HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-2017-11RESOLUTION #11-2017
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE MOAB AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MOAB
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Moab City Council (Council) adopted the General Plan (Plan) as
amended, by resolution on January 8, 2002 to provide an official statement of goals and policies
for the future development of Moab City; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan, in Section 5, Subsection II, Affordable Housing, establishes that
the City shall support efforts to develop affordable housing and especially the efforts of the
Housing Authority of Southeastern Utah (HASU) to meet the needs of low to moderate -income
families and individuals; and,
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City of Moab, Grand County and HASU established that an
affordable housing issue existed within Grand County and initiated a joint proposal to fund and
jointly pursue the creation of a community -wide affordable housing plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Moab, Grand County and HASU created the Interlocal Housing
Task Force, to develop The Grand County and City Of Moab Housing Study and Affordable
Housing Plan (Affordable Housing Plan); and,
WHEREAS, the need for an update to the Affordable Housing Plan is required by state
law and the Task Force has diligently drafted a 2016 Moab Area Affordable Housing Plan to:
• assess the current and projected need for affordable housing units;
• review the effectiveness of the community's past and present affordable housing efforts;
• identify local housing baniers/impediments/incentives;
• recommend potential strategies to meet the affordable housing need; and
• encourage cooperation between Grand County, the City of Moab, and HASU to develop
a specific Action Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with USC 10-9a-302, the Moab Planning Commission
determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Moab that the Affordable
Housing Plan be adopted by reference, the same as if set forth in its entirety, to become an
addendum to the Moab General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission by the adoption of Planning Resolution #10-2009, on the
date of said meeting, determined that the Affordable Housing Plan is critical for a sustainable and
healthy Moab and addresses the lack of affordable housing in the community of Moab and Grand
County, Utah.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by unanimously adopting Planning Resolution
#04-2017 at their meeting of January 26, 2017, after a duly noticed public hearing, forwards a
favorable recommendation to the City Council to consider the 2016 Moab Area Affordable
Housing Plan as an essential element of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council, that the 2016 Moab
Area Affordable Housing Plan is hereby adopted by resolution as an essential element of the
General Plan.
Adopted and approved by the Moab City Council in open session this 14`h day of February, 2017
David
Mayor
. Sal rison,
ATTEST:
Rachel E. Stenta
Moab City Recorder
MOAB AREA AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN
Prepared for the residents, businesses, and public officials of:
Grand County
City of Moab
Town of Castle Valley
Written spring 2009 by:
The Interlocal Housing Task Force
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Updated fall 2016 by:
Zacharia Levine
Interlocal Housing Task Force
City of Moab
Grand County
1
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Content Page #
I Table of Contents 2
II Introduction & Background 3
III Key Findings 4
IV Data Sources 5
V Demographic and Housing Overview 6
VI Affordable Housing Efforts to Date 14
VII Housing Needs Analysis 16
VIII Barriers / Impediments to Affordable Housing 27
VIV Development and Design Solutions to 28
Expand Affordable Housing
X Brief Housing Development Summary 38
XI IHTF Recommendations 41
XII Affordable Housing Goals and Objectives 42
XIII Affordable Housing Action Plan 43
XIV Housing Terminology 54
2
II. INTRODUCTION
Housing is the backbone of every community. Housing has direct and indirect links to all aspects of community and
economic development and serves as the foundation for a high quality of life. The Moab Area needs an adequate and
accessible supply of housing for residents and employees in order to sustain its reputation as a world -class destination
and a great community in which individuals and families can live, work, and play. To that end, this housing plan shall
guide future policy -making, budgeting, and programmatic development at various levels of local government.
BACKGROUND
Housing affordability has become a primary challenge for communities across the country. Regardless of size, location,
economic profile, or political character, demand for affordable housing has never exceeded supply by such a large
degree, as supported by the data presented in this plan. The imbalance is exacerbated in amenities -rich communities
throughout the American West. Although Moab is not alone in trying to overcome the housing challenge, it must find
solutions appropriate to the local context.
2009 Housing Study and Affordable Housing Plan
In 2009, the City of Moab and Grand County jointly adopted their first Housing Study and Affordable Housing Plan. The
plan was created through a collaborative, multi -year study and public planning process. Meeting facilitators included
representatives from the City of Moab, Grand County, Housing Authority of Southeastern Utah (HASU), Rural
Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), and Bureau of Economic Business Research (BEBR) located within the
University of Utah's David Eccles School of Business. Stakeholder participants represented a broad cross-section of the
community, including employers, government officials, housing user groups, contractors, financiers, brokers, and
concerned citizens. Details of the process followed to create the plan, key findings, housing needs projections, and an
associated action plan can be found in the 2009 report.
2016 — 2025 Housing Plan
The impetus for creating a new housing plan is multi -faceted. First, housing affordability has declined further since 2009.
Second, the Interlocal Housing Task Force, which is a byproduct of the 2009 effort, has been revitalized under new
leadership. The Task Force meets regularly and believes additional action would be of great benefit to the community.
Third, this document is required by the State of Utah and is often referenced by local entities seeking state and federal
funds for affordable housing development projects. For example, HASU requires updated market study information in
order to remain competitive in receiving low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) critical to the financing and construction
of affordable housing for very low- and low-income households. Fourth, Moab's community and economy continue to
evolve rapidly and an updated plan is needed to reflect recent changes and possible future scenarios.
3
Ill. KEY FINDINGS
• Housing affordability continues to decline. The imbalance between supply and demand in the housing market
has resulted in very high housing costs.
• The imbalance between supply and demand for housing in Grand County results from the following factors: low
household income, high housing costs, the influence of external market demand, the condition of existing
housing supply, and restrictive land use regulations.
• Existing land use regulations favor low -density, single family detached dwellings with minimal mixed -use
development, which leads to inefficient land use, high infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, and
longer commutes for residents.
• Housing is economic development. The shortage of affordable housing currently hinders business development
and employee retention.
• The Area Median Income in Grand County increased from $55,300 per year in 2015 to $64,300 per year in 2016,
each for a family of four. The $9,000 increase is likely attributable to increased incomes for the highest earners
and increased income from non -labor activities such as dividends, interest, rent, and retirement related
entitlements.
• Currently, more than half all households earning 80 percent (80%) or less of Area Median Income (AMI) in Grand
County are cost -burdened, which means they spend more than 30 percent (30%) of household income on total
housing costs including mortgage or rent, taxes, insurance, utilities, and HOA fees where applicable.
• Currently, more than one -quarter all households earning 80 percent (80%) or less of Area Median Income (AMI)
in Grand County are severely cost -burdened, which means more they pay more than 50 percent (50%) of
combined household income towards total housing costs.
• Assuming recent population trends continue but vacancy rates (e.g. second homes and residential units used as
overnight accommodations) stabilize at 30 percent (30%), the number of new housing units needed across all
price levels rises to will increase by 316 in 2020, 1,024 in 2030, 1,826 in 2040, and 2,737 in 2050 (see Table 14).
• Assuming the share of renter -occupied and owner occupied housing remains constant, the 316 new units
needed by 2020 will include 98 rental units and 218 owned units.
• Decision -making bodies need to exercise political will in the area of affordable housing and support the
regulatory, budgetary, and programmatic action items contained within this document in order to meet
increasing demand for affordable housing.
4
1V. DATA SOURCES
The following data sources were used during the research, analysis, and writing of this report. Zacharia Levine, Grand
County Community Development Director, conducted all quantitative analysis and modeling. Where tables from the
2009 plan were updated, equivalent methodology was employed.
• United States Census Bureau
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• United States Bureau of Economic Analysis
• United States Department of Commerce
• United States Department of Agriculture
• National Association of Realtors
• Utah Department of Workforce Services
• Utah State Tax Commission
• Utah Association of Realtors
• Multiple listing service (MLS) — Grand County
• Fall 2015 Employee Housing Survey (hotels, motels, and campgrounds) conducted by Zacharia Levine and Mary
Hofhine of the Grand County Community Development Department
• Summer 2016 Employee Housing Survey (seasonal outfitters) conducted by Ruth Brown and the Interlocal
Housing Task Force
• Building construction permit numbers, compiled by the Grand County building official
• Current and ongoing housing workshops conducted by Grand County and the City of Moab
• Past affordable housing studies and efforts compiled by the Interlocal Housing Task Force
5
V. DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING OVERVIEW
It is critical to understand housing in the context of recent trends in population, housing characteristics, employment,
construction, and existing housing inventories.
Grand County Population and Households
Population and household formation are arguably the most important indicators of housing demand over time. In Grand
County, however, full-time population may provide misleading information about housing demand. Seasonal
employment, transient residents, undocumented workers, small sample sizes for intercensal counts, and enormous
spikes in temporary populations from tourism lead to underestimates of housing demand in the Moab Area. It is difficult
to estimate the effects of such demand, so only full-time population and household counts are reported below.
Population and Households
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Moab City Population
Unincorporated County Population
Grand County Total Population
Total Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
5,046 54.7% 5,083 54.8% 5,172 55.4% 5,178 55.3% 5,211 55.1% 5,235
4,179 4,195 4,163 4,184 4,240 4,281
9,225 9,278 9,335 9,362 9,451 9,516
4,816 4,844 4,943 5,004 5,048 5,120
3,889 80.8% 3,633 72.6%
927 19.2% 1,371 27.4%
55.0%
Table 1. Population and Households
• Grand County's full-time resident population has grown at an average of 0.6% per year since 2010, which is
slower than the 1.0% average annual growth rate of the 2000s and 2.6% average annual growth rate of the
1990s.
• The average household size in Grand County remains relatively constant around 2.35 persons per household.
• Assuming the average household size of 2.35 persons per household, average annual household formation in
Grand County is 31.4 new households per year.
• Although an average of 69 new residential units were constructed countywide each year between 2013 and
2015 (see Table 4), more than double average annual household formation, building permits and business
licenses reveal the majority were unaffordable to the majority of Grand County households or immediately
converted to short-term rentals, seasonal or vacation homes.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Grand County Building Department; Grand County Clerk/Auditor; Zacharia Levine
Employment Trends
Like many rural gateway communities in the American West, Grand County's employment profile leans heavily on
service -industry jobs. Tourism related employment accounts for more than 55 percent (55%) of all jobs and remains the
primary economic driver in Grand County. Because tourism related employment is more likely than other employment
to be part-time, seasonal, low -paying, and without benefits, Grand County may benefit from economic diversification
that leads to more varied employment opportunities and higher wages. However, economic diversification and higher
wages alone will not suffice. The housing market needs a stable balance of year-round demand and supply that accounts
for long-term occupancy and short-term occupancy. Higher wages will enable local workers to compete for market rate
housing, but supply across all price levels is relatively constrained.
6
Grand County Employment and Income Trends 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Average Annual Nonagricultural Employment
(# of people)
Average Payroll Wage ($/mo.)
4,496 4,616 4,824 4,890 5,073 5,232
$2,293 $2,340 $2,394 $2,423 $2,490 $2,566
Table 2: Employment Trends
• The number of nonagricultural jobs increased 16.8% between 2010 and 2015. Grand County's economy is
expanding.
• The two industries with the largest percentage increases in employment between 2010 and 2015 were
information and professional, scientific, and technical services. A continuation of this trend would benefit Grand
County as wages in these industries tend to be higher than average.
• The average annual payroll wage increased 12% to $30,792 between 2010 and 2015. Grand County ranks 22' in
the state of Utah for average payroll.
• The 2014 average household adjusted gross income in Grand County was $53,332, the lowest of all counties in
Utah.
• The percentage of households with adjusted gross incomes lower than $20,000 in 2014 was 29.2%. Only three
counties exhibited higher percentages in 2014.
7
Industry Sector
Percent of Total Average Average
Employment Number of Monthly Annual Wage
(2015) Establishments Wage (2015)
Mining 1.70% 13 $6,090 $73,080
Utilities 0.71% 7 $5,936 $71,232
Construction 5.67% 57 $3,295 $39,540
Manufacturing (31-33) 0.86% 7 $2,173 $26,076
Wholesale Trade 1.32% 13 $3,246 $38,952
Retail Trade (44&45) 15.62% 82 $2,221 $26,652
Transportation and Warehousing (48 & 49) 1.83% 17 $3,468 $41,616
Information 0.99% 9 $2,187 $26,244
Finance and Insurance 1.26% 13 $3,704 $44,448
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2.06% 32 $2,081 $24,972
Professional Scientific &Technical Services 2.29% 33 $3,741 $44,892
Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 2.39% 25 $2,458 $29,496
Education Services 5.88% 18 $2,388 $28,656
Health Care and Social Assistance 7.52% 34 $3,384 $40,608
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 8.93% 36 $2,186 $26,232
Accommodation and Food Services 31.58% 95 $1,762 $21,144
Other Services (except Public Admin.) 1.76% 28 $2,886 $34,632
Public Administration 7.64% 33 $4,041 $48,492
All Industries
*Tourism Related
100.00% $2,566 $30,792
58.2% $2,063 $24,750
*Tourism Related industries include: Retail Trade, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing is included due to its
**Monthly cost assumes a 30 year mortgage, 10% down, 4% APR, 2% PMI, $75/mo. property tax, $150/mo.
utilities, $600/yr home insurance, and no HOA fees, OR rent plus $150/mo. utilities.
Table 3: Grand County Employment by Industry. DWS 2015
Sources: Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah Tax Commission; Zacharia Levine
Housing Construction
Housing affordability, at its root, is a function of supply and demand. Housing construction is the primary indicator of
changes in supply. Since 2000, roughly 1100 new residential housing units have been constructed in Grand County,
which includes the unincorporated County, City of Moab, and Town of Castle Valley. The majority of residential
construction continues to take place in the unincorporated area of Grand County. Construction rates have increased
slightly in recent years as the nationwide real estate market continues to rebound from the 2007-'08 recession.
8
Increased construction activity has also benefited from historically low interest rates, an expanding local economy, and
increasing demand for new housing from residents and investors.
Unincorporated County
Commercial DUs 2013
Commercial DUs 2014
Commercial DUs 2015
NEW CONSTRUCTION IN GRAND COUNTY
City of Moab
0 Commercial DUs 2013
90 Commercial DUs 2014
O Commercial DUs 2015
Total Commercial Dus'13-'15
Mixed Use DUs 2013
Mixed Use DUs 2014
Mixed Use DUs 2015
90 Total Commercial Dus'13-'15
O Mixed Use DUs 2013
0 Mixed Use DUs 2014
10 Mixed Use DUs 2015
**Total Mixed Use DUs'13-'15
Residential DUs 2013
Residential DUs 2014
Residential DUs 2015
10 Total Mixed Use DUs'13-'15
31 Residential DUs 2013
36 Residential DUs 2014
42 Residential DUs 2015
***Total Res DUs'13-'15
Avg. # Res DUs/yr (1.3-15)
109 Total Res DUs'13-'15
36.3 Avg. # Res DUs/yr (13-'15)
47
94
21
162
0
0
0
0
24
32
29
85
28.3
Castle Valley
Commercial DUs 2013
Commercial DUs 2014
Commercial DUs 2015
Total Commercial Dus'13 -'15
Mixed Use DUs 2013
Mixed Use DUs 2014
Mixed Use DUs 2015
Total Mixed Use DUs'13-'15
Residential DUs 2013
Residential DUs 2014
Residential DUs 2015
Total Res DUs'13-'15
Avg. # Res DUs/yr ('13-'15)
County-
wide
0 47
0 184
0 21
252
0 0
0 0
0 10
10
7
4
2
13
4.3
62
72
73
207
69
'Commercial DU = dwelling unit constructed through the commercial building code for commercial uses (e.g. hotel rooms)
"*Mixed Use DU =dwelling unit constructed within a development containing both residential and commercial uses
***Residential DU =dwelling unit constructed through the residential building code for residential or commercial uses (e.g. short-term rental)
Table 4: Construction Trends in Grand County
• Residential construction has remained at lower levels than the pre-2008 recession period. In the years 2013-
2015, an average of 69 residential units across all types were constructed each year. In the years leading up to
2008, an average of 100 residential units across all types were constructed each year.
• Building permit data suggest that an increasing share of new residential construction is actually intended for
seasonal or vacation occupancy in the unincorporated areas of Grand County and the City of Moab, representing
38.5% and 34.1% of new residential construction, respectively. These types of end -uses tend to push sales prices
higher than long-term owner- or renter -occupancy.
• Multiple mobile home parks were redeveloped between 2008 and 2015. As of 2015, 15 parks provided a total of
491 available lots and remained 80% occupied on average.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Grand County Building Department; Multiple Listing Service; Zacharia Levine
Land and Housing Prices:
Tracking land and housing prices is central to understanding local housing markets. As prices change, opportunities and
constraints also change. The prices for developable land and finished construction have increased steadily since 2000,
with some variability year-to-year. In a growing economy and upward housing market, affordable housing becomes
increasingly difficult to finance, construct, and preserve. Key statistics provided below indicate the upward trend of
9
Moab's housing market, which makes housing less and less affordable to lower income households. The market for raw
land has also increased markedly, which makes development more expensive and, as a result, sales and rental prices
increase as developers pass the costs onto end users.
In May 2015,
• The median and average prices for recently sold and active residentially zoned parcels of developable land were
$200,301 per acre and $248,936 per acre, respectively.
• The median and average prices for recently sold and active commercially zoned parcels of developable land
were $145,788 per acre and $325,099 per acre, respectively.
• The median list price for all housing types was $290,000. The average list price was $351,700.
• The median rental price for all housing types was $850; when including utilities, median rental costs were
$1,000. The HUD Fair Market Rent value, used to establish Section 8 rental vouchers, was $757 for a two
bedroom housing unit and $1115 for a three bedroom unit. Very few, if any, rental units are available for rent at
rates that enable usage of the Section 8 vouchers.
The cost to rent a space inside an established mobile home park was between $275 per month and $400 per
month.
• The cost to rent a mobile home inside an established mobile home park was between $650 per month and
$1200 per month.
Utilizing an unconventional loan, a family of four earning the 2015 HUD area median income ($55,300 per year) could
afford to purchase a home that cost $193,258. That represents an affordability gap of almost $100,000.
In 2015,
• There were 155 residential dwelling units of all types sold in Grand County — 4 were mobile homes without land,
17 were modular or manufactured homes, and at least 50 were very likely to be used as short-term rentals
based on zoning designations.
• The median and average list prices of units that sold were $269,000 and $277,549, respectively.
• Of the houses for which sales prices can be computed, the median and average sales prices were $263,942 and
$274,202.
In 2016, the average assessed value of all homes within Grand County was $296,000.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Department of Workforce Services; Utah Association of Realtors; Grand County
Assessor; Multiple Listing Service; Local Property Management Agencies; Zacharia Levine
Housing Inventory Condition
While a standardized evaluation of existing housing units could not be completed prior to the writing of this plan, the US
Census Bureau and local research efforts provide a cursory understanding of the quality of Grand County's housing
inventory. The condition of existing housing units contributes to overall housing costs, neighborhood attachment, and
10
public health. As housing conditions decrease over time, maintenance costs increase. Owners must choose to expend
additional money or defer maintenance, which tends to increase costs in later years. Renters tend to experience
increased rents over time as property owners account for maintenance costs by passing them onto renters. At the
extreme, very old units, perhaps some built to substandard qualities, may result in condemnation and demolition, which
decreases the supply of housing. Alternatively, residents may occupy otherwise uninhabitable housing units that lead to
mental and physical health issues. A healthy housing market depends on a balance of renovating older homes,
rebuilding dilapidated structures, and new construction.
Occupied Housing
Units
Current Housing Occupancy
Vacant Housing Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied
Units Housing Units Housing Units
i
1
Table 5: Current Housing Occupancy
Housing Units by Structure Type
1-Unit Detached 1-Unit Attached 2 to 4 Units
5 to 19 Units 20 or More Units Other (mobile
home, RV, etc.)
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
1% j 4% �49%
■ ■ ■■
11
Table 6: Housing Units by Type
Owner -Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
2000 or later 1980 to 1999
1960 to 1979 1959 or earlier
1
Table 7: Owner -Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
Renter -Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
2000 or later
1980 to 1999
1960 to 1979
1959 or earlier
Table 8: Renter -Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
• The occupancy rate and owner -occupancy rate have declined in Grand County, although the owner -occupancy
rate of 67 percent (67%) still exceeds the national average of 63 percent (63%).
• The vacancy rate continues to rise, and is now at 27 percent (27%), which reveals the degree of external demand
for real estate in Moab.
• The overwhelming majority of existing housing in Grand County is a one -unit detached dwelling. One -unit
detached dwellings tend to utilize the most land per housing unit.
• Mobile homes, RVs, and other housing types account for nearly 20 percent (20%) of all occupied housing in
Grand County.
• Of all owner -occupied housing units, 61 percent (61%) were constructed prior to 1980. Of all renter -occupied
housing units, 51 percent (51%) were constructed prior to 1980.
• The age of a housing unit may serve as an indicator of high maintenance costs, which increases total housing
costs for owners and renters.
12
" T h e n u m b e r o f m o b i l e h o m e l o t s h a s d e c r e a s e d i n G r a n d C o u n t y d u e t o c l o s u r e s i n s o m e m o b i l e h o m e
c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e r e a r e 4 9 1 m o b i l e h o m e l o t s i n G r a n d C o u n t y , o f w h i c h r o u g h l y 8 0 p e r c e n t ( 8 0 % ) a r e o c c u p i e d .
" T h e u s e o f R V l o t s f o r l o n g e r - t e r m o c c u p a n c y h a s i n c r e a s e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s . O f t h e 9 3 0 R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( R V )
s p a c e s l o c a t e d i n s i d e p e r m i t t e d c a m p g r o u n d s , 1 0 6 a r e u t i l i z e d f o r " e x t e n d e d s t a y s " ( i . e . l o n g e r - t e r m o c c u p a n c y )
a n d 2 5 a r e i d e n t i f i e d a s e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g u n i t s . I n 2 0 1 6 , 1 4 " e m p l o y e e h o u s i n g " R V s p a c e s w e r e a p p r o v e d i n
t h e u n i n c o r p o r a t e d c o u n t y t h r o u g h t h e c o m m e r c i a l c a m p g r o u n d o r d i n a n c e .
S o u r c e s : U S C e n s u s B u r e a u ; D e p a r t m e n t o f H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t ; N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f R e a l t o r s ;
Z a c h a r i a L e v i n e
1 3
VI. HOUSING EFFORTS TO DATE
Multiple partners have aided in the provisioning of affordable housing units in Grand County (See Table 9). These efforts
should be lauded. Additionally, the Interlocal Housing Task Force recently reestablished itself as an active work group
aggressively targeting policies and programs that may help to address the decline of housing affordability and
availability. The task force meets monthly, includes broad representation from the community, and serves as a driving
force behind work in the affordable housing arena. Because of its efforts, the City of Moab and Grand County have made
the topic of affordable housing a standing agenda item on all joint meetings. Further, the City of Moab has included
affordable housing as a top legislative priority. It recently allocated $150,000 to affordable housing. Grand County has
established regular workshops between the Council and Planning Commission, agreed to a work plan, and begun
executing the work plan through policy changes and planning. It too has allocated funds towards affordable housing.
Of particular interest to affordable housing specialists is the period of affordability. Table 9 includes the occupancy type
and deed restriction status for multiple housing developments. The Mutual Self -Help (MSH) program, administered by
HASU, has produced the greatest number of housing units for low-income households. Utilizing USDA 502-direct loans,
the MSH program enables eligible households to contribute "sweat equity" towards the construction of their homes in
exchange for low -interest rates, loan repayment subsidies, and home equity. Community Rebuilds also utilizes 502-
direct and 523-guaranteed loans administered by USDA. Both organizations are working with USDA to create and
implement deed restrictions on newly constructed homes beginning in 2017. Deed restrictions are critical for preserving
long-term housing affordability and may last between 15 and 99 years, or remain in perpetuity.
In May 2016, the Arroyo Crossing Subdivision was approved as the very first private development to include a voluntary
20 percent (20%) set -aside for affordable housing. The agreement followed months of negotiations with the property
owner and developer, a successful rezone request, and master plan approval. Once fully constructed, 44 of the 220
proposed housing units will be deed -restricted for a minimum of 40 years. Eligible households cannot earn more than 80
percent (80%) of AMI and must have at least one adult who works full-time within the boundaries of the Grand County
School District, be of retirement age (62 or older), or have a qualifying mental or physical disability. The development
agreement that establishes this set -aside encumbrance of Arroyo Crossing subdivision represents the single largest
development impact of a non -subsidized, privately constructed project to date. Indeed, it sets a historic precedent in
Grand County.
14
Development
Developer
/Owner
# of
Units
Year
Built
Occupancy
Type
Affordability Status/Deed
Restrictions
Single Family
Straw bale
Community
Rebuilds
17
4/yr
Owner
Implementing deed restrictions
beginning 2017
Archway Village
Apartments
20
1985
Renter
Age and income limits (no
longer restricted)
Huntridge Plaza
Apartments
24
2004
rehab
Renter
Income limits (no longer
restricted)
Kane Creek
Apartments
36
1993
Renter
Income limits
Ridgeview
Apartments
6
1994
Renter
Income limits
Rockridge
Senior Housing
35
1998
Renter
Age & Income limits;
Compliance period ends in 2018
The Virginian
Apartments
HASU
28
Renter
Income limits based on HUD
Section 8 Vouchers; Ongoing
The Willows
Interact
8
2015
Renter
Mental health patients only;
Ongoing
Cinema Court
HASU
60
2012
Renter
5:1BR @25%AMI
10:1BR @39°/0AMI
30:2BR @450/oAMI
6:3BR @450/oAMI
9:3BR @50%AMI
(99 year compliance period)
Aspen Cove
Interact
12
2015
Renter
300/0 of income; Ongoing I
CROWN at
Desert Wind
HASU
5
2013
Renter
15 yr. compliance period ends in
2028
CROWN at Sage
Valley
HASU
8
1998
Owner
15 yr. compliance period
completed (no longer restricted)
CROWN at Rim
Hill
HASU
8
2005
Renter
15 yr. compliance period ends in
2020
Mutual Self -Help
HASU
127
On
going
Owner
Exploring primary residence
deed restriction beginning 2017
TOTAL: 394 199 deed restricted in 2020
Table 9: Affordable Housing Developments to Date
Sources: Zacharia Levine
15
VII. HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
The housing challenge in Grand County is a function of multiple factors: low household income, high housing costs, the
influence of external market demand, the condition of existing housing supply, and restrictive land use regulations.
Low Household Income
The affordability gap in Grand County is in large part due to low wages, which limit or prevent homeownership and
payment of market rate rent by many households. Most housing plans, policies, and programs focus on housing supply
and housing prices, but it is equally important to evaluate and increase wages and income. Housing affordability
depends on a balance between housing prices and income.
Grand County Employment and Income Trends 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Average Annual Nonagricultural Employment
4,496 4,616 4,824 4,890 5,073 5,232
(# of people)
Average Payroll Wage ($/mo.) $2,293 $2,340 $2,394 $2,423 $2,490 $2,566
Rank Among Utah Counties 22 22
Grand County Average Household AGI $49,926 $53,332
Rank Among Utah Counties 26 29
Grand County Median Household AGI $32,266 $34,337
% Earning <$20,000 33.15% 29.20%
Rank Among Utah Counties 28 26
City of Moab (only)
Average Household AGI $49,541 $52,997
Median Household AGI $32,170 $34,295
Table 10: Employment and Income Trends
• The average monthly payroll wage in 2015 was $2,566, which is $1,055 less than the statewide average (DW5).
Grand County ranks 22"d among ail 29 Utah counties in average monthly payroll wage.
• Travel and tourism related employment accounted for 58.2% of all 2015 employment in Grand County.
However, the average monthly payroll wage for such jobs was only $2,063.
• The 2014 average adjusted gross income (AGI) for households in Grand County was $53,332, the lowest across
all counties in Utah. The 2014 median AGI in Grand County was $34,337, which means there are many extremely
high earning households pushing the average significantly higher than the median.
• In 2014, 29.2% of all households in Grand County earned less than $20,000 (26" across all counties in Utah). This
represents a slight improvement from 2010 numbers (33% of all households and 28' ranked, respectively).
• Although not shown in Table 10, the Grand County Area Median Income for a family of four increased from
$55,300 per year in 2015 to $64,300 per year in 2016. Because synchronous increases are not seen in average
payroll wages, the $9,000 increase is likely attributable to increased incomes for the highest earners and from
non -labor activities such as dividends, interest, rent, and retirement related entitlements.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Department of Workforce Services; Zacharia Levine
16
High Housing Costs
The affordability gap refers to the large and growing difference between wages and housing costs. Similar to other
isolated, amenities -based, rural gateway communities surrounded by public lands, housing costs in Grand County have
risen much faster than wages. Because demand continues to rise faster than supply, prices continue to increase.
In May 2015, the median list price for all housing types within Grand County was $290,000 whereas the average list
price was $351,700. Several high-priced properties in the area push the average higher than the median. These numbers
offer just a momentary snapshot of houses listed for sale.
When considering only houses that actually sold during the year 2015, the median list price was $269,000 whereas the
average list price was $277,549. The significant differences are likely associated with sellers attempting to capture the
highest equity possible and overshooting what the market will bear. Additionally, higher -end homes tend to list for
longer time periods and not all property listings sell at their asking price.
In 2013, the most recent year in which standardized data exists, median rental costs (rent + utilities) were $1,000 per
month. In August 2016, a survey of local property management companies revealed only 19 rental units were available
at prices that would be affordable to households earning less than 100% of AMI. However, fewer than five such units
would accommodate households with more than two adults and a child. Current sales and rental prices place most
market rate housing units out of reach for Grand County residents, and limits upward housing mobility.
Average Payroll Wage
Average Sales Price
# of Average Workers Required to be Affordable
Hourly Wage Required by 1 Worker to be Affordable
2003 2009 2015
$1,699
$135,129
1.93
$20. 52
$2, 280
$282,985
2.70
$38.41
$2, 566
$277,549
2.35
$37.75
*Monthly cost assumes a 30 year mortgage, 10% down, 4% APR, 2% PMI, 1% property tax
(at 55% of assessed value), $150/mo. utilities, $600/yr home insurance, and no HOA fees.
Table 11: Wages and Housing Costs
Sources: US Census Bureau; Department of Workforce Services; Utah Association of Realtors; Multiple Listing
Service; Grand County Rental Management Companies; Zacharia Levine
External Market Demand
External market demand continues to increase housing prices and limit or reduce the inventory of affordable housing.
Like many other rural gateway, tourism -based communities, Grand County is a desirable housing market for individuals
and investment firms located around the world.
Grand County's beautiful landscape and moderate climate make it very appealing to out -of -area investors.
Consequently, the local housing market has experienced increased external market demand for second/seasonal homes,
short-term rentals, retirement homes, and general investment properties. External market real estate purchasers have
the ability to and typically do bid at higher home purchase prices than those supported by prevailing wages in the local
market. Each home sold at an increased price reduces the quantity of housing that otherwise could be sold to the local
market at its particular need and price point, and increases the sales price of all housing in the inventory.
17
In addition to the construction of new housing units to meet the external market demand, local housing professionals
report that:
• Condominiums and other long-term rental units are being purchased by market investors and converted to
rentals, and
• Single family homes in need of major repairs are purchased, repaired or demolished, and resold at a much
higher price.
The result is a reduction of "affordable" housing units and upward pressure on housing prices. While more recent (2008-
2009) economic influences may ultimately contribute to a temporary decrease in external demand for housing, and
ultimately housing prices, these external influences on the Grand County housing market are still very real. Almost all
new housing built since 1998 would have to drop more than 50 percent in price to reach affordability for the median
income Grand County household.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Utah Association of Realtors; Multiple Listing Service; Grand County Building
Official; Zacharia Levine
Condition of the Housing Inventory
Although existing housing tends to be more affordable than new housing, older units in declining condition require more
maintenance, which increases overall housing costs, and may even be in dilapidated or unacceptable conditions. Neither
the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments (5EU-ALG) nor Grand County has performed a housing
inventory since 2005, when 1,507 or 35% of all housing units were considered to be in either dilapidated or
unacceptable conditions.
According to the 2013 American Community Survey, 69% of all Grand County housing units were single family detached
dwellings and 19% were mobile homes. Mobile homes were built to very poor construction standards and today would
not be considered acceptable. Banks will not provide loans for mobile home units, which makes an entire class of
housing units almost non -transferable. As a result the number of households living in "extended stay" spaces in
commercial RV parks and campgrounds has increased. A Grand County survey of all commercial facilities suggested that
117 spaces are now used for periods of 30 or more days (Zacharia Levine, 2015).
In 2013, 61% of all owner -occupied housing units in Grand County were constructed prior to 1980. Of all renter -occupied
housing units in Grand County, 51% were constructed prior to 1980. Aging housing units with higher maintenance costs
represent the majority of affordable units in Grand County, but they also require the highest levels of maintenance.
Due to the condition of all types of homes in need of repair in the housing inventory:
• Many homes at time of sale do not meet loan qualification standards. Wage earners that require a mortgage for
home purchase are therefore excluded from potential purchase.
• As noted above, homes in need of major repairs are appealing to an external market investor for cash purchase,
remodel or demolition, and resale at a much higher price
• Housing Vouchers issued by the Housing Authority are not fully utilized because the condition of lower cost
rental housing units is below HUD's Housing Quality Standards.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Zacharia Levine
18
Employer -Provided Housing
Hotels, commercial campgrounds, recreational outfitters, restaurants, and retail stores create the largest block of
demand for seasonal workforce housing. Indeed, businesses in these industries have experienced the greatest
challenges in employee recruitment and retention due to the lack of affordable housing. In summer 2016, the Interlocal
Housing Task Force conducted a survey of hotels/motels, commercial campgrounds, and recreational outfitters to better
understand employer -provided housing for seasonal employees. The survey also provided information regarding needs
and opportunities for employer -provided housing and highlighted the link between workforce housing and economic
development.
A total of 16 surveys were administered to commercial campgrounds and RV parks. Nine campgrounds provided at total
of 15 employee housing units on -site to resident managers. Of the eleven hotels/motels responding to the survey and
accounting for 285 employees, 77 employees received employer -provided housing. Information was not collected as to
the number, type, or quality of the housing units.
A total of 35 surveys were administered to recreational outfitters across the following activities: cycling related,
canyoneering/climbing related, water sports related, retail recreation, air sports related, and miscellaneous.
Respondents represented outfitters that, in total, accounted for 548 employees. Part-time or seasonal employees
accounted for 72 percent (72%), or 392 employees. Respondents reported approximately 225 part-time or seasonal
employees needed housing. Seven outfitters provided on -site or nearby housing to such employees, eight reported a
desire to provide on -site housing in the form of camper vans and RVs, and nine did not know if on -site housing was
permitted in their zoning district. Employers identified four types of housing utilized by part-time and seasonal
employees: shared rooms or dwelling units, camper vans, tents, and "couch -surfing" with friends. Five respondents
supported the creation of managed housing for seasonal staff in the community, eight opposed, and ten were unsure of
such a system.
The vast majority of responding recreational outfitters (19) cited the lack of housing as one of the most important and
impactful challenges affecting their employee recruitment and retention. Fifteen suggested the lack of affordable
housing limited their abilities to grow their businesses. Although many employers created unofficial policies to hire local
residents only because, presumably, they would already have housing, the majority felt that local residents could not fill
all the job openings across the community.
Clearly, there is an undeniable link between housing and economic development. In a tourism -based community,
workforce housing becomes an integral input into business development. The gap between wages and housing costs and
the shortage of housing supply have the potential to hinder economic expansion in Grand County.
Sources: Interlocal Housing Task Force
Affordable Housing Needs Projections
Currently, at least 1,000 households earning less than 80 percent (80%) of AMI in Grand County are cost -burdened,
which means they spend more than 30 percent (30%) of household income on total housing costs including mortgage or
rent, taxes, insurance, utilities, and HOA fees where applicable. At least 400 households earning less than 80 percent
(80%) of AMI are severely cost -burdened, which means they spend more than 50 percent (50%) of household income on
total housing costs. Cost -burdened and severely cost -burdened households already have housing, but some may feel it is
appropriate to consider 1,000 units the baseline need. However, this figure is not included in the future demand
projections presented below.
19
Cost Burdened Renter Households
Households Spending 300/0 or More of Monthly
Income on Housing (by Income Level)
>50% to 580% AMI
>30°/0 to <_50% AMI
530%AMI
43.6%
78.1%
73.3%
Households Spending 50% or More of Monthly
Income on Housing (by Income Level)
>50% to 580% AMI , 5.5%
>30%to 550%AMI 37.5%
530%AMI 61.7%
Table 12: Cost -burdened Renter Households
Cost Burdened Owner Households
Households Spending 300/0 or More of Monthly
Income on Housing (by Income Level)
>50% to 580% AMI
>30% to 550%AMI
<_30%AMl
41.2%
45.5%
64.4%
Households Spending 500/0 or More of Monthly
Income on Housing (by Income Level)
>500/0 to 580% AMI 10.8%
>30%to 550%AMI 22.7%
530%AMI 44.4%
Table 13: Cost -burdened Owner Households
20
The following charts present the results of a specified model used to project future housing needs in Grand County. It
should be noted that models used to forecast future housing demand are only as good as the data and assumptions
used to create them. Forecasts also become less reliable as the forecasting period increases. For instance, the model
uses recent population trends to forecast future population trends. However, any given year may result in atypical
population growth, either lower than estimated or higher than estimated. The model also assumes the share of owner -
occupied versus renter -occupied housing units remains the same over time. While this assumption has been included to
simplify the modeling exercise, national and regional trends suggest the share of renter -occupied housing units is very
likely to rise further in the coming decades.
Additional assumptions used to specify the model are noted below:
• Population increases at an exponential rate based on changes observed between 1990 and 2014.
• Population projections do not account for potential episodic increases associated with the construction of a
four-year Utah State University campus, secondary and tertiary economic development associated with a local
campus, or any other policy- or development -oriented changes.
• Average household size remains constant at 2.35 persons per household.
• Owner -occupied versus renter -occupied ratios remain constant overall and within each income bracket.
• The share of households within each income bracket remains constant.
• Housing affordability is based on the following parameters:
o Households spend no more than 30 percent (30%) of income on total housing costs
o Ownership costs
■ Mortgage (principal and interest)
• 30 year fixed rate
• 10% down payment
• 4% annual percentage rate ("interest rate")
• 2% premium mortgage interest (PMI)
■ $900 annual property tax
■ $600 annual property insurance
■ $150 monthly utility costs
■ No HOA fees
o Renter costs
■ Rent
■ $150 monthly utility costs
• The share of available housing affordable to households within each income bracket remains stable over time.
• Vacancy rates remain constant at 30 percent (30%).
• Projections do not include households currently living in Grand County that are cost -burdened.
• Replacement of dilapidated or unacceptable housing units over time is not factored into projected housing
demand.
• No consideration is given to housing typologies or variable development costs.
Each of these assumptions can be manipulated to reflect different expectations for Grand County's future. If Grand
County continues to mirror the trajectories of similar tourism based economies in the American West, vacancy rates
may climb to 40, 50, or even 60 percent, if not higher. Models are inherently limited in predicting the future due to the
necessity of making assumptions. In recent years, planning has shifted more towards scenario planning, where decision -
makers select a set of policies based on a range of possible future states. Nevertheless, the model provides a useful
exercise in understanding future housing demand. The forecasts should be used as a guide for policymaking, and not
considered hard predictions.
21
New Housing Unit Demand by Household Income Level (Total)
>30%to >50%to >80%to
530%AMI 550%AMI 580%AMI 5100%AMI >100%AMI
C'
N '■
0 0
(V M
0 O
N N
O
CO
N
�
o
0 0
N N
O M
O N
VD N N
Mgt 1 ill Ili
N� ^1
O▪ �
N
�r
M
r
CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N
Table 14: Housing Demand Projections (Total)
r-+
r
r
M
r
N N
CO
e-1 ra O
Cn O 111
EMI
O O O O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N
0
r
22
New Housing Unit Demand by Household Income Level (Renter)
> 3 0% to
5.30%AMI 550%AMI
>50%to
580% AMI
>80% to
5100%AMI >100%AMI
n CO
N
M
O NI0, co
N M d'
673
t7 M I--1 N O
af)M, a
o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CIO O O O O
NI M ci' to N M ▪ tl7 N Crl .3' Ln N M <1. In N M c' Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N [V NI N CV N N N N N N N N N N
Table 15: Housing Demand Projections (Renter)
23
New Housing Unit Demand by Household Income Level (Owner)
>30%to >50%to >80%to
5301%AMI 550%AMI 580%AMI 5_100%AMI >100%AMI
co
CO
M
N N ,t
O N :n-I N n ..--I
NI
111
O � COO �
: • MS II I.
M
<t
N
(Y1
rn
co
m
Q O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0
L+-) N CO c LC) N M .t u7 N M �' N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N CV N N N N N CV N CV CV NI N N N N N
Table 16: Housing Demand Projections (Owner)
• With the abovementioned assumptions in mind, the housing model suggests,
• Per annum housing production affordable to households in each income level must increase in order to keep
pace with future housing demand.
• Demand for new housing units will increase by 316 in 2020, 1,024 in 2030, 1,826 in 2040, and 2,737 in 2050.
• Of the 316 new units needed by 2020, 98 will be renter -occupied and 218 will be owner -occupied, In 2030, the
numbers increase to 323 and 701, respectively.
• In 2020, 177 new units would be needed to meet the demands of households earning less than 80 percent (80%)
of AMI. By 2030, that number increases to 503 new units.
• About two-thirds of all new rental construction will need to be offered at price levels affordable to households
earning 80 percent (80%) of AMI or below.
• The share of owner -occupied housing demand by households earning 80 percent (80%) of AMI or below will
decrease from 50% in 2020 to just 39% in 2050.
Sources: US Census Bureau; Utah Association of Realtors; Grand County Rental Management Companies;
Zacharia Levine
24
Wages & Housing Affordability
Housing costs and economic development are inextricably linked in all communities. In Grand County, housing is
economic development. In recent years, employers across all industries have struggled to attract and retain qualified
candidates to fill position vacancies. This trend is especially true for essential employment positions such as teachers,
nurses, law enforcement officers, public officials, and others. Job candidates considering a job offer within Grand County
are increasingly unwilling to relocate to Grand County to accept a local job offer. Candidates have articulated a strong
desire to live and work in the community, but cite the large gap between wages and housing costs as the primary
impediment. Individuals currently employed within Grand County are also leaving the community to seek jobs in other
communities. In order to sustain the positive economic growth Grand County has witnessed in recent years, the
construction of housing units for long-term occupancy must keep pace with the growth in demand.
Increasing wages will also reduce the affordability gap for working households. In 2015, the ownership affordability gap
for a single worker earning the average payroll wage across all industries was $185,851. The renter affordability gap for
a single worker earning the average payroll wage across all industries was $380/mo. However, for a single worker
employed in a tourism related industry, where the average annual wage was $24,750, the ownership affordability gap
was $223,110 and the renter affordability gap was $531/mo. Public officials and community leaders have stated that
diversifying the local economy represents a primary goal. supporting business expansion, retention, and recruitment in
industries that pay higher than average wages will enable employees of such industries to better compete for available
market rate housing.
25
Industry Sector
Percent of
Total
Employment
(2015)
Average
Annual Wage
(2015)
30% of income
monthly
Single Worker
Max Loan Affordable
Purchase Price
Single Worker
Ownership
Affordability
Gap
Single Worker
Affordable
Rent
Single Worker
Renter
Affordability
Gap
Mining 1.70% $73,080 1827 $258,861 $287,623 $1,677
Utilities 0.71% $71,232 1781 $251,155 $279,061 $1,631 -
Construction 5.67% $39,540 989 $119,006 $132,229 $145,320 $839 $162
Manufacturing (31-33) 0.86% $26,076 652 $62,864 $69,849 $207,700 $502 $498
Wholesale Trade 1.32% $38,952 974 $116,554 $129,504 $148,045 $824 $176
Retail Trade (44 & 45) 15.62% $26,652 666 $65,266 $72,517 $205,032 $516 $484
Transportation and Warehousing (48 & 49) 1.83% $41,616 1040 $127,662 $141,847 $135,702 $890 $110
Information 0.99% $26,244 656 $63,564 $70,627 $206,922 $506 $494
Finance and Insurance 1.26% $44,448 1111 $139,471 $154,968 $122,581 $961 $39
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2.06% $24,972 624 $58,260 $64,734 $212,815 $474 $526
Professional Scientific& Technical Services 2.29% $44,892 1122 $141,323 $157,025 $120,524 $972 $28
Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 2.39% $29,496 737 $77,124 $85,694 $191,855 $587 $413
Education Services 5.88% $28,656 716 $73,622 $81,802 $195,747 $566 $434
Health Care and Social Assistance 7.52% $40,608 1015 $123,459 $137,177 $140,372 $865 $135
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 8.93% $26,232 656 $63,514 $70,571 $206,978 $506 $494
Accommodation and Food Services 31.58% $21,144 529 $42,298 $46,998 $230,551 $379 $621
Other Services (except PublicAdmin.) 1.76% $34,632 866 $98,540 $109,489 $168,060 $716 $284
Public Administration 7.64% $48,492 1212 $156,334 $173,704 $103,845 $1,062 -
All Industries 100.00% $30,792 770 $82,528 $91,698 $185,851 $620 $380
*Tourism Related 58.2% $24,750 619 $48,995 $54,439 $223,110 $469 $531
*Tourism Related industries include: Retail Trade, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services. Real Estate
and Rental and Leasing is included due to its strong relationship to the tourism economy.
**Monthly cost assumes a 30 year mortgage, 10% down, 4% APR, 2% PMI, $75/mo. property tax, $150/mo. utilities, $600/yr home insurance, and no HOA fees, OR rent plus
$150/mo. utilities.
Table 17: Wages and Housing Affordability
26
VIII. BARRIERS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The most apparent barriers to expanding the affordable housing stock in the Moab area fall under the umbrellas of
three main categories: land use regulations, site planning and architectural design, and funding issues. Many of the
challenges developers face when attempting to build affordable housing fall under one or more of these categories.
Each barrier has its own repercussions on Moab's housing market. While a cure-all remedy doesn't exist, local
governments, developers, and realtors can take steps to address each impediment.
Land Use Regulations
Local land use regulations either encourage or inhibit affordable housing construction. Density limits, lot sizes, setbacks,
height restrictions, street widths, and parking requirements can all lead to low land use efficiencies and, ultimately, high
land costs. The high cost of land is a major impediment to the construction of affordable housing. In recent months and
years, the City of Moab and Grand County have taken steps to remove barriers to affordable housing in their respective
land use codes. Examples include: streamlining the development review process, reducing buffer requirements between
subdivisions, removing open space requirements, expanding accessory dwelling unit opportunities, decreasing minimum
lot and building sizes, and improving code enforcement.
Site Planning and Architectural Design
While land use regulations govern development at the community and site -specific scales, developers and architects
retain a tremendous amount of discretion in how they utilize available land and establish building footprints. Like many
other parts of the United States, the Moab Area is dominated by single family detached dwellings situated on large lots.
The development community can effect positive change by shifting its focus from a sprawling development typology to
one that is more compact, efficient, and affordable. Smaller lots, attached dwellings, and more modest living spaces are
cheaper to build and maintain. Compact development also leads to reduced transportation costs for residents, and
lower infrastructure costs for developers and local governments. The next chapter will focus exclusively on the benefits
of improved land use and design.
Funding Issues
Funding a project is often one of the most difficult aspects of affordable housing. Development teams work tirelessly to
make projects "pencil out," and rely heavily on outside funding from grants, loans, direct and indirect subsidies, and
private donors to get a development to the point of breaking ground. Grand County and the City of Moab provide
incentives to developers in the form of density bonuses, impact fee waivers, and relaxed site controls, but lower returns
on investment (ROls) associated with below market rate housing remains a commonly cited impediment. Many
affordable housing experts suggest that direct financial support from public funds needs to play a larger role in
facilitating the development of new units. Indeed, in many instances, affordable housing will not be constructed without
it.
27
VIV. Development and Design Solutions to Expand Affordable Housing
As is said often about solving the affordable housing shortage, there is no silver bullet. It will take a myriad of different
tools and design solutions to lower housing costs in the Moab area. Community Rebuilds, the Housing Authority of
Southeast Utah, and many other organizations have built a substantial number of affordable units, but demand
continues to exceed production. The need is too great for these entities to solve Moab's housing challenges alone. This
section provides information on housing cost reduction through improved land use and design. It is intended for
policymakers, developers, architects, builders, and, of course, interested citizens.
DETACHED SiNGLE-FAr9LT
HOMES
ww
0 • „1
I.
9�,�,`, }yam. �6E:sil '_"T' !.•,INiL.lsr �— \ r'1-RISE
��'-------'"--MULTIPLEX LIYEIWORK \
BUNGAL011 TOWNHOUSE \
\ TRiPLEFCU. COURTYARD CCURi
\ DUPLEX RPLEJC APARTMENT 91NG � — � — —
\ _ _ MISSING MIDDLE 1-10u
111 f
192911111 ww
110111* 9
:.111'C... -- Y 57.{:DLL
�_.'
a
-� pl l�In9111➢9
4741 , 1. 11141 i21f
1 e 1111
i 111- r
11s .
n,-•rcitYM•r5+glvm RF..o.9*1O = 07 TIC OS
rli Sc am 11rN;
Missing Middle Housing
Missing Middle Housing represents a range of multi -unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-
family homes that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living (www.MissingMiddleHousing.com),
Compact development patterns often lead to the desired outcomes expressed in the general plans adopted by the City
of Moab and Grand County.
Often, conversations about increasing land use densities quickly escalate from detached single-family homes to mid- and
high-rise apartment complexes, painting the image of massive, towering apartment buildings looming next to small,
single-family homes and quaint downtown streets. The Middle Housing concept illustrates that there is a wide range of
housing typologies between such extremes. Urban designers and architects can integrate moderate and even higher
density developments into existing neighborhoods by focusing on compatibility with a site's surroundings. Such care and
consideration may diminish some local residents' concerns about high density housing leading to the loss of rural
character.
Missing Middle Housing is not a new type of building or neighborhood design. Mixed density housing was a fundamental
building method until the 1940s, and can be seen in historic districts across the country. A combination of Missing
Middle Housing and detached dwellings makes for a moderately dense community that is more walkable, livable, and
sustainable for all types of residents.
Though there are many development types, ranging from duplexes to courtyard apartment complexes, Middle Houses
often share several characteristics. These include:
• Walkable contexts,
• Small building footprints,
• Lower perceived densities,
28
" S m a l l e r , w e l l - d e s i g n e d u n i t s ,
" F e w e r o f f s t r e e t p a r k i n g s p a c e s ,
" C o h e s i v e c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d
" M a r k e t a b i l i t y
S e v e r a l c a s e s t u d i e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e s o m e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e M o a b A r e a , a n d t o
s u p p o r t l e g i s l a t i v e c h a n g e s t o l o c a l l a n d u s e r e g u l a t i o n s .
2 9
Duplex
Description: A small- to medium-sized structure that consists of two dwelling units, either stacked between two levels
or side -by -side, both of which face and are entered from the street.
Units: 2
Typical Unit Size: 600-2,400 SF
Net Density: 8-20 du/acre
Stacked
PHOTO: STACKED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT IN OMAHA, NE.
DIAGRAM: TYPICAL DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT. PHOTO AND
GRAPHIC CREDITS: MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND OPTICOS
DESIGN
Side -by -Side
PHOTO: SIDE -BY -SIDE DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT IN PHOENIX,
AZ. DIAGRAM: TYPICAL DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT. PHOTO
AND GRAPHIC CREDITS: MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND
OPTICOS DESIGN
30
Triplex and Fourplex
Description: A medium-sized structure that houses three or four units, respectively, with a mix of units stacked typically
between two levels. Each unit is separate from the others and has its own entrance
Units: 3 or 4
Typical Unit Size: 600-2,400 SF
Net Density: 15-25 du/acre
um
ABOVE: EOURPLEX DEVELOPMENT INBERKELEY, CA. LEFT: DIAGRAM
OF TYPICAL EOURPL EX DEVELOPMENT. PHOTO AND GRAPHIC CREDITS:
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND OPTICOS DESIGN
Bedroom
9x10
Bed room
12x10
Patio
r
71'
x
eQ
D0ining
8x11
Liying
12 xl5
Entry
each unit 28'-0" wide total 3plex is 84.-0"
EXAMPLE FLOOR PLAN ARRANGEMENT FOR A SINGLE STORY TRIPLEX DEVELOPMENT
31
Courtyard Apartments
Description: A medium- to large -sized complex of units accessed from a courtyard or shared space. Each unit may have
its own entry or several units share a common entry.
Units: Various, ranging from 8-40
Typical Unit Size: 600-1,200 SF
Net Density: 25-35 du/acre
CINEMA COURT APARTMENTS IN MOAB, UT ARE NINE CLUSTERED APARTMENT BUILDINGS
P0SMONED AROUND A COURTYARD. SHOWN FROM STREET VIEW AND AERIAL VIEW.
32
Bungalow Court
Description: A "pocket neighborhood" of smaller single-family units positioned around a shared courtyard space.
Bungalow Courts are an excellent balance between the privacy of a single-family home and the communal experience of
a shared green space.
Units: 5-10
Typical Unit Size: 500-1,000 SF
Net Density: 20-35 du/acre
BUNGALOW COURTS PRIMARILY ORIGINATED /N THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF PASADENA, CA FROM 1909-1940S. THE TOP AND BOTTOM
LEFT PICTURES SHOW A FEW HISTORIC BUNGALOW COURTS /N PASADENA, AND BOTTOM RIGHT DEPICTS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE FIRST
BUNGALOW COURT.
33
Accessory Dwelling Units
Description: Sometimes referred to as a mother-in-law suite or a secondary dwelling unit, accessory dwelling units
(ADU) are single-family dwelling units that are built on the same lot or parcel as another single-family dwelling unit.
Typical Unit Size: 500-1,000 SF
Attached ADU
Detached ADU
Interior ADU, typically
accessible through separate
door from main house
PHOTO CREDITS, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
34
Cohousing Communities
Cohousing communities can take many forms. Often, they consist of a cluster of private single-family homes built around
shared spaces, but they may also exist as non -uniformly patterned townhouses or even repurposed warehouse spaces.
They typically have a common area with a large kitchen and dining area, recreational spaces, and a garden that is
maintained by the residents and helps feed the community. Some communities choose to provide laundry facilities and
guest rooms as well. The members of a cohousing community have full control over the balance between privacy and
community engagement. They have independent lives but also share the responsibility for planning and managing
communal property and events. Cohousing communities are formally run by an HOA or Board of Directors system and
place sustainability, conversation, and community in high regard. This type of community is not very different from any
other kind of HOA-managed neighborhood, but communities in which the stakeholders are also its residents tend to be
better maintained because residents are more invested in the property.
In general, cohousing encourages developers and residents to view finite amounts of space in a different light. By
shifting some resources and household responsibilities outside the private home, individual unit sizes and associated
costs can be decreased. Sharing limited resources like land, water, energy, building materials, and appliances can enable
greater overall efficiencies. Cohousing is an example of how communities are evolving the traditional development
pattern of single family homes with private yards. Greater emphasis is placed on shared open space rather than privately
maintained yards. Like other development typologies noted here, cohousing can reduce community -wide infrastructure
costs and assist in the preservation of rural character.
Millennials and baby boomers are starting to seek out communal living models, making it easier to age in place, whether
settling down to start a family or settling down after retirement.
The Wasatch Commons in Salt Lake City, built in 1998, is the first cohousing community formed in the state of Utah. The
community is comprised of 26 townhouses, a community garden, common house, playgrounds, and other recreational
facilities.
35
Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is a model that provides both housing and services for people with serious mental
illnesses or other disabilities who need additional, consistent support to maintain their housing and live stably within
their communities. Services can include case management, substance abuse, counseling, employment and education
services, advocacy, and more. A principle aspect of the PSH model is that services are voluntary, not mandatory, for
tenants living in housing projects.
PSH relies on the "Housing First" concept, meaning that housing is given rapidly to those who need it with as few
preexisting requirements as possible.
The Housing First model works on two levels:
• At the project level, PSH projects must have screening practices that promote acceptance of applicants
regardless of their sobriety, level of completion of treatment, or history of mental health or homelessness.
• On a community level, Housing First means that the community's response to homelessness is oriented to
helping people get permanent housing as soon as possible with as few obstacles as possible. It is supported by
evidence that individuals make the best progress when living in stable housing environments.
Pathways Village Apartments is a new PSH facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. It is a 40-unit complex that serves the
chronically homeless population in the Grand Junction area. It provides numerous services to its residents, creates new
jobs, and generates an estimated $11 million in economic impact for the area.
36
Sustainable Design
Sustainability has become a buzzword in the built environment across all scales and development types. Sustainable
design has influenced residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as small area plans and comprehensive
general plans. Buildings consume almost half the energy produced in the United States today, and contribute an equal
share of carbon dioxide emissions. Any savings associated with building energy efficiency improve the bottom -fine of
development, and improve local environments (Architecture 2030).
There are countless green building codes, theories, and action plans to try to reduce the major long term impacts
buildings have on global warming, but the bottom line for sustainable building solutions comes down to a simple
mission: people, planet, profit. In order for a project to be successful, it must be economically sound, environmentally
conscious, and socially sensitive; a project will not be able to sustain itself if it does not satisfy each of these objectives.
For example, a developer cannot create an eco-friendly, economically viable building that is not sensitive to the needs of
its occupants, or create a project that is beautiful and heavily occupied that costs too much money to operate in the
long-term.
Public health has also driven sustainable design practices. In the 215' century, most humans spend their days and nights
predominantly indoors. Design for human health places a greater emphasis on indoor air quality, daylighting, physical
movement, and views of surrounding open space. These factors have been shown to increase productivity, improve
focus, foster contentment, and reduce anxiety and depression.
Community Rebuilds is a champion of sustainable design in the Moab area.
Environmentally, the nonprofit uses passive solar design techniques and natural building methods to create an
affordable home that is sensitive to the landscape and easily replicated. The homes are insulated with straw bales,
supported by simple wood frame construction, and finished with earth plaster. The materials are local, natural, and
often donated, salvaged, or recycled, which reduces the cost of construction. Solar panels are added to every house and
partner with passive solar design techniques to keep utility costs down.
Socially, the builds are fueled by an educational internship program that gives young adults college credit and tangible
construction experience. The homeowners, interns, and other volunteers construct the house together from foundation -
to -finish, which gives both the homeowner and the interns an appreciation for natural building techniques and
affordable housing.
Economically, Community Rebuilds builds houses for low-income residents in the Moab area and works to ensure
affordable housing continues to expand in the Moab area. In contrast to market rates for natural building, the
education -based labor model significantly reduces the cost of homeownership; the houses are built at about $70 per
square foot and average less than $30 per month for utility bills. More recent homes have achieved net -zero, an
indicator of extremely high performance. The nonprofit is working with the community to promote the use of deed
restrictions in order to ensure long term affordability for both Community Rebuilds homes and other units in Moab's
affordable housing stock.
37
X. Brief Housing Development Summary: CINEMA COURT
To illustrate the unique and often complex process of developing affordable housing, this section provides a brief
summary of a multifamily rental development constructed in the City of Moab. Cinema Court, a 60-unit apartment
complex, provides housing for very low- and low-income households. Readers should note that this summary is provided
by way of example only, and may not characterize the barriers and other conditions facing another project in the Moab
Area. Note the number of income sources required to facilitate the Development, and the substantial contribution of
financing provided through the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) awarded by the Utah Housing Corporation and
funded by American Express, a global corporation with a charter in Utah. Without the LIHTC, Cinema Court would not
have come to fruition. Since the 2012 project, the Moab Area has not seen another LIHTC development. It may take
another LIHTC award to fund affordable housing developments as large as Cinema Court or a more complex financing
structure that includes additional partners to make any proposal a reality in Grand County. Cooperation, compromise,
and trust among partners is an essential ingredient for any project to succeed.
Need for Project
The 2009 Grand County and City of Moab Housing Study and Affordable Housing Plan projected a 2012 total rental
deficit of 224 units. While no specific data was analyzed in the year 2012 to determine the actual rental deficit at that
time, the projected deficit was likely to be at least as high by the time Cinema Court was completed.
Site and Development Description
HASU endeavored to meet a portion of the rental housing need with the construction of Cinema Court, a new
development including 60 multifamily rental housing units built during the summer of 2012. Cinema Court was built on a
five acre parcel of land near a variety of amenities including a creek, bike and pedestrian pathways, hiking trails,
shopping, and entertainment. Because a significant percentage of the parcel was deemed unbuildable due to the
presence of a floodplain, the property was acquired at a favorable price but limited building footprints. Comprised of
nine two-story apartment -style residential buildings, one leasing office/clubhouse, and one playground, the
Development caters to varying household sizes, from single -person households to families with more than four
individuals. Unit amenities include dishwashers, garbage disposals, clothes washers and dryers in each unit, two
bathrooms in the two and three bedroom units and comfortable floor -plans. Three of the units are fully accessible; five
are set aside for transitional housing for the homeless or near homeless residents and five are designated for those with
mental illness.
Unit size, Number, and Income Targeting
The unit mix and target population was determined by a combination of the housing need and operating budget cash
flow.
38
Unit Type
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
Units @
25% AMI
Units @
39% AMI
Units @
45% AMI
Units @
50% AMI
Unit
Total
1 bedroom,
1 bath
736
5
10
0
0
15
2 bedroom,
1 bath
880
0
0
30
0
30
3 bedroom,
2 bath
1135
0
0
6
9
15
Totals
5
10
36
9
60
Table 18: Unit Mix of Cinema Court Apartments
Development Budget
Through a competitive bidding process, the construction budget was created.
Development Budget
Expense
Cost
Land
$526,928
Construction
$6,036,134
Professional Fees
$398,904
Interim Costs
$293,182
Permanent Financing
$71,290
Soft Costs
$92,176
Syndication Costs
$5,900
Developer Fees/Profit/Overhead
$1,130,279
Project Reserves
$163,880
Total Cost
$8,718,673
Table 19: Development Budget
Income Sources
Five different income sources were combined to pay the total development cost. Note that due to low rent levels,
project cash flow supported a permanent loan of only $850,000. Local match, grant funds, and investor equity in the
form of LIHTCs were used to "fill the gap" between the $850,000 dollar permanent loan and the total $8,718,673
development cost.
39
Sources and Uses Budget
Source
Amount
Uses
Public Sector
Site, General Construction
City Contribution
(General and CDBG Funds)
$509,000
County Contribution
$90,000
General Construction
State Division of Housing
$800,000
i
Site, Engineering
J
Housing Authority
$389,451
Land, Developer's Fee
Private Sector Equity /
Loan
Tax Credit Equity
$7,416,000
General Construction, Fees,
Marketing
First Mortgage (OWHLF)
$850,000
Permanent Loan
HASU CDBG Loan
$250,000
Infrastructure/Gen
Construction
Managing Member Equity
$25,000
General Construction
Deferred Dev. Fee
$177,673
Project Reserves
Development Cost Total
$8,718,673
1
Table 20: Income Sources Budget
Development Timeline
Predevelopment activity began in 2009 and ended with the successful completion of all financial arrangements in fall
2010. Construction began spring 2011 and ended in July 2012.
Since its completion, Cinema Court has remained virtually 100% occupied. At times, there are short gaps between
tenants due to the specific eligibility requirements associated with individual units. After a 15 year federal compliance
period, American Express will transfer ownership to HASU for the remainder of the project lifetime. Cinema Court has,
to date, epitomized a successful affordable housing development.
40
XI. IHTF Recommendations
The mission of the Interlocal Housing Task Force is to support the creation of affordable and attainable housing through
policy recommendations, public outreach, professional development, and project implementation. The Task Force
meets regularly to discuss and review current housing trends, evaluate proposed solutions, and create informational
resources for the public. In support of this housing plan, the IHTF offers the following recommendations:
• Establish, promote, and utilize the Moab Area Community Land Trust.
• Increase funding for affordable housing within the City and County budgets.
• Expand the use of deed restrictions to protect existing and new affordable housing.
• Engage the State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in
identifying development opportunities on state and federally owned land.
• Adopt an assured housing ordinance, which will require all new residential and commercial development above
a given size to include a component of affordable housing.
• Increase zoning densities along major transportation corridors and within areas proximal to retail, restaurants,
and entertainment.
Support employer provided housing while providing best practices that protect employees.
• Provide for greater flexibility in the City and County land use codes to support residential and mixed -use
developments.
• Establish regulations that enable the development of "tiny home" communities.
• Encourage the Utah legislature to allow greater flexibility in the expenditure of Transient Room Tax (TRT)
revenue.
41
XII. Affordable Housing: Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Vision
A community that includes an affordable housing opportunity available to each resident of the Moab Area.
Goals
1. Achieve the housing vision by 2050.
2. Create and protect enough affordable housing in the Moab Area so that it is not a limiting factor for the
community's evolution.
3. Upgrade and improve existing low -quality housing.
4. Construct a wider range of housing and development types, especially attached dwellings and apartments.
5. Provide a mix of ownership, rental, and seasonal housing opportunities.
6. Become a model community in the way of implementing successful housing solutions.
7. Create senior housing and housing for individuals with special needs and mental or behavioral health issues.
8. Expand the housing stock through the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods served by reliable
infrastructure.
9. Encourage the development of a public transportation system.
10. Promote housing that is energy efficient and minimizes environmental impact.
Objectives
1. Analyze the housing needs of very low-, low-, and moderate -income households, and develop a mix of strategies
to meet the needs of each income group.
2. Set annual affordable housing targets and report performance to the public.
3. Coordinate with and involve multiple community and outside agencies in developing affordable housing
solutions.
4. Adopt or amend local land use regulations to provide more opportunities for affordable housing development.
5. Facilitate public -private partnerships that lead to affordable housing construction and economic development.
42
Et
�u!o8up
fLIOZ
d1H1
d1Hl',kwnop'Alo
uo!leluawaldw! ueld 8u!snoy
algepao}}e uo salepdn lenuue ap!nwd '}
810?
d11-11
Aluno3'Al0
•uo!s!n ayl }o luawanawe all of peal
tell sle00 peaA 0Z pue 'S'Z'i) ale!pawJalul
las pue soueuaos AoHod alenlen3 •a
Su!o2up
'LIOZ
d11-11
AlunoO 'AID
suo!1!puoD
a!wouoaa pue 's!sAleue laliew 'elep lua.unD
laal}aa of papaau se ueld Swsnoy alepdH •p
elep
lualina sapnpw
alepdH ueld
OwsnoH 9TOZ
2u!aup
"9LOZ
(ggoD) slueig >pow
luawdolanaa Al!unwwog
`(dasn) amlln3p5d}0
luawlaedaa sa1e1S pal!up
d1Hl `Al!J
Alunog
eaad geow ay1 u! Vwsnoy Jo} puewap
pue Alddns an 01 an!lelai elep Pa110D .3
LLOZ
Alunop 'AlD
J a1u aD
luawdolanaa ssau!sng
IlewS'geoW nsn
'apaawwop }o aagwey3
Aluno3 `AlJ
luawdolanap o!wouoaa
�o} aiwsuodsaJ A dxa uosJad }}es ai! H •g
LLOZ
xel woog lua!sueal
`xel sales 'xei A1Jadaad
(d1Hl) a»od
Nse1 Su!snoH le3opalul
Aluno3 'Alip
uo!leluawaldw! ueld Owsnoy
Jo} alglsuodsaa Aj pildxa uosaad }}els aa!H •e
SfllbiS
31b0
139ab1
S3�2lf10S
ONIaNnd 3191SSOd
S213N121bd
NOIlb1N3W31d1All
ADN3Jb ab31
Sd31S NOI.LDb
1ba3N3O 1
ueid uopv SuisnoH algeNolIV •IIIX
2.501(c)3 - MOAB AREA COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (MACLT)
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
a. Create / finalize land trust MACLT MACLT 2016 Done
b. Create land trust board MACLT MACLT 2016 Done
c. Develop board policies MACLT MACLT 2016 Done
d. Create and approve strategy and action
plans
MACLT
d. Solicit resources MACLT, IHTF
e. Develop partnerships with local
governments, private landowners,
businesses, and housing developers
MACLT
Rural Community
IHTF, City and County Assistance Corporation 2017 -
Staff (RCAC), Grounded Solutions 2018
Network
City, County, Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
IHTF, City and County 2017;
CDBG, Olene Walker
Ongoing
Staff Housing Loan Fund g g
(OWHLF), Private Donors
IHTF, HASU, Community
Rebuilds, Other Local
Developers, City, County,
Private Landowners, Local
Businesses, etc.
Will begin in 2017
2017; Will begin in 2017
Ongoing
44
3. INTERLOCAL HOUSING TASK FORCE (IHTF)
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
a. Expand membership
IHTF
b. Increase public education through
workshops, advertisements, and outreach IHTF
campaigns
d. Develop and publicize a housing and
economic development website; Distribute
the Housing Plan; Distribute resources and
tools for affordable housing
e. Increase local capacity by reviewing
successful affordable housing developments,
networking with organizations, visiting and
hosting other communities, and attending
conferences
IHTF, City, County
IHTF, City, County
City and County Staff,
Local Developers,
Builders, Realtors, and
Bankers, Chamber of
Commerce, Citizens
City and County Staff
City and County Staff,
Local Developers,
Builders, Realtors, and
Bankers, Citizens
City and County Staff,
Local Developers,
Builders, Realtors, and
Bankers, Citizens
City, County
City, County
City, County, Foundations,
Utah Housing Coalition,
Private Donors,
Scholarships
2016;
Ongoing
2017
2016;
Ongoing
The IHTF has
expanded
significantly over
the previous two
years; Additional
participation from
the development
community is
needed
Workshops
offered
periodically each
year; Ongoing
Website—Dane
Housing Plan
Update —Done
Distribution —In
Progress
2016;
Ongoing
Ongoing
45
4. LAND USE CODE CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
a. Adopt an assured housing ordinance City, County
b. Strategically increase zoning densities to
facilitate compact development patterns
City, County
c. Develop mixed -used ordinance City, County
d. Strengthen and formalize incentives for
affordable housing developers
City, County
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
IHTF, HASU, Community
Rebuilds, Developers,
Business Owners, Citizens
IHTF, HASU, Community
Rebuilds, Developers,
Business Owners, Citizens
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, Citizens
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, Citizens
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
2017
2017
2017 -
2018
2017 -
2018
STATUS
City —In Progress
County —Draft
ordinance under
review
Will begin
following adoption
of assured housing
ordinance.
Incorporate into
zoning density
discussions;
Downtown Plan
Process; Southern
US-191 Corridor
Planning
City — In Progress
County — Existing
incentives deemed
ineffective
46
4. LAND USE CODE CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING (continued
ACTION STEPS
e. Review City and County Land Use Codes to
identify and document barriers to affordable
housing and engage in public process to
mitigate or remove those barriers.
LEAD AGENCY
City, County
f. Create zoning regulations for "tiny houses"
City, County
and "tiny house communities."
g. Encourage land use efficiency by allowing
City, County
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
h. Expand infill development opportunities
through use -specific design standards
City, County
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, Citizens
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, Citizens
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, Citizens
IHTF, City and County
Staff, Local Developers
and Builders, Citizens
2019
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
City —
Development
Code overhaul
2016; planned for 2017
Ongoing County —Several
amendments
adopted in 2016;
Ongoing
Several workshops
provided to the
2017 Moab community;
Preliminary
research complete
City — Done
2016; County — Done
Ongoing (regulations
updated in 2016)
2017 -
Will begin in 2017
47
5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK PRESERVATION
ACTION STEPS
a. Conduct Mousing Inventory
b. Identify dilapidated units and work with
property owners to upgrade or replace with
safe, adequate housing
c. Investigate incentives to rehabilitate
deteriorated units
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
IHTF, Southeastern Utah
Association of Local City, County
Governments (SEU-ALG)
Community Rebuilds,
HASU
d. Promote mobile home rental to ownership HASU, MACLT
e, Investigate temporary housing alternatives IHTF, HASU, MACLT
2018
SEU-ALG Weatherization
SEU-ALG, City, County Program, CDBG, USDA, City, 2018
County
Rural Development USDA, HUD, State, SEUALG Year 0-1
2016;
IHTF, USDA, OWHLF Local banking institutions
Ongoing
2017 -
City and County Staff 2018
Discussions with
SEU-ALG ongoing
f. Provide tax abatement on residential County Council, County 2017 — Will begin
rehabilitation and replacement for low- County Assessor, Clerk, and County 2018 discussions in
income households Treasurer 2017
g. Inventory existing subsidized units and HASU USDA, CDBG, OWHLF 2018
chart financing/flip cycle
h. Require housing mitigation plans when County, City IHTF 2017 - Will begin
land use applications propose demolition of 2018 discussions in
existing housing units 2017
48
6b
8upSu0
`8I O Z
Suio8uO
'8ZOZ
Oup2u0
`8ZOZ
saap!noad Al!1!1n `melS
Alunoo pue A1D 'nsvH
saap!noad A1!I!ln `JlelS
Aluno' pue A1D'nSt1H
saap!noid A1!Illn `e1S
Alunoj pue AlD 'nSdH
sluawanoadw! Oupnpaa A2aaua aol
d1H1 san!luaau! pue sueol lsaaalu!-nnol alouaoad •>i
uopnpaa
d1H1
lsoa Amin lnoge uo!lewaoiu! D!lgnd apinwd f
d11-11 sweawd Aauap!la A2aaua alowom
Sn1d1S
31t/O
139ad1
SD)i nOS
9NIONnd 3191SSOd
SH3N1Nt/d
NOI1`d1NDUldWl
1JN39'd CIV31
Sd31S NOLDV
(panupoo) N0LLVAb3921d NDOlS ONISf10H 318VC111033t/ 'S
6. DEED RESTRICTIONS
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
a. Require all new affordable housing to
include deed restrictions
b. Establish minimum requirements for
affordable housing deed restrictions to be
used in the City and County
City, County
City, County
c. Create a library of deed restrictions with
standardized language and make available to IHTF
project developers
d. Work with USDA to establish deed
restrictions for 502-direct and 523-
guaranteed loan programs
e. Establish agreements and funding
mechanisms for deed restriction
administration
f. Update property assessments to better
delineate appreciation due to land versus
buildings
HASU, Community
Rebuilds
City, County
County Assessor
IHTF
City, County, Community RCAC
Rebuilds
City, County
IHTF, HASU, Community
Rebuilds, MACLT
IHTF, HASU, Community
Rebuilds, Appraisers,
Bankers
TARGET
DATE
2016;
Ongoing
2017 -
2018
STATUS
City —In Progress
County —Done
City —In Progress
County —In
Progress
Community
2017 Rebuilds— In
Progress
2016;
In Progress
Ongoing
2017 -
2018
2017 —
2018
City —In Progress
County —In
Progress
Will begin in 2017
50
7. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN PRACTICES
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
a. Provide educational resources to local
development community
b. Provide a library of pre -approved building
plans for affordable housing to local
developers
City, County, IHTF
IHTF
City and County Staff,
Local Developers and
Builders, HASU,
Community Rebuilds,
American Planning
Association (APA),
American Institute of
Architects (AIA), Smart
Growth America
2017;
Ongoing
MACLT, Local Architects, 2017;
Developers, and Builders Ongoing
One design
complete and
nearly approved;
Library host to be
determined
51
8. DEVELOPMENT COSTS REDUCTION
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
a. Establish housing funds within the City and
County budgets to support the development
of affordable housing
b. Evaluate opportunities to develop housing
or mixed use developments on publicly
owned parcels
City, County, Special
Service Districts (SSDs)
City, County, SSDs, State
and Federal Land
Management Agencies
c. Implement guidelines for fee waivers and
deferrals (e.g. impact fees, development City, County, SSDs
review fees, building permit fees, and others)
d. Consider offering direct subsidies to eligible
low-income households or developers of
affordable housing
City, County
City and County Staff,
Special Service District
Staff, Local Developers
and Builders, Public
Finance Experts
City and County Staff,
Special Service District
Staff, Local Developers
and Builders, Public
Finance Experts
City and County Staff,
Special Service District
Staff, Local Developers
and Builders, Public
Finance Experts
City and County Staff,
Special Service District
Staff, Local Developers
and Builders, Public
Finance Experts
2016;
Ongoing
City, County, Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
2016;
Ongoing
CDBG, Olene Walker
Housing Loan Fund
(OWHLF), USDA, EDA,
CDBG, Private Donors
2016;
Ongoing
2017;
Ongoing
City—Doone
County —Done
SSDs—In Progress
Map of publicly
owned parcels
provided to City
and County Staff in
2016; Evaluation
of development
opportunities —
Ongoing
City —In Progress
County —Done
SSDs—In Progress
Depends on
creation of
housing funds with
committed
revenue source
52
9. HOMELESSNESS
ACTION STEPS
LEAD AGENCY
IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
POSSIBLE FUNDING
SOURCES
TARGET
DATE
STATUS
a. Work with Local Homeless Coordinating Homeless Coordinating
IHTF
Committee to consider needs of the homeless Committee
b. Expand membership
c. Establish operational budget
State of Utah
IHTF members
participated in a
permanent
supportive
2017; housing (PSH)
Ongoing toolkit in 2016;
Homeless
Coordinating
Committee —
Ongoing
Homeless Coordinating 2017;
IHTF Ongoing
Committee g g
Homeless Coordinating City, County State of Utah, Veterans 2018;
Committee Affairs Ongoing
53
XIV. HOUSING TERMINOLOGY
Affordable housing involves many federal, state, and local agencies, programs, budgets, and stakeholders, each with
their own housing vernacular. The following is a list of common terms used in the affordable housing arena:
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) -- A secondary and typically smaller dwelling unit built on a parcel with a primary
dwelling unit. These are sometimes referred to as "mother-in-law" apartments.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) -- Gross income minus adjustments to income.
Affordable Housing -- Federal and State policies consider housing to be affordable when housing costs consume no
more than 30 percent of gross annual household income; this standard particularly applies to households earning less
than 80 percent of Area Median Income. Rental housing costs include rent, water, gas, and electric payments.
Ownership housing costs include mortgage, taxes, insurance, water, sewer, gas, electric payments and homeowner
association fees. Some federal policies consider housing to be affordable when the gross household income remaining
after all housing costs are paid is sufficient to cover other essential expenditures such as food, clothing, healthcare,
transportation, and childcare. This alternative definition of affordable housing is referred to as residual income.
Affordability Gap -- A term that generally refers to the difference between the average sales price for a typical
single family home and the amount that a household could afford to pay for that home without spending more than
thirty percent of gross annual household income on total housing costs. This figure is typically computed for households
earning the Area Median Income.
Area Median Income (AMI) -- Also, Area Median Family Income (MFI) -- The income level of
households in a community where half the households of the same size earn more than the AMI and half earn less than
the AMI. Each year the federal government designates the AMI for a community for households of 1-8 people. Many
affordable housing programs use AMI to determine household eligibility. In 2016, the AMI for a household of four in
Grand County was $64,300 per year (HUD).
Assured Housing -- Also, Inclusionary Zoning or Fair -Share Housing -- A set of policies that requires new
development to include affordable housing. Private housing developers may be required to build deed -restricted
affordable housing as a percentage of or in addition to market rate housing. A community may adopt assured housing
policies to meet a variety of community goals including economic integration and targeted development. Often,
development incentives are utilized to offset the reduced profit associated with construction of deed -restricted units.
Private commercial or non-residential developers may be provided several compliance alternatives including on -site
construction, off -site construction, land dedications, fee -in lieu, or others.
Attainable Housing -- A term with multiple meanings that generally refers to housing that is affordable to a
household earning between 80 percent (80%) and 120 percent (120%) of AMI.
Community Land Trust (CLT) -- A non-profit organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development [HUD]. A CLT acquires land through purchase or donation, then allows housing units to be built on
the land through ground leases. By removing the cost of land acquisition and restricting occupancy to income eligible
households, the CLT reduces the overall cost of construction. This helps keep the housing units affordable.
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) -- A non-profit organization recognized by HUD.
A CHDO develops and/or operates affordable housing projects. A CHDO can access a wider range of public and private
financing than other non-profit organizations or government agencies.
54
Cost -burdened -- Households paying more than 30 percent (30%) of gross annual household income are considered
cost -burdened.
CROWN Program -- An affordable home lease -to -purchase program funded by low income housing tax credits
available through the Utah Housing Corporation to qualifying families earning up to 60 percent of AMI. After the
expiration of the 15 year compliance period, the tenants occupying the home have the option of purchasing the home
for an amount equal to the unpaid balance of the financing sources plus a portion of the original equity invested.
Program includes training in personal finance, home maintenance, and repair.
Deed Restrictions -- Part of the deed to a property, restrictions can impose purchase or rental eligibility
requirements, limit the price at which a property can be sold, or limit the rental rate an owner may charge. Deed
restrictions help keep properties affordable over time.
Density Bonus -- Density bonuses allow developers to increase the number of housing units they may build on a
parcel above what is normally allowed in the zone. In exchange, the developer deed -restricts a percentage of the units
so they remain affordable to income -eligible households over time.
Development Code Barrier Reduction or Elimination -- Modification of local housing development codes to
improve land use and reduce housing costs. Many communities are examining local zoning rules to ascertain if there are
regulations (excessive setbacks, height limits, road widths, density restrictions, etc.) that make it difficult to build both
market rate and affordable housing.
Doubling Up -- More than one household living in the same housing unit. In some instances, more than two
households may live in the same housing unit. In the context of this document, the authors refer to multiple households
living together out of necessity more than choice.
Employer Assisted Housing Program -- In some communities, businesses or government agencies attract and
retain key employees by helping them find and pay for housing. Sometimes the help comes in the form of low- or no -
interest loans, forgivable loans, or down payment assistance. Employers can develop their own individual programs or
join with other employers to pool their money into one fund.
Essential Housing -- Also, Workforce Housing -- A term used to describe housing available to a class of
individuals often viewed as vital community service providers, such as police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and
others. In the Moab Area, service industry employees are also viewed as essential service providers.
Fair Market Rent (FMR) -- Rent level guidelines for the Housing Choice Voucher Program established by HUD for
each county in the United States.
Fast -Track Development Process -- An expedited project approval process for developments with affordable
housing units. Reducing review time can often reduce housing costs. May include "front of the line" policies for
reviewing projects.
Fee Deferrals or Waivers -- The fees charged to new construction adds to the cost of an affordable housing
project. In some instances local government will allow developers to pay the fees at a later time (fee deferral) or, in
some cases, pay the fees for the developer (fee waiver) in order to lower the cost of construction. In all cases, local
government should acknowledge that impacts are still created, but the manner in which they are accounted for is
adjusted.
55
Household Income -- The combined gross income of all residents in a household. Income includes wages and
salaries, unemployment insurance, disability payments, and child support. Household residents do not have to be
related to the householder for their earnings to be considered part of household income.
Housing Quality Standards -- Building safety standards units must meet to qualify for participation in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program and other state rental assistance programs.
Housing Rehabilitation ProgramS -- Low interest loans or grants available to low-income property owners and
tenants to repair, improve, or modernize their dwellings or to remove health and safety problems.
Housing Trust Fund -- A community may collect public and private funding that can be used to subsidize affordable
housing projects in that community.
HUD -- United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Inclusionary Zoning -- See Assured Housing
Income Eligible Households -- Each affordable housing program defines the income range for households that are
eligible to participate in that program.
Land Banking -- A strategy for identifying and securing lots and undeveloped tracts of land to support future
affordable housing development. When referring to private land holdings, land banking may refer to investment
strategy where property owners choose not to develop housing, suppress supply, and achieve a higher return on
investment later.
Local Match -- A local contribution of actual or in -kind funds required to "match" or leverage Federal, State, and
other funding. Local matches reflect local commitment to the creation of affordable housing units.
Low-income -- Household income between 30 percent and 50 percent of Area Median Income as defined by HUD.
Manufactured Home -- A factory -built, single family structure designed for long-term occupancy that meets the
Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of 1976 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401, commonly known as the
HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) Code. Such houses are delivered on permanently attached
axels and wheels and are frequently referred to as "modular" when constructed in more than one building section.
Mobile Home Conversion from Rental to Resident Ownership -- As land prices increase, there is often
financial pressure on mobile home park owners to close the parks and convert the properties to more profitable uses.
Residents of mobile home parks sometimes can, with help from government agencies and non-profit groups, purchase
the mobile home parks they live in, thereby preserving the park for affordable housing use.
Mobile Home Park Loans -- The State of Utah and various non-profit affordable housing organizations provide
low -interest loans to residents of mobile home parks to purchase the parks.
Moderate -Income -- Household income between 50 percent and 80 percent of Area Median Income as defined by
HUD.
Mobile Home -- A residential dwelling fabricated in an off -site manufacturing facility designed to be a permanent
residence, and built prior to the enforcement of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards
beginning June 15, 1976.
56
Modular Home -- A structure intended for long-term residential use and manufactured in an offsite facility in
accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), or the International Residential Code (IRC). This housing type is
produced in one or more building sections and do not have permanent, attached axels and wheels.
Mutual Self Help Housing Program -- A federally funded rural "sweat -equity" home ownership program for
low-income families. A group of families collectively construct their homes supervised by a non-profit housing
developer. Families contribute at least 65 percent (65%) of home construction labor.
Overlay Zone -- A special zoning district that may encompass one or more underlying zones and imposes additional
requirements beyond the regulations for development in the underlying zone(s). Overlay zones deal with special
situations that are not necessarily appropriate for a specific zoning district or that apply to several districts. For example,
a provision of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone that covers one or more zones might require that tracts above a
specified acreage that are proposed for higher density development would also include a percentage of affordable or
low-income housing units.
Payroll Wage -- The gross pay an employee receives for a given amount of time worked, typically hourly, weekly,
monthly, or yearly. Gross refers to the pay an employee would receive before withholdings are made for such things as
taxes, contributions, and savings plans.
Public Private Partnerships -- Partnerships between local governments, non-profit housing organizations, and the
private sector established to meet local affordable housing needs by bringing additional resources and skills to the
process.
Real Estate Transfer Assessment (Voluntary) -- Fees assessed when real estate properties are sold. These
fees are then used to subsidize affordable housing programs.
Severely Cost -burdened -- Households paying more than 50 percent (50%) of gross annual household income are
considered severely cost -burdened.
Subsidized Housing -- Housing sold or rented at below market values due to government or private contributions.
Tax Abatement on Residential Construction and Rehabilitation Improvements -- Incentive to
construct affordable housing or improve existing residential properties through tax relief or elimination. The increase in
property tax assessed value generated by residential construction or home improvements is not taxed for a number of
years, or the taxable amount is reduced by a certain percentage. Taxes associated with the assessed value before the
construction or improvements take place are still collected.
Tiny Home -- An umbrella term that describes housing units under 400 sq. ft. in size. While an approved primary
residence or ADU may be classified as a tiny home based on square footage, the term often refers to housing units built
for temporary occupancy and that do not meet the IBC, IRC, or HUD construction standards.
Transfer Of Development Rights (TDR) -- The removal of the right to develop or build, expressed in dwelling
units per acre or floor area, from property in one zoning district, and the transfer of that right to land in another district
where the transfer is permitted. The transfer may be made by the sale or exchange of all or a part of the permitted
density of one parcel to another.
USDA -- United States Department of Agriculture.
57
Vacancy Rate -- In this report, vacancy rate refers to the percentage of all housing units that are not currently
inhabited by full-time occupants. A vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual
residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a
point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place.
Very Low-income -- Household income below 30 percent of Area Median Income as defined by HUD.
58
CITY OF MOAB
PLANNING RESOLUTION #04-2017
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE MOAB AREA AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MOAB GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Moab City Council (Council) adopted the General Plan (Plan) as amended, by
resolution on January 8, 2002 to provide an official statement of goals and policies for the future
development of Moab City; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan, in Section 5, Subsection II, Affordable Housing, establishes that the City
shall support efforts to develop affordable housing and especially the efforts of the Housing Authority of
Southeastern Utah (HASU) to meet the needs of low to moderate -income families and individuals; and,
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City of Moab, Grand County and HASU established that an affordable
housing issue existed within Grand County and initiated a joint proposal to fund and jointly pursue the
creation of a community -wide affordable housing plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Moab, Grand County and HASU created the Interlocal Housing Task
Force, to develop The Grand County and City Of Moab Housing Study and Affordable Housing Plan
(Affordable Housing Plan); and,
WHEREAS, the need for an update to the Affordable Housing Plan is required by state law and
the Task Force has diligently drafted a 2016 Moab Area Affordable Housing Plan to:
• assess the current and projected need for affordable housing units;
• review the effectiveness of the community's past and present affordable housing efforts;
• identify local housing barriers/impediments/incentives;
• recommend potential strategies to meet the affordable housing need; and
• encourage cooperation between Grand County, the City of Moab, and HASU to develop a
specific Action Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with USC 10-9a-302, the Moab Planning Commission determined that
it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Moab that the Affordable Housing PIan be adopted by
reference, the same as if set forth in its entirety, to become an addendum to the Moab General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission by the adoption of Planning Resolution #10-2009, on the date of
said meeting, determined that the Affordable Housing Plan is critical for a sustainable and healthy Moab
and addresses the lack of affordable housing in the community of Moab and Grand County, Utah.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MOAB PLANNING COMMISSION, that
the Commission favorably recommends that the Moab City Council ("Council") consider the Moab Area
Affordable Housing Plan as an essential element of the General Plan and that it is in conformance with the
stated goals and objectives of the Plan as well as the State of Utah Workforce Housing Initiative.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by unanimous vote of the Moab Planning Commission in open session this 26th
day of January, 2017.
eanette Kopell
Chair
7--./7
Date