislature passed several housing-related bills and provided significant funding for housing programs during the 2023 legislative session, including expanding the state tax credit program. State Tax Credit Programs MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 5 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 4 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OK NC OR NV NY CA VA AZ SD TNAR NE UT PA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL AK HI 7 MD MA NH DE CT VT NJ RI MO NM MN WA WV WY OH NDMT MS ME CO GA OKNC OR NV NY CAVA AZ SD TNAR NE UTPA WI LA AL KY SC TX MI KS FL ID IN IA IL Has Transfer Tax & Uses for Aordable Housing Has Transfer Tax No Transfer Tax States with State-Funded Vouchers States with State-Funded Rental Assistance With Tax Credit Tax Credit Pending No Tax Credit AK HI 6 Figure 7: States with State Tax Credits for Low-Income Housing, as of 2022 Source: Novogradac gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 17 Table 14: Selected Features of State Tax Credit Programs, as of 2021 State Tax Credits Available in 2020 Credit Period Type of Credit*Yr . Established Arizona $4,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%2021 Arkansas $250,000 6 years 4%, 9%1997 California $500,000,000 4 years 4%, 9%1987 Colorado $10,000,000 6 years 4%, 9%2013 Connecticut $10,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%1988 Georgia Automatic match to federal credit up to $29,700,000 10 years 4%, 9%2001 Hawaii $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2011 Illinois $23,620,968 1 year 4%, 9%2001 Indiana $30,000,000 cap starting in 2023 5 years 4%2022 Iowa pending pending pending pending Kansas Equal to the federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) amount 10 years 4%, 9%2006 Kentucky pending pending pending Maine $10,000,000 1 year 4%, 9%2020 Massachusetts $40,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2004 Mississippi pending pending pending pending Missouri 50% of the federal LIHTC amount 10 years 4%, 9%1997 Nebraska $8,000,000 6 years 4%, 9%2016 Nevada $10,000,000 1 year 9%2019 New Jersey Amount not reported TBD TBD 2021 New Mexico $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2006 New York $8,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%NA North Carolina pending pending pending pending Ohio pending pending pending pending Oklahoma $4,000,000 10 years 4%, 9%2014 Pennsylvania $10,000,000 10 years NA 2019 South Carolina Amount not reported 10 years 4%2020 Utah $1,121,250 10 years 4%, 9%2005 Vermont $4,000,000 5 years 4%, 9%2000 Virginia $60,000,000 1 year 4%, 9%2021 Wisconsin $42,000,000 6 years 4%2017 *The 4% and 9% low-income housing tax credit programs provide, respectively, 30% and 70% project subsidies for approved low-income projects. The subsidy is derived from the sale by the developer of tax credits. While the program provides a significant subsidy to the developer, the developer gives up significant future rental revenue due to the restricted low rental rates. Source: State websites and Novogradac Table 15: State Tax Credits Available, 2021 State Tax Credits Available California $500,000,000 Virginia $60,000,000 Wisconsin $42,000,000 Massachusetts $40,000,000 Indiana $30,000,000 Georgia $29,700,000 Illinois $23,620,968 Colorado $10,000,000 Connecticut $10,000,000 State Tax Credits Available Maine $10,000,000 Nevada $10,000,000 Pennsylvania $10,000,000 Nebraska $8,000,000 New York $8,000,000 Arizona $4,000,000 Hawaii $4,000,000 New Mexico $4,000,000 Oklahoma $4,000,000 State Tax Credits Available Vermont $4,000,000 Utah $1,100,000 Arkansas $250,000 Kansas Equal to the federal LIHTC amount Missouri 50% of the federal LIHTC amount New Jersey TBD South Carolina TBD State Tax Credits Available Iowa pending Kentucky pending North Carolina pending Ohio pending Source: State websites and Novogradac April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM18 Utah’s rental housing market has one of the lowest eviction rates in the nation. According to Princeton’s Eviction Lab, Utah’s eviction rate was 0.9% in 2019 (about 2,700 renters). Of the 47 states reporting eviction data, Utah ranked 38th (Table 16). The eviction rate is calculated by dividing the number of judgments against renters by the total number of renters. Often the eviction process is terminated as the parties resolve the dispute. In that case, no judgment or eviction is reported, only the filing of an eviction is reported. In terms of filings, Utah ranked 38th of the 47 states with a 2.2% rate, or about 6,600 renters (Table 17). The Rental Housing Association of Utah collects and publishes monthly eviction court filings for the state. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, eviction filings in Utah were around 7,000 annually (Table 18). During the pandemic, the rate of filings dropped by more the 30% to around 4,000. The decline was partly due to the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan, which established eviction moratoriums, rental assistance, and other financial assistance to households. However, as the level of federal assistance phased down, eviction filings increased again in 2022. While eviction filings increased in 2022, they remain below pre-pandemic levels. Without ongoing federal assistance, it is difficult to predict what will happen to eviction filings in Utah in the future. As rent continues to increase, renters may need to commit more of their income to housing. The Utah Office of Homeless Services currently participates in funding eviction prevention through rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention programs. Using a combination of federal and state funding, these programs can provide short- term and medium-term rental assistance and pay rental arrears. Utah also has three funded eviction prevention specialists who help renters by providing them with funds to pay amounts owed and settle evictions. Utah Community Action administers and operates this program. Other non-governmental organizations, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also provide assistance for families facing housing insecurity and eviction. A philanthropic safety net, coupled with Utah's strong economy and low unemployment rate, could contribute to Utah’s low eviction rate. Several states implemented additional eviction laws and policies to assist renters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 19 outlines some of the different measures states have taken since March 2020 to keep people housed. Some of these measures are set to expire while many will be extended or made permanent fixtures of the state’s eviction policy. The Utah Legislature passed H.B. 359 “Eviction Records Amendments” in the 2022 General Session. This bill streamlines the expungement process, allowing a former tenant to have their eviction case sealed by the courts provided the balance due has been paid and the landlord doesn’t object to the expungement. Many landlords and collections attorneys actively use the expungement option to encourage renters to settle their debt and remove the eviction from their record. This bill is meant to restore a tenant’s rental record and allow renters to find housing following a non-payment eviction. Other states intervene before the ruling of an eviction case or even before the case appears in court. For example, some states put a stay on eviction proceedings if the tenant applies for rental assistance through the state. Illinois and Texas require that information regarding the eviction be given to tenants in plain language when they are presented with an eviction filing. Connecticut and California have established legal defense funds to provide tenants with professional legal assistance, as opposed to relying on pro bono work or navigating the process on their own. Eviction filings and judgments are sometimes used as indicators of rental market conditions (e.g., a low eviction rate suggests a low level of housing instability). However, it is important to remember that eviction data, on their own, do not capture the housing instability 40,000 Utah renter households live with due to severe housing cost burdens. State Eviction Laws and Policies Utah’s Eviction Process If a tenant does not pay rent when due, Utah landlords can give written notification that the tenant must pay rent within three business days, or vacate the property. If the tenant does not comply with the notification by either paying or moving in three business days, the landlord can file an eviction. The landlord serves notice of the eviction filing along with a summons that requires the tenant to file an answer within three business days. If the tenant files an answer, then the court schedules a hearing date. Utah law requires a renter who does not pay or move within the three- day notice to pay treble (that is, triple) damages for each day he/she remains in the unit. The tenant is also responsible for any back rent owed as well as attorney’s fees and collection costs incurred during the eviction process. According to the Utah Bar Foundation, Utah is the only state to combine a three-day notice period with treble damages. gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 19 Table 16: States Ranked by Eviction Rate, 2019 State Eviction Rate (2019)Days until Eviction Notice Days until Summons Late Fee Limits Legal Assistance Alaska N/A 7 2 None No Arkansas N/A 3 N/A None No North Dakota N/A 3 3 None No South Carolina 8.9%5 N/A None No Delaware 5.1%5 5 5% of monthly rent No Virginia 5.1%14 10 10% of rent due No Georgia 4.7%N/A N/A None No North Carolina 4.6%10 2 5% of monthly rent No Oklahoma 4.2%5 5 None No Indiana 4.1%10 5 None No Mississippi 4.0%3 5 None No Arizona 3.9%5 2 Reasonable Amount No Maryland 3.6%10 N/A 5% of rent due Yes Ohio 3.5%3 7 None No West Virginia 3.5%N/A 10 None No Nevada 3.4%7 10 5% of monthly rent No Michigan 3.3%7 3 None No New Mexico 3.2%3 7 10% of monthly rent No Rhode Island 3.1%5 5 None No Connecticut 3.0%3 N/A None Yes Kentucky 2.9%7 3 None No Missouri 2.9%10 4 None No Colorado 2.8%10 7 5% of rent due No Tennessee 2.8%14 6 10% of rent due No District of Columbia 2.6%30 7 5% of monthly rent No Louisiana 2.6%5 3 None No Florida 2.5%3 5 None No Kansas 2.3%3 N/A None No Maine 2.3%7 7 4% of monthly rent No Nebraska 2.2%7 10 None No New York 2.2%14 10 5% of monthly rent No Texas 2.2%3 5 10% of monthly rent No Iowa 2.0%3 3 $60/$100 No Wisconsin 1.9%5 5 Specified in lease No Alabama 1.8%7 N/A None No Pennsylvania 1.8%10 7 None No New Hampshire 1.7%7 N/A None No Illinois 1.6%5 10 None No Massachusetts 1.5%28 7 None No Oregon 1.1%10 7 5% of monthly rent No Montana 0.9%3 N/A None No Utah 0 .9%3 3 None No Wyoming 0.9%3 3 None No California 0.8%3 N/A None No Washington 0.8%14 60 No late fees Yes Idaho 0.6%3 5 None No Minnesota 0.6%Not Required 7 8% of rent due No South Dakota 0.5%3 4 None No Hawaii 0.4%5 N/A 8% of rent due No Vermont 0.1%14 10 None No New Jersey 0.0%Not Required N/A None No Source: Law Atlas Policy Surveillance Program, Eviction Lab April 2023 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM20 Table 18: Monthly Eviction Filings in Utah, 2017-2022 Month 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 January 674 623 678 646 369 472 February 623 567 495 599 289 481 March 571 546 486 459 342 513 April 563 525 574 216 319 420 May 653 633 609 261 300 459 June 606 629 636 332 356 544 July 667 640 591 373 410 548 August 635 660 620 671 373 644 September 629 648 672 356 524 607 October 638 623 629 322 440 594 November 579 492 518 273 431 534 December 474 458 548 279 389 539 Average 609 587 588 399 379 530 Total 7,312 7,044 7,056 4,787 4,542 6,355 Source: Rental Housing Association State Eviction Filing Rate Maryland 69.6% South Carolina 23.3% Georgia 18.8% District of Columbia 17.2% Michigan 16.6% Delaware 15.9% Virginia 14.9% Mississippi 14.7% New Jersey 12.1% North Carolina 11.7% New York 9.0% Indiana 8.9% Arizona 8.5% Kentucky 7.6% Pennsylvania 7.1% Colorado 6.9% Nevada 6.7% Rhode Island 6.4% Tennessee 6.4% Texas 6.4% Ohio 6.2% New Mexico 6.1% Oklahoma 5.8% Missouri 5.7% West Virginia 4.9% Iowa 4.3% State Eviction Filing Rate New Hampshire 4.3% Florida 4.1% Connecticut 4.0% Alabama 3.8% Nebraska 3.6% Wisconsin 3.6% Massachusetts 3.5% Kansas 3.2% Illinois 2.9% Oregon 2.9% Maine 2.8% Minnesota 2.8% Alaska 2.5% Idaho 2.5% Louisiana 2.3% California 2.2% Utah 2 .2% Vermont 2.1% Washington 1.5% Wyoming 1.5% Montana 1.3% Hawaii 1.2% Arkansas 1.1% North Dakota 1.0% South Dakota 0.7% Table 17: Eviction Filings by State, 2019 Source: Eviction Lab gardner.utah.edu I April 2023INFORMED DECISIONSTM 21 Table 19: Eviction-Related Legislation Passed in Response to COVID-19, as of 2022 State Legislation Arizona Stay of evictions for 30 days if an application for rental assistance is underway and the landlord participates in Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). California Eviction Legal Defense Fund provided. Colorado Requires tenant to be informed of legal aid assistance. 30 days stay of eviction with ERA application. Seals eviction record if the tenant prevails. Connecticut The landlord must apply for ERA and give a 30-day notice before filing. The Eviction Legal Defense Fund provides attorneys to low-income tenants. Delaware If an ERA application is submitted during the eviction process, the tenant is given conditional approval for ERA funds. D.C.Stays evictions for 60 days after ERA application. Hawaii Extended eviction period to 15 days, created more avenues for landlord-tenant mediation (set to expire by the end of 2022, may be extended). Illinois Requires eviction notices to give information to the tenant on court-based rental assistance. Indiana Established Pre-Eviction Diversion Program: if both parties agree, stays eviction for 90 days and seals eviction records. Kentucky Landlords accepting ERA money cannot evict for past due rent not covered by ERA and must give 30 days’ notice before eviction (45 days after assistance concludes.) Louisiana ERA-participating landlords cannot evict until 60 days after assistance ends (only applies to COVID-related eviction filings.) Maine Must provide “plain language” notice with information on the eviction process, requesting mediation, and access to rental and legal assistance. Maryland Free legal counsel for evictions by 2025. Massachusetts Pauses eviction proceedings while ERA application in progress. Two-tier eviction process, 14 days for mediation, 14 after to start eviction proceedings. Michigan Pauses eviction proceedings if ERA application is submitted before or during pre-trial hearings; 30 days until proceedings continue. Mississippi Requires summons to provide reasons for eviction, able to pay back rent until the court date, must cease eviction proceedings if tenant applies for ERA. Nebraska Eviction notices must list statutory reasons and must make a diligent effort to inform tenants. Landlord and tenant have the opportunity to provide good cause continuance. State supreme court must report on evictions semiannually. Nevada Stay on eviction proceedings during ERA application. No late fee if rent is paid within three days of the due date. New York Increased housing voucher availability and covers 100% of fair market rent, established landlord rental assistance program to supplement NY Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Cannot evict for one year after ERA assistance. North Carolina Cannot evict until 60 days after the end of ERA assistance. Oregon 60-day grace period after ERA application. Established Landlord Compensation Fund if ERA application denied. Texas Specific language to be included in citations. Housing advocates can help defendants in court. Tenants must be informed of rental assistance program. Evictions stay 60 days if the tenant applies for ERA. Utah Can petition court to expunge eviction record . Washington Fund established for eviction prevention and housing stability (approximately $150 million per year through a $100 document recording fee on real estate transactions). West Virginia Cannot evict until 30 days after the end of ERA assistance. Source: National Low-Income Housing Coalition Endnotes 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income, Table B25119. 2. Downen, J. An Analysis of Labor Supply and Demand in Utah (2019). Fact Sheet. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 3. More Housing Vouchers: Most Important Step to Help More People Afford Stable Homes (May 2021) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 4. HUD definition of homelessness. 5. Information on state housing trust funds come from state housing trust websites and interviews with officials. 6. State of Utah 2018-2019 Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Program Guidance & Rules (26 November 2018) Utah Department of Workforce Services Housing & Community Development. Available from https://nlihc. org/sites/default/files/files/Utah%20Olene%20Walker%20Program%20 Guidance.pdf 7. Utah Housing Corporation. 8. Recent experience of tax credit developers as referenced by Utah Housing Corporation. 9. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) combines rental assistance with support services, counseling, health care services, employment opportunities, etc. PSH generally targets households threatened by homelessness or who have been homeless. 10. The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program, created in 1986 by U.S. Congressional Act, provides an indirect financial subsidy to developers of affordable rental housing. The amount of the tax credit created by the development of a new or the rehabilitation of an existing rental project is either 4% or 9% of the eligible basis of the project. Eligible basis costs include all the “hard” construction costs and most of the “soft” costs (e.g., architectural, engineering, market studies, fees, and contractor profit). Land, interest, insurance, and property taxes are excluded from the eligible basis. Hence, the tax credits issued on a $10 million, 9% LIHTC project, with an eligible basis of $9 million, is $810,000 in tax credit annually for ten years. The tax credits awarded to a project are generally sold by the developer to an investor (Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, American Express), who becomes a partner in the project. The proceeds from the sale of the tax credits become part of the developer’s equity in the project, thus subsidizing the development of the affordable rental project. In Utah, projects receiving tax credits are required to maintain their affordability status for 50 years. Rents at tax credit projects are generally 10% to 20% below market rents, and tenants have incomes on average of about 43% AMI for 9% projects and closer to 60% AMI for 4% projects. The 35,000 tax credit units statewide account for about 11% of Utah’s 333,000 renter-occupied units. 11. Derived from UtahRealEstate.com (HC) HousingPoliciesReport Apr2023 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Chief of Staff Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Nate Lloyd, Director of Economic Research Dianne Meppen, Director of Community Research Laura Summers, Director of Industry Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Public Policy Analyst Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Max Becker, Public Policy Analyst Andrea Thomas Brandley, Senior Education Analyst Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Nate Christensen, Research Economist Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow and Scholar Enas Farag, Research Assistant Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Praopan Pratoomchat, Senior Research Economist Heidi Prior, Public Policy Analyst Natalie Roney, Research Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large John C. Downen, Camoin Associates Dan Griffiths, Community-at-Large Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Northbound Strategy Juliette Tennert, Community-at-Large Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Roger Boyer Michelle Camacho Wilford Clyde Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Angela Romero Senator Luz Escamilla Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Christian and Marie Gardner Family Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Wells Fargo Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu