Transmittal - 1/13/2023ERIN 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: January 11, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: Update on Housing SLC (the new five-year moderate income housing plan).
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 801-718-7949,
blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Ruedigar Matthes, Policy & Program Manager, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-415-4701,
Ruedigar.Matthes@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing
RECOMMENDATION: No action needed
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This briefing provides a progress update on the
Administration’s development of a new five-year moderate income housing plan, Housing SLC.
The City’s current housing plan, Growing SLC, expires at the end of the fiscal year, and a new
housing plan is needed to meet state code requirements. To provide consistency with Resolution
14-2020, this briefing provides an interim update in the plan development process, and includes
information on: 1) state requirements, 2) plan coordination 3) engagement efforts and existing
conditions, 4) key findings, and 5) next steps and timeline. At this time, the City Council may
wish to weigh in on efforts completed to date and housing priorities for the next five years.
1.State Requirements
The state defines “moderate income housing” as “housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by
households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80% of the median gross income
for households of the same size in the county in which the city is located” (Utah State Code 10-
9a-103). State Code section 10-9a-401 requires that municipalities include a moderate income
housing plan as part of the municipality’s general plan, and State Code section 10-9a-
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 13, 2023 15:16 MST)01/13/2023
01/13/2023
403(2)(a)(iii) outlines the elements that must be included in a moderate income housing plan.
These are:
A. Providing a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income
housing within the next five years;
B. Selects four or more moderate income housing strategies described in Subsection
(2)(b)(iii) for implementation; and
C. Includes an implementation plan as provided in Subsection (2)(c), which requires that a
municipality identify specific measures and benchmarks for implementing each
moderate income housing strategy.
Additionally, to qualify for priority consideration for various state funding sources (including
transportation funding and state American Rescue Plan Act funding), a municipality must select
six moderate income housing strategies if the municipality has a fixed guideway public transit
station.
State Code sections 10-9a-408(2) requires that municipalities submit annual reports on their
moderate income housing plans that include:
- A description of the moderate income housing plan strategies selected,
- An implementation plan,
- A description of each action (including land use regulations) taken during the previous
year to implement the moderate income housing plan,
- Barriers encountered in implementing the plan,
- The number of internal and external ADUs within the municipality,
- A description of how the market has responded to the actions taken by the municipality,
- And recommendations on how the state can support the municipality.
The policies, strategies, and action items outlined in Thriving in Place (“TIP”), along with those
that will be presented in Housing SLC, will function to provide a realistic opportunity to meet
the need for additional moderate income housing while also protecting tenants from the
displacement that could be associated with new development and increases in rent. These
policies, strategies, and action items will be aligned with state moderate income housing
strategies items and developed into an implementation plan.
2. Plan Coordination
As part of the General Plan, the moderate income housing plan, Housing SLC, establishes the
City’s foundation for housing policy, program, and funding priorities for the next five years. It
will consider where we are as a city, where we want to be, and est ablishes the framework for
decision making that will get us there. The efforts to draft a new housing plan have overlapped
heavily with the TIP efforts, as both have sought to facilitate community driven processes
regarding housing issues. It is the Administration’s intent to integrate the policies identified
through TIP into Housing SLC and include the entire TIP study as an addendum to the plan.
Accordingly, Housing SLC is intended to be the adopted housing element of the General Plan,
providing a central location for all housing related policies, and fulfilling the state’s moderate-
income housing plan requirement.
While TIP focuses on the effects of and mitigation strategies for displacement in the city, there is
substantial overlap with other housing po licies, such as the production of new housing, the
preservation of existing housing, and the protection of tenants. The data collection, engagement,
and analysis performed through the TIP process elucidated issues related to housing in the city,
creating a foundation on which to develop a new housing plan that includes holistic policy,
program, and funding solutions to address the current housing affordability and displacement
crises.
3. Engagement and Existing Conditions
Housing SLC will be based on current City policies, existing conditions, and input gathered from
thousands of people including City residents, leaders, business owners, experts, and community
organizations. Engagement on TIP began in February 2022, and a full report of TIP activities and
engagement/data findings can be found at www.thrivinginplaceslc.org/what-we-heard-and-
learned. Based on the findings from these efforts, engagement efforts specific to Housing SLC
commenced in July 2022, when a popsicle social was held at the International Peace Gardens.
Between July 2022 and November 2022, the Housing SLC project team engaged with over 4,000
individuals across a number of d ifferent methods, including: organized pop-up events, tabling at
local festivals, administering paper and online surveys, posting to social media, attending
housing-specific functions, and hosting focus groups. Additionally, students in the University of
Utah’s College of City and Metropolitan Planning attended Community Council meetings and
performed additional outreach. Refer to Appendix 1 – Housing SLC Engagement Report for a full
report of engagement efforts and findings, and a timeline of relevant events is provided below:
- February – April: TIP Phase I Engagement Period
o Survey
o Focus groups and interviews
o Youth engagement
o Community working group meetings
- July 28: Housing SLC Engagement Kick-off
- August 9: Beginning of Event Tabling
- August 10: Online Survey Launch
- August 12: Paper Surveys Distributed throughout Community
- September 6: Reddit Ask Me Anything
- September 8: Film Screening
- September 24: End of Tabling Events
- October 19: Renters’ Rights Event
- October 31: Close Online Survey
- November 10: Paper Surveys Collected
Concurrently with this engagement, the Housing SLC team was collecting and analyzing
quantitative data to generate a Housing Needs Analysis Report, meeting with community
stakeholders in community working group meetings, and convening both an internal City
steering committee with representatives from 14 City departments (including the Mayor’s Office
staff, Council staff, and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) staff) and a City Policy team with
representatives from Building Services, Business Licensing, Housing Stab ility, Planning, RDA,
and Transportation. Refer to Appendix 2 – Housing Needs Analysis for a full report of
engagement efforts and findings
When combined with the TIP Phase I efforts, nearly 6,000 people responded to online and paper-
based surveys (2,150 TIP, 3,831 Housing SLC) and an additional 559 individuals were engaged
through in-person efforts (320 TIP, 239 Housing SLC). In addition to these numbers, there were
other individuals engaged by the University of Utah students that may not have been captured in
these counts (community council members and participants, focus group participants, etc.).
Taken together, the engagement efforts and data analysis spanned nine months across both
projects, reaching over 6,000 individuals, and providing a robust view of existing conditions,
needs, and potential pathways forward.
4. Key Findings
After reviewing the qualitative and quantitative data from engagement efforts and the
quantitative data from the needs analysis report, six key findings emerged (in addition to the
displacement-centric findings that emerged from TIP Phase I, which can be found at
www.thrivinginplaceslc.org/what-we-heard-and-learned:
A. Rental vacancy rates are low and home sale prices are unaffordable to most residents,
putting strain on existing rental housing and causing rents to rise dramatically. At
the end of 2021, rental vacancy rates were as low as 2.5 percent. While vacancy rates
increased to 4.6% (July-September 2022), the low rates have caused upward pressure on
rents. Between 2020 and 2022, median rents increased 11 percent annually, leading to
an average increase of $321 per month ($3,852 annually) in Salt Lake County. With
median home sale prices at $490,000 (2021), 72 percent of Salt Lake City households
are unable to afford to purchase a home in the city, resulting in more people renting.
B. Despite a housing construction boom, housing prices suggest a shortage of housing
supply overall, but especially housing that is deeply affordable (affordable to renters
earning 30% of area median income (AMI) or less), with demand for housing outpacing
supply. Since 2017, 10,135 units have become available to rent in Salt Lake City.
However, there are severe shortages of housing affordable to households earning more
than 80 percent AMI and households earning less than 30 percent AMI (8,557 units
short and 5,507 units short, respectively).
C. Salt Lake City is majority renter, and more than half of all renters are cost burdened,
spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Residents are
concerned that there are few rights for and resources available to renters. Around 52
percent of all households in Salt Lake City rent, and this number is likely to increase
over time as more for-rent housing is built in the city. In 2021, nearly 24,000 renters,
over half of all renters, were cost burdened, with estimates that nearly 50 percent of
cost-burdened renters have extremely low incomes.
D. According to a survey of city residents, affordable housing and behavioral health
services is preferred over additional emergency shelters and homeless resource centers
as solutions for homelessness. Two-thirds of survey respondents selected housing for
homeless individuals in their top three homeless services priorities, while only 41
percent (fourth out of six options) selected homeless resource centers and emergency
shelters on the same question.
E.There is a mismatch between the types of housing the market is producing and the
needs of the community. Residents perceive that most new housing is “luxury” while
many desire more affordability throughout the city. Additionally, residents want more
“missing middle” housing and more family-sized ho using. When asked where they would
like to see more affordable housing built, respondents expressed desires to have
affordability throughout the city. Additionally, 62 percent of survey respondents selected
creating new affordable housing for low-income residents as one of their top three
housing priorities and 55 percent selected housing for individuals experiencing
homelessness in their top three housing priorities. At each point of engagement (survey,
in-person, Reddit AMA, focus groups, etc.) residents expressed concern that “all” new
developments were luxury housing, with many wondering where they can find affordable
housing and who the new housing is for.
F.Wages have not kept pace with cost of living, especially housing-related costs, and
residents are feeling increased stress about everyday expenses. Between 2005 and 2021,
median wages increased by 19 percent and median household income increased by 29
percent. During that same period, median rent increased by 38 percent and median
home values increased by 83 percent (all values adjusted for inflation). The minimum
wage ($7.25/hour) has not increased since 2009. In survey responses, residents
prioritized affordable and healthy food, affordable medical and dental clinics, and
affordable childcare in their community at much higher rates than recreational and
community amenities, and they selected free transit over road safety and better/more
biking and walking paths. Taken together, these responses demonstrate a strong desire
for increased affordability for everyday expenses.
Collectivley, these key findings present a picture of housing in Salt Lake City and will serve as
the basis for setting goals and strategies.
5. Proposed Next Steps and Timeline
In an effort to maximize public engagement and avoid the confusion of having multiple housing-
related plans open for public comment during the same period, the proposed timeline
contemplates having TIP and Housing SLC move together through the adoption process.
However, the Administration seeks direction on the Council’s preferred process.
January/February
Council briefing on Existing Conditions and Engagement Efforts for Housing SLC
February
A draft of Housing SLC, including the TIP policy recommendations, ready for public comment.
This will commence the 45-day public comment period.
Council briefing on Draft Plan
Planning Commission briefing on Draft Plan
March
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation
April - June
City Council Public Hearing and Adoption
June
Housing SLC submission to State by June 30, 2023.
Attachments
Appendix 1 – Housing SLC Engagement Report
Appendix 2 – Housing Needs Analysis
Appendix 1
Housing SLC Engagement Report
E N G A G E M E N T R E P O R T
HOUSING SLC
An Update to Salt Lake City's 5 Year Plan:
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Ruedigar Matthes, Project Manager
Erik Fronberg
Kyle Irvin
Joelette Organista
Rachel Paulsen
Hannah Regan
Jamie Stokes
Housing SLC Project Team
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s i
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Planning
Housing Stability
Transportation
Youth and Family Services
Department of Economic Development
Salt Lake City Arts Council
Department of Parks and Public Lands
Department of Public Services
Department of Public Utilities
Department of Sustainability
The Office of the City Council
The Office of the Mayor
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Internal Working Group
External Working Group
AARP
Alliance House
Assist Utah
Catholic Community Services
Community Development Corporation of Utah
Crossroads Urban Center
Disability Law Center
Giv Group
International Rescue Committee
Neighborhood House
NeighborWorks
People’s Legal Aid
Pik2ar
Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services
The Road Home
University Neighborhood Partners
Utah Community Action
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Wasatch Front Regional Council
University of Utah College of City and
Metropolitan Planning
Dr. Caitlin Cahill, Assistant Professor
Kate Ades
Jeresun Atkin
Leticia Karina Bennett
Jason Berntson
Vincent Carson
CK Chae
McCall Christensen
Kaden Coil
Meredith Covey
Leota Coyne
Connor Dahlquist
Luiz De Santana Luz
Justin Delgado
Moira Dillow
Emily Ercius
Parviz Faiz
Luis Garcia Plancarte
Jasmine Garcia
Joseph Geilman
Lucas Horns
Hyojeong Ko
Kristofer Land
Virgil Lund
Taylor Maguire
Ann Marie McNamara
McKay Muhlestein
Joshua Rebello
Daniel Ritter
Ana Shinzato
Shreya Shrestha
Ryan Smith
Alex Stewart
Connor Stone
Justice Propser Tuffour
Oliva Ann Vielstich
Julie Williams
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Introduction 0101
Top Takeaways0202
Timeline 0303
Engagement Methods & Outcomes 0404
Next Steps3636
ii
05. In-Person Engagement Methods
11. Online Engagement Methods
12. Hybrid Engagement Methods
14. Basic Survey Results
18. Survey Demographic Trends
28. Survey Demographics
31. Survey Drop Box Locations
32. Survey Comment Summary
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Appendix3737
INTRODUCTION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
The issue of housing is perhaps the most
frequently discussed topic among local
policymakers and residents. As the City’s
previous plan, Growing SLC, nears
expiration, Salt Lake City is preparing to
create a new affordable housing plan for
2023-2028 called Housing SLC.
The City began public engagement in July of
2022 to continue to build understanding of
the challenges surrounding housing. Taking
a holistic approach, the project team asked
the public questions not only about physical
sheltering, but also about factors
contributing to a sense of community and
livability within their neighborhoods.
The Project Team utilized multiple methods
of engagement including: organizing pop-up
events, tabling at local festivals,
administering paper and online surveys,
posting to social media, attending housing
specific-functions, and hosting focus groups.
In addition, planning students at the
University of Utah were assigned various
outreach efforts. Special attention was given
to reaching Spanish-speakers, with all event
advertisements and surveys being available
in Spanish and Spanish speaking staff and
partners at events the Project Team hosted. Members of the public share their vision for their neighborhood at the
International Peace Gardens on July 28th, 2022.
01Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
This engagement emerged from and built
upon the engagement and data analysis
conducted through Thriving in Place. A full
report of those engagement efforts can be
found here.
These efforts resulted in engagement with
approximately 4,070 individuals between
August and November of 2022. What follows
is detailed descriptions of engagement
methods and the feedback received. These
findings will guide the creation of policies
and plans for Housing SLC.
TOP TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Development for All Salt Lakers: Whether via survey or in-person conversation, the public
consistently mentioned the proliferation of luxury apartment buildings in Salt Lake City.
Residents are concerned Salt Lake City's development is geared towards high-income
earners instead of families with children, students, seniors, and those who work at local
businesses and schools.
11
44 Housing for Those Experiencing Homelessness: For respondents, housing was a more
popular solution to homelessness than homeless resource centers/emergency shelters.
Homelessness was the second most frequent topic of feedback on the qualitative portion
of the Housing SLC survey, with most participants citing the need for more behavioral
health and treatment options for the unsheltered.
33 Cost of Living Stress: Both the in-person mapping activity (Page 05) and the Housing SLC
survey (Page 13) showcased the public's desire for better and more connected
transportation options and greater access to affordable and healthy food. At the heart of
this feedback was mounting stress about everyday expenses.
55 Equity: A major concern for participants is geographic equity. In their view, affordable
housing should be distributed throughout the city to minimize the impact of gentrification
and displacement on the Westside in particular. Residents expressed frustration with what
they saw as development in a vacuum: the addition of new housing but the disruption of
neighborhood businesses and grocery stores in the process. Furthermore, participants felt
the new housing added to historically marginalized areas is often too expensive for locals
to afford. Similarly, they felt projects and resources aimed at tackling homelessness
should be more evenly distributed.
22 More Help for Renters: Many who participated expressed desperation about their housing
situation and/or frustration with what they saw as unfair increases in rent. Members of the
public suggested improvements to the City's Good Landlord Program (Landlord Tenant
Initiative), increased education about rental resources/affordable housing, and rent
control.
02Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
TIMELINE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
July 28th: Engagement Kick-Off
August 9th: Beginning of Event Tabling
August 10th: Online Survey Launch
August 12th: Paper Surveys Distributed
September 8th: Film Screening
September 6th: Reddit Ask Me Anything
September 24th: End of Event Tabling
October 19th: Renters' Rights Event
October 31st: Close of Online Survey
November 10th: Paper Surveys Collected
03Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
ENGAGEMENT METHODSAND OUTCOMES
Housing SLC Engagement Report
04Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Legend
Affordable and Healthy Food
Affordable Housing
Early Childhood Education/Childcare
Community Gathering Spaces
Affordable Medical and Dental Clinics
Parks
Transportation Features
IN-PERSON METHODS: MAPPING VISION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
05
To view a web version of the map, with the ability to filter points, click here.
The Housing SLC Project team attended
multiple events around Salt Lake City to ask
residents: If you could add anything to your
neighborhood, what would it be?
Participants were asked to select a colored
pin corresponding to specific amenities, and
place the pin on a map of Salt Lake City where
they felt the need for that amenity was
highest.
Residents would like to see affordable housing
spread throughout the City, but also in their own
neighborhoods so they can continue living in them.
Pins indicating a hope for improved transportation
were clustered along 2100 South and along
freeways.
Parents on the Westside emphasized the need for a
high school in their area.
Residents strongly indicated their desire for more
green space in the Ballpark area.
Affordable housing was the most popular selection,
followed by affordable/healthy food. Transportation
and Parks were the third most popular selections.
Key Takeaways
Vision Map Responses
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
IN-PERSON METHODS: MAPPING VISION
Housing SLC Engagement Report
The project team chose to attend events
based on their probability of including
residents whom the City might typically miss
when gathering feedback.
The two pop-up events shown on the map, at
the International Peace Gardens and Liberty
Park, were hosted by the Housing SLC project
team as a way to meet people where they
were.
06
At pop-up events, the project team gave away
free popsicles and talked with residents about
their neighborhoods.
Pop-up events were advertised as family-
friendly in both English and Spanish on
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit.
Spanish speaking staff and community
partners were also present to engage with our
Spanish speaking community.
Event & Pop-up Locations
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On September 8th, Housing SLC hosted a
screening of PUSH, a film about the
financialization of housing worldwide. The
screening was largely advertised on social
media and through word of mouth.
Intended as an an opportunity to educate the
public and stimulate discussion about
housing in Salt Lake City, the project team
led an open discussion following the film.
IN-PERSON METHODS: FILM SCREENING
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Attendees noted the trend of long-time residents
being pushed out of Salt Lake City.
Attendees mentioned how current types of
development the market is producing aren't their
needs or the needs of people who work for our
small businesses.
Attendees expressed a desire for greater renter
protections and landlord accountability.
Key Takeaways
Lessons Learned:
Attendance was low at our screening, suggesting the need for greater advertising and/or
the inaccessibility of the event. Many Salt Lakers don't have time to attend a 2.5 hour
event on a weeknight.
07Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On October 19th, Housing SLC hosted a
renter's resource night in partnership with
Utah Department of Workforce Services, the
Disability Law Center, Utah Community
Action, People's Legal Aid, Utah Legal
Services, Alliance Community Services, and
the Utah League of Women Voters.
The project team advertised the event on
social media in English, Spanish, Somali,
Tongan, Chinese, and Korean. The team also
put up flyers at locations around the city
advertising the event in English and Spanish.
The event itself offered Spanish and ASL
interpretation.
Community partners connected with
residents and also participated in a short
panel about renting, communication with
landlords, and evictions. While the event was
geared towards connecting renters with
resources, the project team also interviewed
attendees about their experiences with
renting in Salt Lake City. Page 1o includes
excerpts from two of the interviews.
IN-PERSON METHODS: RENTER'S RESOURCE NIGHT
Housing SLC: Engagement Report
08Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
“I have applied for every place you could imagine on the
internet. They either don’t call you or they say you’re on a
waiting list that never calls. And they have programs for
felons — felon friendly — but they’re really not... They say
'Well do you have any drug charges?' Mine are like 7
years old and I’m still being held for them. I’m not from
this town. I’m from the country. I don’t fit in here and I
can’t even get out of here. And it’s just a depressing
struggle."
IN-PERSON METHODS: RENTERS' RESOURCE NIGHT
Housing SLC Engagement Report
"Currently, we are on a month-to-month lease and our
landlord is renovating, and because of [an] eviction
notice from 2015 that should never exist and their
continuing to dismiss our entire experience as if that
hasn’t impacted every breath I’ve taken since then,
we’re going to be displaced again and I am stuck. I
don’t know. I don’t know what to do about that."
09Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
On September 6th, Housing SLC hosted a
Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) about the
City's new housing plan. The project team,
plus the City's experts on housing and
homelessness, convened to answer questions
from the public.
The public left 121 questions/comments and
the AMA post, hosted on the SaltLakeCity
Subreddit Page, received 81,000 views.
ONLINE METHODS: REDDIT AMA
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Participants would like to see improvements to the
City's Good Landlord Program (Landlord Tenant
Initiative).
Worries about affordability abound - respondents
mentioned the number of luxury units being built
which they view as inaccessible to the majority of
residents.
Participants are interested in seeing rent control
implemented.
Environmental concerns were also at the forefront of
the AMA. Will housing even matter if the Great Salt
Lake drys up?
Key Takeaways
10Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
HYBRID METHODS:FOCUS GROUPS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Senior
Residents
LGBTQIA+
Pacific
Islanders
Alliance
Community
Services
Glendale
Community
Housing
Nonprofit
Leaders
City Personnel
Small
Business
Owners
Residents w/
Substance
Abuse
Disorders
Youth
Experiencing
Homelessness
Access to Food X X
Access to Housing
Information X X X X X
Affordability X X X X X X X X X
Aging in Place X
Different Levels of Gov
Involvement X X X
Displacement X X X X X
Equity X X X
Gentrification X X
Housing Variety X X X X
Local Business
Support X X X X
Minority Inclusion X X
Neighborhood
Amenities X X X X
Neighborhood Safety X X
Transportation X X X X
In partnership with planning students from the University of Utah, Housing SLC hosted 9
focus groups. The focus groups were geared towards understanding the community's
experience with housing and hearing suggestions about what the new housing plan could
confront. While focus group questions differed slightly, major themes emerged. The chart
below illustrates community groups' concerns and suggested solutions.
ISSUES:
GROUPS:
WHAT ISSUES SHOULD HOUSING SLC ADDRESS?
11Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
The survey opened in August of 2022. The
online version was promoted on social media
networks including Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, and Reddit, as well as through City
newsletters and staff networks.
The paper version was distributed at
community centers such as homeless
resource centers and libraries (see page 31 for
full list of locations.) Paper versions of the
survey were available in English, Spanish,
and Mandarin (at 1 location, upon request.)
287 people filled out a paper version of the
survey, with 10 completing it in Spanish.
3,542 people completed the online version of
the survey, with 15 completing it in Spanish.
Of the online responses, 759 were geo-
tagged as originating from Salt Lake City
proper.
The survey did not prompt participants to
provide their location, so geo-tagged
location data gives us the best estimate of
district-by-district participation. Still, the
geo-tags are an imprecise measure. A
participant may have taken the survey at
work in District 4 but may actually reside in
District 2. Due to this issue, basic results are
displayed for the total respondents,
geotagged Salt Lake City respondents, and
paper survey respondents.
HYBRID METHODS: SURVEY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
GEOGRAPHIC OV ER VIEW O F R ESPOND ENTS
(TOTAL ONLINE RES PON DENTS )
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
200
150
100
50
0
RE SPONDE NTS BY CITY C OUN C IL DISTRI CT
(CO LLEC TE D TH ROUG H GEO-TA GGE D LOCAT ION DATA)
12
Inclusion of all responses, regardless of geo-
location, allows us to account for Salt Lakers
who have been displaced to other areas of the
County, and non-residents who work in the
city.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R SLC R Paper
0%25%50%75%
New affordable housing for low-income individuals
Housing for people experiencing homelessness
Access to home ownership
Preserve existing affordable housing
Renter protections, programs, and services
Rent and utility assistance
Housing support for seniors
Housing repair programs
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES IN HOUSING
SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,385 individuals or 62% of total
respondents selected new affordable housing for low-income individuals as part of their top
three.
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
13Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
To maximize our response rate and avoid fatiguing the public with similar surveys, the
Housing SLC Team partnered with Housing Stability to create one housing-related survey.
While the Housing SLC team sought feedback to inform Housing SLC, Housing Stability’s
efforts centered on the best approach to Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirements, including where funds should be spent. Survey questions should be viewed with
this dual purpose in mind.
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 3,066 or 80% of total respondents
selected free transit passes as part of their top three.
W H I C H O F T H E F O L L O W I N G T R A N S P O R T A T I O N S E R V I C E S
S H O U L D B E S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’S T O P P R I O R I T Y ?
Total R SLC R Paper
0%25%50%75%100%
Free transit passes
More bike and walking paths
Bus stop improvements on the west side
Increased road safety in neighborhoods
More bike rack stations on the west side
W H I C H O F T H E F O L L O W I N G S E R I C E S I N B U I L D I N G C O M M U N I T Y
S T R E N G T H S H O U L D B E S A L T L A K E C I T Y 'S T O P P R I O R I T Y ?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,435 or 63% of total respondents
selected affordable medical/dental clinics as part of their top three.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Affordable medical/dental clinics
Affordable and healthy foods
Early childhood education and childcare
Recreation opportunities
Community gathering spaces and learning centers
Job training programs
Computer/internet access and technology training
Improve store fronts for small businesses
Small business loans
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
14Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES IN HOMELESS
SERVICES SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,536 or 66 % of total respondents
included housing for people experiencing homeless in their top three priorities.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Housing for people experiencing homelessness
Basic needs items/services for individuals living on the street
Job opportunities and training programs
Homeless resource centers/emergency shelters
Medical and dental care
Case management for housing programs
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES SHOULD BE SALT LAKE CITY’S TOP PRIORITY?
Respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. 2,802 or 73% of total respondents
included treatment, counseling, and case management in their top three priorities.
Total Online R SLC Online R Paper
0%25%50%75%
Treatment, counseling, and case management
Housing with behavioral treatment
Affordable medical and dental clinics
Public restrooms and water stations
Needle exchange and Naloxone clinics
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
15Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
BASIC RESULTS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Neighborhood Total Votes SLC Only
Votes
Ballpark 1837 421
Fairpark 1488 363
Glendale 1679 337
Poplar Grove 1391 374
TOP WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE
Respondents were asked to select their top three priority areas. Due to space constraints, this
question was not included on paper versions of the survey.
16Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
17
Updates to Salt Lake City's housing plan shouldn't be made based on one group's
preferences. To get a clearer picture of the trends showcased above, we now further
process the data by examining how income, age, and race and ethnicity correspond to
survey answers. Breaking down demographic trends allows us to see whether or not
trends are skewed towards a certain group or whether there is broad consensus among
Salt Lakers on their vision for the City.
AgeIncome Race &
Ethnicity
While the above graphs showed responses broken down into three separate groups,
(total online respondents, geo-tagged SLC online respondents, and paper
respondents), the following graphs are based on total online and paper responses. All
received responses are combined in order to increase the sample size from which to
make inferences about patterns in the data.
With further analysis of each of these prioritized groups, we present key takeaways
regarding the following categories:
Housing Community
Building
Transportation Area to
Help
Behavioral
Health
Homeless
Services
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY INCOME:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
18
Housing: New affordable housing for low-income residents and housing for people
experiencing homelessness were the top two priorities across all income brackets, with
those making less than $50,000 most supportive of new affordable housing. Providing
access to home ownership was the third most popular priority for all respondents making
more than $25,000.
Community Building: Affordable medical/dental clinics, affordable/healthy food, and early
childhood education/childcare were the top three priorities across all income brackets.
Transportation: Free transit passes was the most frequently selected priority across all
income brackets, with support lessening as respondent income increased. Support for
adding cycling and walking paths increased as income increased.
Homeless Services: Respondents across all income brackets most often selected housing
for people experiencing homelessness as one of their top priorities.
Area to Help: Helping the Ballpark neighborhood was the most popular choice for
respondents across income brackets, except for those making $24,999 or less, who were
more supportive of helping Downtown.
Behavioral Health: Treatment, counseling, and case management was the most frequently
selected priority across all income brackets.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY INCOME
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOUSING
$0-$14,999 $15,000 -$24,999 $25,00-$49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99.999
$100,000 - $150,000- $150,000 $150,00 +
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
TRANSPORTATION
Housing for the
Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
Housing
Support for
Seniors
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
COMMUNITY BUILDING
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
19Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
$0-$14,999 $15,000 -$24,999 $25,00-$49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99.999
$100,000 - $150,000- $150,000 $150,00 +
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
20
PRIORITIES BY INCOME
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
AREA TO HELP
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
20
Respondents Per
Income Level
$0 - 14,999: 327
$15,000 - 24,999: 372
$25,000 - 49,999: 814
$50,000 - 74,999: 644
$75,000 - 100,000: 446
$100,000 - 150,000: 357
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY AGE:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
21
Housing: Respondents across each age category most frequently selected new affordable
housing for low-income residents as a top priority, though support decreased as respondent
age increased. Those 18-21 were most likely to support rent/utility assistance, while those
over 61 were most likely to support housing for seniors.
Community Building: Affordable/healthy food and affordable medical/dental clinics were
the top two priorities across all age groups, with younger respondents most strongly
supportive. Older respondents were more supportive of job training programs and computer
access and training than younger respondents.
Transportation: Free transit passes was the most popular response across all age
categories, with the level of support decreasing as age increased. Support for increasing
road safety in neighborhoods increased as respondent age increased.
Homeless Services: Respondents across age categories most frequently selected housing
for people experiencing homelessness as one of their top priorities, though providing basic
needs items for those living on the street was about equally important as housing for those
18-21.
Behavioral Health: Treatment, counseling, and case management was the most frequently
selected priority for respondents in each age category.
Area to Help: Younger respondents were more supportive of helping Downtown, while older
respondents were more supportive of helping the Ballpark neighborhood.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY AGE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
18-21 22-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
HOUSING
Housing for
the Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Housing
Support for
Seniors
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY BUILDING
22
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
75%
50%
25%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AREA TO HELP
PRIORITIES BY AGE
Housing SLC Engagement Report
23
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
18 - 21: 552
22 - 30: 1438
31 - 40: 831
41 - 50: 403
51 - 60: 193
61 or Older: 210
Respondents
Per Age Group
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY:KEY TAKEAWAYS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
24
Housing: New affordable housing for low income residents was the top choice
across all racial and ethnic groups, followed by housing for people experiencing
homelessness.
Community Building: Affordable medical/dental clinics, healthy/affordable food, and
early childhood education/childcare were the top priorities for all racial and ethnic
groups. Respondents identifying as Hispanic or Latino supported medical/dental
clinics most strongly, with 71% citing it as a priority. Those identifying as American
Indian/Alaskan Native were most supportive of early childhood education, with 63%
citing it as a priority.
Transportation: Respondents across all racial and ethnic groups selected free
transit passes as their top transportation priority.
Homeless Services: Housing for people experiencing homelessness was the top
priority for all racial and ethnic groups except for those identifying as
Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and African American/Black, who
most frequently selected job training programs as their top priority.
Behavioral Health: Respondents across all racial and ethnic groups selected
treatment, counseling, and case management as their top priority.
Area to Help: Those identifying as White, Asian, and/or Other and those who
preferred not to say were more likely to support helping the Ballpark neighborhood.
Those identifying as Hispanic or Latino, African American or Black, American Indian
or Alaska Native, and/or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander were more likely to say
they supported helping Glendale.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
HOUSING
African American or Black American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Prefer Not to Say Other
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
COMMUNITY BUILDING
TRANSPORTATION
25
More Bike Racks
on the West Side
Increase Road
Safety
Bike and
Walking Paths
Free Transit
Passes
Better Bus Stops
on the West Side
Computer
Access
Recreation Affordable/
Healthy Food
Community
Spaces
Affordable
Medical/
Dental
Job Training Early
Childhood
Education
Improve
Storefronts
Small
Business
Loans
Housing for
the Unhoused
Access to
Ownership
New Affordable
Housing
Preserve
Housing
Renter
Protections
Housing
Support for
Seniors
Rent/Utility
Assistance
Housing Repair
Programs
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
25%
0%
HOMELESSNESS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AREA TO HELP
PRIORITIES BY RACE ÐNICITY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
26
Housing with
Behavioral
Treatment
Treatment,
Counseling, Case
Management
Public
Restrooms/
Water Stations
Affordable
Medical/Dental
Clinics
Needle
Exchange/
Naloxone Clinics
Respondents Per Race &
Ethnicity (alone or in
combination)
African American or Black : 102
American Indian or Alaska Native: 65
Hispanic or Latino: 715
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 37
Asian: 115
White: 2571
Prefer Not to Say: 174
Other: 62
Downtown Poplar Grove Glendale Central City Fairpark Liberty Wells Jordan
Meadows
Ballpark Central 9th
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
African American or Black American Indian or Alaska Native Asian
Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race)Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White
Prefer Not to Say Other
75%
50%
25%
0%
Housing for the
Unhoused
Case Management
for Housing
Programs
Resource
Centers/Shelters
Job
Opportunities
Basic Needs
Items/Services
for the Unhoused
Medical/Dental
Care
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Total R SLC R Paper R
18-21 22-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or older
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total R SLC R Paper R
Men
Women
Non-Binary/Third Gender
Prefer to self describe
Prefer to not say
Other
60%
40%
20%
0%
PARTICIPANT AGE
PARTICIPANT GENDER
27Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Demographics of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
SLC R: Demographics of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Demographics of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
Total R Census
SLC R Paper R
0%25%50%75%100%
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Prefer not to say
Other
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
PARTICIPANT RACE & ETHNICITY
Respondents were allowed to select as many races and ethnicities as they felt represented
them. Based on federal guidelines for combination of categories, the totals below represent
each race or ethnicity alone or in combination with another race or ethnicity.
28Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Race and ethnicity of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
Census: Race and ethnicity of Salt Lake City residents according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey 1 Year Estimates Data
Profile, 20221. Totals reflect race/ethnicity alone or in combination with another race/ethnicity.
SLC R: Race and ethnicity of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Race and ethnicity of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
Total R SLC R
$0 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $150,000
$150,000+
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PARTICIPANT INCOME LEVEL
This question was not included on paper versions of the survey.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
29
PARTICIPANT LIVING STATUS
This question was not included on paper versions of the survey .
Total R SLC R
0%20%40%60%
Rent
Own
Living with Family or Friends
Living at a Homless Resource Center
Living at a Treatment Facility
Living on the Street
Other
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Total R: Demographics of all survey respondents, including online and paper.
SLC R: Demographics of only online respondents whose answers were geotagged as originating in Salt Lake City
Paper R: Demographics of only respondents who answered using a paper survey
DROP BOX LOCATIONS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
St Vincent De Paul Dining Hall- 42 Responses
Gail Miller Resource Center - 12 Responses
Homeless Youth Resource Center - 14 Responses
Resource Centers
Events
Utah Support Advocates for Recovery Awareness Event- 50 Responses
Groove in the Grove - 28 Responses
Homeless Resource Fair at Library Square - 17 Responses
Libraries
Corinne & Jack Sweet Branch - 18 Responses
Anderson-Foothill Branch- 17 Responses
Sprague Branch - 16 Responses
Main Library- 10 Responses
Day-Riverside Branch - 9 Responses
Marmalade Branch- 8 Responses
Glendale Branch Library - 6 Responses
Chapman Branch - 5 Responses
Community Gathering Spaces
Sorenson Unity Center -13 Responses
Suazo Business Center - 8 Responses
River's Bend Senior Center - 2 Responses
30
Deeply Affordable Housing
First Step House - 10 Responses
Valor House -2 Responses
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Respondents to the Housing SLC survey were given space to provide qualitative feedback on any topic of
their choosing. The most commonly mentioned topics are listed below in alphabetical order, along with a
summaries of the prevailing sentiments on each topic. See our website for a complete listing of qualitative
comments.
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
31
ACCESSIBILITY:
Respondents brought up accessibility in all of its meanings. Participants hoped transportation,
laundromats and community centers/programs for the disabled, seniors and low-income residents
could become more accessible to the community. They also expressed support for more ADA accessible
walkways and public spaces.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Affordable housing came up more than any other topic on the survey. Respondents expressed a need for
affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents, especially families, seniors, and students.
The consensus was that much of the recent development in Salt Lake has been luxury high-rise
apartment complexes, which do not meet the needs of residents. Instead, respondents expressed a
desire for affordable housing close to city resources, especially public transit, which could eventually
allow residents to save enough to purchase their own homes.
Participants commonly shared their view that any programs, aid, housing, etc., prioritize current Utah
residents and not wealthy transplants from other states. They also expressed a desire for more
affordable housing spread throughout the city and the expansion of current housing assistance
programs.
BUILDING TYPE:
Respondents referencing building type emphasized their desire to see fewer luxury apartments. They
stressed the unaffordable nature of luxury units and worried developers wouldn't consider average
living expenses in their pricing. Respondents were mixed on their desire to preserve single family
homes and their desire to increase density throughout Salt Lake City. Mostly, respondents hoped to see
more housing options besides single-family detached homes and large-scale apartment complexes.
COMMUNITY:
Respondents expressed a desire to feel a deeper sense of belonging in the community. To create a sense
of belonging, respondents suggested more community meetings/centers, accessible spaces with longer
opening hours to allow neighbors to support each other, and prioritizing the community's children,
seniors, and refugees. Some respondents saw a need for greater opportunities to teach and learn other
languages.
DEVELOPMENT:
Respondents who mentioned development echoed those who highlighted Affordable Housing and
Zoning. Many participants supported zoning changes to remove most areas of single-family zoning and
increasing the supply of affordable housing. Respondents also suggested repurposing abandoned
buildings for housing or grocery stores.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
32
EAST-WEST:
Participants would like to see more unity between the East and West sides of Salt Lake City. They'd like
to see City leaders foster more social interactions between East and West and create more bike lanes and
transit options to better connect the city. Respondents called for greater geographic balance in regards
to homeless resource distribution, more equal housing distribution throughout the city, better
transportation services, and more equitable maintenance priorities.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Those who mentioned economic development were concerned about the destruction of small
businesses, the need for an increased minimum wage, transitional living skills programs, and
assistance programs for families. The other major concern related to homelessness and concerns that
economic development cannot continue until the root issues of homelessness are fixed. Respondents
suggested rehabilitation centers and providing training and skills development for those experiencing
homelessness.
EDUCATION:
Respondents mentioned two major threads when discussing education. The first thread emphasized
public awareness and education about homelessness - the causes and prevention methods. Participants
would like to see more public awareness about resources (job programs, health services, and health
care) available to the unsheltered. The second education thread regards children’s education.
Respondents would like to see teachers paid more, safer schools, and free meals for children.
ENVIRONMENT:
Respondents were very concerned about the Great Salt Lake drying up. Preserving the watershed,
protecting trees, and improving air quality were also top environmental priorities for respondents.
FAMILY:
Many respondents expressed the need for affordable childcare options and increased quality of
children's education. Respondents were also concerned about housing costs pushing families out of the
City.
FOOD ACCESS:
Respondents saw a need for more affordable food access. They related food access to the increase in
housing costs, as respondents generally felt like they cannot afford basic necessities. Some suggested
community gardens and pantries, plus the development of grocery stores throughout the city to combat
food deserts and to increase walkability.
GREEN SPACE:
Participants desired increased access to green space and parks throughout the city, whether through
increased public transportation to connect to existing natural areas or by the creation of more green
space. Respondents also expressed a desire for more trees and nature integrated into the city, both to
beautify the city and to keep it cool. Some respondents requested more community gardens and outdoor
recreation areas.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
33
HOMELESSNESS:
Homelessness was the second most popular feedback topic, behind only affordable housing.
Respondents commented on a perceived increase in encampments and individuals experiencing
homelessness throughout the city and requested programs and services to respond to the increase in
need. Many suggested designated camping areas and increased access to shelters, while a few
respondents requested stricter enforcement of camping laws.
The issue is closely related to tenants’ rights, as many have become homeless because of increased
housing costs. Respondents requested a rental assistance program to keep individuals in their homes.
Many respondents connected the perceived increase in homelessness to an increase in illicit drug
activity, sharing safety concerns and expressing a need for more mental and behavioral health services
and rehabilitation programs. While some respondents requested more police presence in response to
the issue, many more requested increased social services and case managers for individuals with
substance abuse disorders. Please see Programs, Services, and Maintenance for some other concerns on
homelessness.
HOMEOWNERSHIP:
Respondents' sentiments about homeownership were centered on increasing regulation on corporate
homeownership and the creation of first-time buyer programs prioritizing Utah residents. Similar to
ideas expressed in the the Tenants' Rights category, respondents believe rent is so high that
households cannot afford to save for a down payment, which compounds the already-limited
ownership opportunities in Salt Lake City.
HOUSING:
Respondents who mentioned housing shared similar thoughts as those who discussed Homeownership,
Building Type, and Affordable Housing. Respondents expressed a need for affordable housing for low-
and middle-income households, higher density outside of downtown, preservation of currently
affordable units, increased multi-use zoning, and regulation of short-term rentals.
MAINTENANCE:
Comments on maintenance were closely related to Services, Programs, and Homelessness.
Respondents wanted a cleaner city, including cleaner streets and parks. Many respondents connected
trash issues with encampments, others just requested increased litter pickup throughout the city. There
were also many comments about the need for road and sidewalk repairs.
MISCELLANEOUS:
This topic encompasses comments difficult to place or themes not mentioned enough to merit their
own category. Respondents expressed concern about the state of facilities in the city and shared the
need for more public restrooms. Some respondents were frustrated with the perceived arduous
processes of getting development projects approved. Participants also advocated for lowering property
taxes and taxing vacant units and units not occupied by owners. Many mentioned keeping housing and
assisted living programs affordable for seniors.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
COMMENT SUMMARY
Housing SLC Engagement Report
34
PROGRAMS:
Respondents expressed a need for more rental assistance, drug rehabilitation, disability assistance, job
training, and medical bill assistance programs. Such comments imply that respondents cannot afford
basic necessities and are in need of financial assistance to get back on their feet.
SAFETY:
Respondents who mentioned safety reported a decreased feeling of security, linking it to the perceived
increased unsheltered population in the city. Some hope to see increased accountability for those using
illicit drugs and living on the street, while others asked the city to provide more services to prevent
drug-related safety concerns from happening in the first place. Respondents also mentioned a desire
for more lighting throughout the city, protected bike lanes, and resources for victims of sexual assault
and abuse. SERVICES:
Sentiments expressed about services were similar to those expressed about Programs and
Homelessness. Respondents requested more affordable and accessible behavioral and mental health
programs and rehabilitation programs with case management. Program suggestions also included basic
hygiene resources, rental assistance, and job trainings along with food, shelter, and other direct
services. Some participants highlighted the need to help single-parent, refugee, and immigrant families
with affordable childcare and job training, emphasizing the need for access in a variety of languages.
The expansion of libraries was also suggested.
TRANSPORTATION:
Among those providing comment about transportation, public transit was mentioned most frequently,
with many expressing a desire for free or lower-fare transit, increased frequency of service, and
expansion of services throughout the city. Other themes included road improvements, pedestrian and
cyclist safety, and walkability. Participants suggested road improvements including fixing potholes,
developing solutions for congestion, and traffic light system repairs. Many respondents said they didn't
feel safe while walking and biking. Respondents expressed a desire for the city to become more walkable
to reduce road congestion, pollution, and overall reliance on cars.
TENANTS' RIGHTS:
Tenants' rights and rental assistance came up throughout the qualitative comments. Three main
policy/program suggestions came up: rent control, rental assistance programs, and eviction
protections. In terms of eviction protections, many respondents requested access to or funding for legal
counsel. Respondents also expressed frustration at a lack of landlord accountability, sharing that their
landlords have been unresponsive to their requests for improvements. The overall sentiment from
respondents is that rent has become too expensive and that landlords are raising rents by hundreds of
dollars each year, seemingly without reason or regulation. Another feeling shared by many respondents
was that they are locked into renting and have few pathways to ownership.
ZONING:
Respondents expressed a desire for higher density and mixed-use zoning throughout the city to
promote affordability and walkability. Some respondents would like to see process improvements to
make it easier to build high-density housing.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
The first draft of Housing SLC, Salt Lake
City's affordable housing plan for 2023-
2028, will be available for public feedback in
early 2023.
Based on comments received during the
public comment period, updates will be made
to Housing SLC before it is presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
After necessary changes are made, the plan
will be presented to the Salt Lake City
Council for proposed adoption.
NEXT STEPS
Housing SLC Engagement Report
Public Engagement Round 2
Public Engagement Round 1
Analysis of Engagement, Creation of New Housing Plan
Second Draft of Housing Plan
Council Review and Proposed Adoption
35Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
36Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
In addition to assistance with focus groups, graduate students in the College of Metropolitan
and City Planning at the University of Utah conducted outreach centered on Salt Lake City's
Westside communities, those experiencing homelessness, and specific housing interventions.
Students' engagement efforts took place during the Fall of 2022.
Along with key takeaways, outreach efforts also resulted in guides, maps and toolkits
residents and policymakers can use to better understand our community. The supplemental
materials can be viewed on our website at https://www.slc.gov/can/housing-slc/.
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT
University of Utah planning students spoke with Glendale Middle School students about the
Glendale neighborhood, the housing crisis, and other community issues. Students in four
classes and one after school program, 104 Youth, were asked to share their experiences
through cause-and-effect trees and poetry. The 6th and 7th graders were keenly aware of the
changing community dynamics borne out in Salt Lake City’s Thriving in Place study:
gentrification and displacement. With the help of Truth Cypher, Glendale Middle School and
104 Youth, roughly 112 students were engaged.
Inequality and racism in Salt Lake City were
frequently discussed. Students felt fearful of
surveillance and perceived a gap in the
materials/opportunities afforded to them versus
Eastside students.
Environmental issues, ranging from air pollution to
litter, were at the forefront of students’ minds.
Students noted recent closures of local businesses
to make way for large apartment buildings in their
community and worried future generations wouldn’t
care for Glendale.
The rising costs of rent, utilities, and medical and
grocery bills alarmed the students.
Students celebrated their families, friends and
places that make Glendale special, Jordan Park
chief among highlighted locations.
Key Takeaways
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
37Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
SPECIFIC HOUSING INTERVENTIONS:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS, PEOPLE’S LEGAL AID
During the Fall of 2022, University of Utah planning students hosted information sessions and
discussions about three housing-related topics: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), Community
Land Trusts (CLT), and People's Legal Aid (PLA) for renters. The purpose of each session was
to raise awareness and glean feedback on housing solutions. Students heard from 10 Westside
residents about ADUs, 40 community leaders about Community Land Trusts, and 22 renters
and landlords about People’s Legal Aid, a legal service for those dealing with eviction and
other housing issues.
ADU: Salt Lake City must improve communication between decision-makers and Westside communities.
CLT: The housing crisis requires stronger partnerships between Salt Lake City and housing-related organizations.
CLT: Special attention should be paid to those in our community who have been historically underserved.
PLA: Residents are feeling the burdens of inflation and cost of living stress.
PLA: Residents believe there are few resources and protections for tenants.
Key Takeaways
HOUSING BOOK CLUB
Planning students at the University of Utah hosted a housing-related book club to generate
discussion about Salt Lake City’s housing crisis. Participants read the book The Color of Law: A
Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. After
participants finished the book, they met at Salt Lake City’s Main Library to discuss their
takeaways from the book and how the book applied to Salt Lake City’s past and present. Two
residents participated in the book club.
Salt Lake City should increase its housing stock and
allow for more mixed-income communities to
mitigate residential segregation.
Salt Lake City could do more to raise awareness
about historical inequities.
Decision-makers should make high-opportunity
areas more accessible to all residents.
Key Takeaways: Lessons Learned:
While the book club fomented positive and sincere
discussion, future clubs will need to be advertised
more widely/regularly to achieve a better turnout. A
book club may be too time-intensive for many Salt
Lakers, but it may still be a valuable way to deeply
educate and engage the public on difficult topics. It
may be more beneficial to partner with a local
bookstore or other small business or organization in
the future.
APPENDIX
Housing SLC Engagement Report
38Salt L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
WESTSIDE TESOROS
Planning students from the University of Utah partnered with NeighborWorks Salt Lake to
create a treasure map of the Westside – a map of Westside gems deserving of recognition and
protection. Students placed a six-by-eight foot map at Mestizo Coffeehouse that residents
could use to pinpoint their most cherished Westside locations. In addition to placing a pin,
participants were in invited to share why picked each location.
View the map here.
Participants highlighted centers for learning and
gathering, including local schools and libraries as
well as the murals at Fleet Block.
Residents foregrounded local businesses where
diverse cultures are celebrated, including Mexican,
Chinese, and Vietnamese restaurants, and grocers
specializing in Latin American products.
Participants noted green space as a priority for
protection, including pocket parks and the
International Peace Gardens.
Residents expressed a desire to see the
community’s legacy protected, including the
birthplace of one of just thirty female State Senators
in Utah's history, now Nellie Jack Park, and the
natural springs at Warm Springs Park, which were
used by indigenous people prior to the arrival of
Mormon settlers
Key Takeaways:
PHOTOVOICE PROJECT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ROADHOME
Three individuals shared their experiences with homelessness through photography and
caption writing, using a method known as photovoice. Showcasing the struggles and triumphs
of participants' everyday lives, the final product is entitled "Hey SLC, Can You See Us Now?"
View the work here.
S a l t L a k e C i t y D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i t y a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
Appendix 2
Housing Needs Analysis
2022
Salt Lake City
Housing Needs
Analysis
Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
January 6, 2023
Housing Needs Analysis 1
Content
Analysis in Brief………………………………2
Demographics………………………………….3
Household Characteristics……………9
Economic Characteristics……………..13
Housing Stock………………………………….15
Housing Costs……………….………………….18
Housing Gap………………………………………23
Housing Needs Analysis 2
Housing Needs Analysis 1
Analysis in Brief
• Salt Lake City is short over 5,500 units for renter households earning less than 30% AMI but
has a surplus of units affordable to those earning between 30% and 80% AMI.
• Salt Lake City is projected to gain over 6,000 residents in the next five years. With an average
household size just over two individuals, roughly 3,000 new units will be needed to
accommodate this growth.
• Salt Lake City has more nonfamily households than family households – 57% in 2021. Salt
lake City’s growth has primarily come from adult in-migration, rather than natural growth
(births).
• Salt Lake City is a Millennial destination and has the lowest median age among peer cities in
the region (33 years old). Nearly one-third (31%) of Salt Lake City’s population is post-college
aged Millennials (ages 25-39)—higher than all regional peer cities but Denver.
• Salt Lake City’s decennial growth rate of 7% is lower than the State (18%) and County (15%)
rates; however, the growth rate is accelerating while the State’s growth rate is decelerating,
and the County’s has stagnated. As other areas around the Wasatch Front are built-out there
will be pressure for urban infill in the metropolitan center.
• Salt Lake City has a very high proportion of in-commuters: 83% of Salt Lake City jobs are held
by in-commuters, the highest of among peer cities in the region. The proportion of jobs held
by in-commuters has increased over the last two decades. The City’s in-commuting
population will continue to grow if job growth exceeds housing development and
affordability
• Single family detached houses make up nearly half of all housing units in Salt Lake City. Mid-
and high-rise apartments make up another 30% of units. Other housing types, often called
the “missing middle,” make up roughly a quarter of the total housing stock.
• 60% of Salt Lake City housing units are over 50 years old. An aging housing stock will require
investment to ensure that units remain in a state of good repair.
• As housing costs increase, more households are priced out of homes on the market. With
median home sale prices at $490,000 (2021), 72.6% percent of all Salt Lake City households
and 86.4% of renter households are unable to afford the median priced home.
Housing Needs Analysis 3
Demographic s 2
Population
In 2020, Salt Lake City’s population was 199,723 – up from 186,440 in 2010 and 181,743 in 2000. The
population growth rate increased between 2010 and 2020 relative to the previous decade.
However, the growth rate among minority groups slowed between 2010 and 2020 (Figure 1).
While Salt Lake City’s growth rate is lower than that of the County and State, it increased over the
previous decade (3% to 7%) whereas the County’s remained stable at 15% and the State-wide
growth rate decreased from 24% to 18% (Figure 2).
The areas in the City with the highest growth include the Hardware District, Downtown, Ballpark,
and the Sugar House Business District (Figure 3). The Westside and Liberty Wells areas have become
less racially and ethnically diverse while the remainder of the City has seen diversity increase (Figure
4).
Figure 1: Majority and Minority Population Growth, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2020
Source: United States Census Bureau (USCB) 2000, 2010, & 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 2: Population Growth Rate, Utah, Salt Lake County, UT, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2020
Source: USCB 2000, 2010, & 2020 Decennial Census
128,377 122,352 126,678
53,366 64,115 73,045
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2000 2010 2020
White, not Hispanic or Latino Minority
23.8%
14.6%
2.6%
18.4%
15.1%
7.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Utah Salt Lake County Salt Lake City
2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020
Housing Needs Analysis 4
Figure 3: Population Growth by Census Tract 2012-2016 to 2017-2021 5-year Estimates
Source: USCB 2010 & 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 4: Change in Percent Minority by Census Tract, 2010-2020
Source: USCB 2010 & 2020 Decennial Census
Housing Needs Analysis 5
Population Projection
Salt Lake City’s average annual population growth rate since 2005, when the American Community
Survey first provided reliable intercensal annual estimates, is 0.60%. Using this average to project
future growth, we can expect Salt Lake City will gain over 6,000 residents by 2027. With an average
household size just over two individuals, 3,000 new housing units will be needed to accommodate
these new residents.
This projection does not factor in external pressure from surrounding areas that are experiencing
greater growth. The average annual growth rate for Salt Lake County and Utah are 1.62% and 2.15%
respectively. As surrounding municipalities along the Wasatch Front are built out, pressure to
densify urban areas may lead to greater growth in Salt Lake City.
Other factors not included in the projection include policies that encourage or discourage growth,
push and pull factors that influence potential migrants' perception of Salt Lake City’s quality of life
such as economic outlook and environmental conditions, and broader societal trends including a
shift towards remote work and a renewed interest in urban living. Population growth is complex
and will be influenced by the policies that the City adopts as well as unanticipated external factors
beyond our ability to predict.
Figure 5: Population and Projected Population, Salt Lake City, UT, 2000-2030
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
2000
181,743
2005
182,670
2010
186,440
2015
192,660
2020
199,723
2025
205,306
2030
211,510
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Population Projection
Housing Needs Analysis 6
Age
Unlike the State of Utah, which has one of the highest birth rates in the nation, Salt Lake City is
experiencing little natural growth. A large cohort ages 20 to 39 years reflects the City’s character as
a hub for students and young professionals (Figure 6). The Westside and the University of Utah and
its surrounding neighborhoods are generally younger than the remainder of the City (Figure 9).
Salt Lake City has a higher proportion of Millennials than the larger metro area, even when
excluding college students. 31% of Salt Lake City’s population is post-college aged Millennials (ages
25-39)—higher than most regional peer cities but lower than Denver (33%) (Figure 7). The City also
has a lower median age than peer cities in the region (Figure 8). Median age has increased over the
last two decades from 30 in 2000 to 31 in 2010, and 33 in 2021.
Figure 6: Population by Age Cohort, Salt Lake City, UT, Utah, 2020
Source: USCB 2020 Decennial Census
Figure 7: % Millennial, 2021 Figure 8: Median Age, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
-8%-4%0%4%8%
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
Salt Lake City
-8%-4%0%4%8%
Utah
33%31%29%
26%24%
24%
23%
22%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%40 39 38 37 36 36 35 34 33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Housing Needs Analysis 7
Figure 9: Median Age by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 10: Percent Millennial (25-39 years old) by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 8
Figure 11: Percent Under 18 Years Old, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 12: Percent Over 60 Years Old, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 9
Household Characteristics 3
Tenure
As is typical in large metropolitan areas, households in the suburbs are more likely to own their
home than households in the urban core. In 2021, 48% of Salt Lake City households were
homeowners compared to 66% for Salt Lake County (Figure 13). The proportion of City households
that are homeowners declined between 2000 and 2021, with the number of renter households first
exceeding the number of homeowners in 2010 (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Household Tenure, 2000-2021
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 14: Percent Renter Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
36,579 34,903 42,681 34,823 38,421
47,158
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake City
Owner Occupied
203,690 229,445
276,964
91,451 109,486 143,339
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake County
Renter Occupied
Housing Needs Analysis 10
Family Households
As is typical in large metropolitan areas, households in the suburbs are more likely to be families
than households in the urban core. In 2021, 43% of Salt Lake City households were families
compared to 66% for Salt Lake County (Figure 15). The proportion of City households that are
families declined between 2000 and 2021, with the number of nonfamily households first
exceeding the number of family households in 2015 (Figure 15).
Across the region, the percent of housing units that are 3 or more bedrooms correlates with the
percent of households that are families. Salt Lake City has the smallest percentage of family
households among peer cities in the region as well as the smallest percentage of housing units that
are 3 or more bedrooms (Figure 16).
In Salt Lake City, there are over 16,500 more units with three or more bedrooms than there are
households with three or more individuals. Less than 3% of Salt Lake City housing units are over -
crowded (more than one individual per room) (Figure 17) .
Figure 15: Family and Nonfamily Households, 2000-2021
Source: USCB 2000 Decennial Census, 2010 & 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
39,830 38,646 38,994
31,631 34,678
50,845
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake City
Family
214,102
240,276
278,810
81,039
98,655
141,493
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2000 2010 2021
Salt Lake County
Nonfamily
Housing Needs Analysis 11
Figure 16: Unit Size v. Household Size, Salt Lake City, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 17: Large Units and Family Households, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
67%
61%61%60%54%52%
46%41%41%
67%
59%61%57%57%55%
48%47%43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
% 3 or more bedrooms % Family Households
36,011
29,813
11,281
12,734
30,304
28,643
21,380
19,224
-10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Studio & 1-BR units v. 1-person households
2-BR units v. 2-person households
3-BR units v. 3-person households
4-or-more-BR units v. 4-or-more-person
household
Units Households
Housing Needs Analysis 12
Figure 18: Percent Family Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 19: Percent of Units with 3 or More Bedrooms, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 13
Economic Characteristics 4
Commuters
Salt Lake City has a very high proportion of in-commuters: 83% of Salt Lake City jobs are held by in-
commuters, the highest of among peer cities in the region (Figure 20). The proportion of jobs held
by in-commuters has increased over the last two decades (Figure 21). The City’s in-commuting
population will continue to grow if job growth exceeds housing development in the city.
For Salt Lake City residents who worked in 2021, one in four usually worked from home (Figure 22).
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, work from home was becoming more popular, increasing from 3%
of all workers in 2010 to 6% in 2019 (Figure 23). This trend accelerated during the pandemic. Work
from home, which requires residential units to serve as both home and office, will continue to
reshape views on housing, commuting, and community amenities.
Figure 20: In-Commuters, 2019 Figure 21: In-Commuters, Salt Lake City, UT
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate
Figure 22: Workers Who Usually Work from
Home, 2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 23: Workers Who Usually Work from
Home, Salt Lake City, 2010-2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimate Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
83%73%68%64%58%58%52%
38%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
2002
78.3%
2014
83.3%
2019
83.2%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
35%32%
26%24%24%20%19%13%13%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
3%4%6%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
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
Housing Needs Analysis 14
Poverty
Over 25,000 Salt Lake City residents, 13% of the total population, have incomes below the poverty
line. Salt Lake City’s poverty rate is higher than Utah’s (9%) (Figure 24). Both the City and State have
seen poverty rates drop in the last decade, declining from 23% and 14% respectively in 2011 (Figure
25). Poverty rates are not even across race and ethnic backgrounds. Black or African American and
American Indian and Alaska Native populations have the highest poverty rates at 25% and 37%
respectively (Figure 26).
Figure 24: Individuals in Poverty, 2011-2021
Figure 25: Poverty Rate, 2011-2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates
Figure 26: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
42,336 30,355 25,362
374,859
306,902
281,673
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2011 2016 2021
Salt Lake City Utah
23%
16%
13%14%
10%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2011 2016 2021
Salt Lake City Utah
19%
15%
24%
3%
16%
37%
25%
12%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)
Two or more races
Some other race
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Asian
American Indian and Alaska Native
Black or African American
White, not Hispanic or Latino
Housing Needs Analysis 15
Figure 27: Poverty Rate by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Stock 5
Unit Size
The distribution of housing units by
number of bedrooms did not
change substantially in the last two
decades (Figure 28). Nearly one-third
of units have two bedrooms, roughly
a quarter each have one bedroom or
three bedrooms, and the remainder
are either studio units or units with 5
or more bedrooms. Since 2000, the
percentage increase in studio units
(53%) and 5+ bedroom units (71%)
outpaced the percentage growth of
units of other sizes (1-BR, 35%; 2-BR,
15%; 3-BR, 29%; 4-BR, 27%).
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2021
Studio 1 bedroom
2 bedroom 3 bedroom
4 bedroom 5 or more bedroom
Figure 28: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Salt
Lake City, UT, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 16
Building Type
Single family detached houses make up nearly half of all housing units in Salt Lake City. Mid- and
high-rise apartments make up another 30% of units. Other housing types, often called the “missing
middle,” make up roughly a quarter of the total housing stock (Figure 29). Units in mid- and high-
rise apartments have seen the greatest increase in the last decade. Salt Lake City has the second
lowest percentage of single family detached housing units among peer cities in the region.
Figure 29: Housing Units by Building Type, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
Figure 30: Percent of Units that are Single Family Detached Homes, Salt Lake City, UT 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
66%64%63%63%62%54%54%47%43%
26%24%24%26%28%23%
32%24%24%
8%12%13%11%10%
23%
14%
29%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% Single Family, Detached % Middle Housing % Mid- to High-Rise Apartments
Housing Needs Analysis 17
Aging Housing
60% of Salt Lake City housing units are over 50 years old (Figure 31). An aging housing stock will
require investment to ensure that units remain in a state of good repair. Older units are a common
reservoir of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). If aging housing is demolished to make
way for new development, these NOAH units could be lost.
Figure 31: Housing Units by Decade Built, Salt Lake City, 2021
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, Analysis by author
Figure 32: Percent of Units in Structures Built Before 1970, Salt Lake City, UT 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
28,443
29%
9,835
10%
10,763
11%9,369
9%
10,591
11%6,839
7%5,678
6%
6,196
6%
10,961
11%
876
1%
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Before
1940
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s
Housing Needs Analysis 18
Housing Costs 6
Housing Costs
Housing costs have outpaced wage increases over the last two decades. From 2005 to 2021, median
rent increased by 38% and median home values by 83% (adjusted for inflation). During this same
period, median annual earnings from wages increased by only 19%. Median household income
increased by 29% during this period, greater than the increase in median earnings (Figure 33).
Households that may have previously made-do with a single source of income may now include
multiple wage earners.
Figure 33: Percent Change in Income and Housing Costs, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source: USCB 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, analysis by author
Figure 34: Net Percent Change in Income & Housing Costs from 2005 Baseline, Salt Lake City, UT
Source: USCB, 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1 -year estimates, analysis by author
-15%
23%
13%
-3%
11%
20%
7%5%
24%21%
-2%
53%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2021
Median Earnings, All industries Median Household Income
Median Rent Median Home Value
-15%
5%
19%
-3%
8%
29%
7%12%
38%
21%20%
83%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2015 2021Median Earnings, All industries Median Household Income
Median Rent Median Home Value
Housing Needs Analysis 19
Figure 35: Median Earnings, All Industries, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 36: Median Household Income, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 37: Median Rent, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Figure 38: Median Home Value, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source Figures 35-38: USCB 2005, 2010, 2015, & 2021 ACS 1-year estimates
$34,704
$29,604
$36,493
$37,879
$41,415
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$51,856
$50,085
$55,763
$67,794
$66,658
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$861
$919
$961
$1,125
$1,192
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$251,026
$304,854
$300,079 $400,908
$459,800
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Housing Needs Analysis 20
Figure 39: Median Household Income by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 40: % Change in Median Household Income, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 21
Figure 41: Median Rent by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 42: % Change in Median Rent, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 22
Figure 43: Median Home Value by Census Tract, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Figure 44: % Change in Median Home Value, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-2016 to 2017-2021
Source: USCB 2012-2016 & 2017-2021 ACS 5-year estimates
Housing Needs Analysis 23
Housing Gap 7
Unit Gap by Income
Salt Lake City has a deficit of over 5,500 units that are affordable to extremely low-income
households (those earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income [AMI]). 70% of rental units in
the City are rented at rates affordable to households earning between 30% and 80% AMI,
generating a surplus of 14,000 units. There is a shortage of 8,500 units priced for those earning
more than 80% AMI (Figures 45 and 46). Low-income renters must compete for affordable units
with moderate- and high-income renters who may have difficulty finding a high-value unit.
Figure 45: Surplus/Deficit of Rental Units by Income Range, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021
Figure 46: Salt Lake City: Rental Affordability Gap Analysis, 2021
Income Range
Maximum
Affordable
Monthly Rent
Households in
Income Range
Rental Units
at that Price
Surplus/
Deficit of Units
Less than 30% AMI ($27,870) $697 13,860 8,353 -5,507
30%-50% AMI ($27,870-$46,450) $1,161 8,803 18,128 9,325
50%-80% AMI ($46,450-$74,320) $1,858 10,338 15,078 4,739
80%-100% AMI ($74,320-$92,900) $2,323 4,755 3,637 -1,119
100%-125% AMI ($92,900-$116,125) $2,903 3,318 1,372 -1,946
125% AMI (> $116,125) > $ 2,903 6,084 591 -5,493
Source: USCB 2021 ACS 1-year estimates, HUD 2021 Annual Income Limits for Salt Lake City, UT MSA, Analysis by author
-5,507
9,325
4,739
-1,119 -1,946
-5,493
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
% Median Family Income ($92,900)
Unit Gap
Margin of
Error at
90%
Confidence
Housing Needs Analysis 24
Cost Burden
Low-income renter households are much more likely to be cost burdened (spending more than
30% of their income on housing costs) than moderate- and high-income renters. In 2021, 23,597
renter households – half off all renters in the City – were cost burdened (Figure 47). Cost burden has
been on the rise since 2017 (Figure 47). Data published by HUD based on 2015-2019 ACS 1-year
estimates suggests that half of all cost burdened renters have extremely low incomes (Figure 48).
Figure 47: Cost Burdened Renter Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005-2021
Source: USCB ACS 1-year estimates, Note: 1-year estimates were not published in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Figure 48: Households by Income by Cost Burden, Salt Lake City, UT, 2015-2019
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 5-year estimates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021
Cost Burdened Renter Household Percent Cost Burdened Renter Households
6,645
1,430
290
8,365
1,600
4,110
2,065
400
170
8,345
1,900
2,145
6,070
4,235
9,020
23,370
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
Severely Cost Burdened Cost Burdened Unburdened
Housing Needs Analysis 25
Figure 49: Units by Income of Occupant by Price, Salt Lake City, UT, 2015-2019
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 5-year estimates
Homeownership Attainability
As housing costs increase, more households are priced out of homes on the market. With median
home sale prices at $490,000 (2021), 72.6% percent of all Salt Lake City households and 86.4% of
renter households are unable to affordable the median priced home (Figures 49 and 50).
Figure 50: Homeownership Attainability for Households, Salt Lake City, UT, 2021
Source: USCB ACS 2021 1-year data, Redfin Brokerage, FRED St. Louis, analysis by author assumes 30-year fixed
mortgage with PMI and property taxes
700
8634
5750
5584
2379
3590
25937
1020
3660
3659
6015
4190
8640
26164
520
1760
1505
2885
2204
18815
27169
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Vacant
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
Unit Price Affordable to Households with Incomes:
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
I
n
c
o
m
e
Less than 50% AMI 50%-80% AMI
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sh
a
r
e
o
f
A
l
l
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Home Sale Price
Can Afford
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sh
a
r
e
o
f
R
e
n
t
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Home Sale Price
Can Afford Priced Out