We indicated in an earlier post that there were ideas of how to address the housing affordability crisis adopted by the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission, but were not endorsed by consensus of all the parties negotiating about them in the Commission on Housing Affordability.  One of these ideas was to consider establishing minimum base densities for communities throughout the state, which rumor had it that there might be a bill being drafted to do so.

League staff has been working to put together some alternative considerations for such a move and has been asking local officials to weigh in on what they might find acceptable.  Questions that they have asked include:

• Should cities have flexibility to determine which residential zones the policy enabling starter homes should apply to?
• Should a policy enabling starter homes apply to a fixed minimum percentage of residential zones in a city?
• Should a policy enabling starter homes apply to all residential zones in a city?
• Should a policy enabling starter homes apply to all zones in a city?
• If a city does not adopt a starter home policy, what should the consequences be?
  • Existing Moderate Income Housing Plan consequences (ineligible for state transportation dollars and the 5^th 5^th cent sales tax for transit, and paying a fee to the Olene Walker housing fund
  • Default to a state-created starter home policy (like for IADUs)
• State code to require allowing 8 units per acre anywhere in a community, so long as 6 are deed restricted to be price capped and owner occupied
• State code to require cities to allow X units per acre of small lots or townhouses in Y% of the city
• State code to require cities to allow x% of residentially zoned areas to allow for small lots or townhouses, with credit for planned/existing units
• Requiring some plan pre-approval process for new housing permit applications

The League is interested in hearing from communities on these potential new code requirements.  Fire off an email to them if you have some thoughts.  Karson Eilers, keilers@ulct.org;  Meg Ryan at mryan@ulct.org

Related to this, the Utah Land Use Institute just recently sent its report to the State Division of Housing and Community Development on the workshops held in 2022 and 2023, with the feedback received from numerous local officials who attended.  Because of the volatile nature of the issue of local land use regulation and housing affordability, the Institute makes the following observations and recommendations:

We could summarize one dominating theme heard from the local officials in all our workshops – those who are on the front lines of growth – to involve the tension that exists between what local leaders hear from the vocal members of their constituency and what the state legislature and agencies are asking those local leaders to do. Typical comments we heard repeatedly were:

• “Give us time to comply with last year’s mandates before imposing new ones.”
• “You say you want to listen, but then you go ahead and impose more rules.”
• “Our situation is unique – you just don’t understand what we are up against here.”
• “You can’t impose statewide solutions on local problems.”

We heartily endorse the initiatives proposed by Governor Cox in his FY2025 budget and the Utah First Homes initiative to build 35,000 starter homes in the near-term future. These goals and strategies to achieve them should be pursued in a manner consistent with what we have heard throughout the state.

We believe that the state-wide initiatives and incentives are essential. That said, we recommend a very specialized and targeted series of additional workshops. There should be a very focused and earnest local conversation as well – city by city. We recommend:

• Make a mathematical calculation as to how the 35,000 starter homes set as the state-wide goal could be logically distributed across the area where they are most needed. Determine informally a “target” number (not a mandate or quota) of starter homes which could be built in each of the several hundred communities where such housing is needed.
• Identify communities where specific conversations are to be initiated related to the need for starter homes in those communities.
• Someone from the Governor’s Office (ideally the Senior Advisor for Housing Strategy and Innovation), or the Director of the DCHD, could meet with city officials in each identified community in a very personal and informal manner. o First, listen to the comments that local leaders may wish to offer.

o Then discuss candidly why the housing issues we face must be a priority concern to them, options as to how the local officials can address those issues, and what the state can do to do to support them.

o In that initial visit, and throughout the process of encouraging local accommodation of starter homes, act with all the diplomacy and sensitivity that can be mustered. The prime focus of each visit should be to listen and respond with resources.

o In a tactful and collaborative manner, explain that the current housing problem is not going away – it must be addressed. Discuss how we can solve it most efficiently and effectively together, city by city, in a manner consistent with state-wide initiatives.

Explain that the clear alternative, as outlined in the Performance Audit of Utah Housing Policy published by the Office of the State Legislative Auditor General on November 14, 2023, is to consider local “targets” in the form of individual city mandates. Information can be shared on how continued inaction toward our commonly shared goals for more equity and opportunity in housing may likely result in state requirements that few really wish to impose or administer.

o Set a collaborative plan going forward, to be monitored and evaluated by state staff with objective criteria. The plan should address the issues a given city may face and how to resolve them in a team approach. Use as many local leaders as possible in working toward solutions for that community.

o Marshal the resources needed and engage all involved, both private and public, including builders and housing non-profits – to work together to achieve negotiated results.

o Support the consensus reached in each community with strong state staff support and determined follow-through so the result is not another program in a binder on a bookshelf, but actual construction on the ground.

• Consider asking the legislature to amend the requirements for the moderate-income housing plans imposed on cities so that if a workable plan is negotiated with a given city, the reporting requirements imposed by the current statute can be modified or waived.
• Use the consensus gained as well as the education that will undoubtedly come from these conversations to refine state policy, state resources, training opportunities, state public information systems and other tools used to address our housing issues and needs.

It’s an ambitious recommendation, but one that would likely produce more embraceable policies and actual on-the-ground results.