The State of Utah has conceived its approach to consolidated planning on major premise and that is that local governments should determine their own priorities for the expenditure of scarce public funds. In order to implement this request the state utilized existing organizational structures, primarily the Association of Government network of the state. Each of these agencies are administered by professionals and directed by local governments themselves. In that rural areas of the state can not afford to hire and maintain professional staff persons, they can obtain these services collectively. The state provided some assistance to these agencies to study the needs of local governments in their region and then to prepare detailed plans concerning the provision of these needs and then to obtain direction from the localities in determining priorities. In effect there are seven consolidated plans in the state. The Consolidated Plan of the State of Utah is an outgrowth of these multiple year efforts.
Fiscal Year 1995 Funding levels:
The role of the State of Utah was to draw some statewide conclusions from the seven studies produced locally and to then set its own goals to assist local governments statewide in resolving its highest priority needs. There was significant consensus throughout the various plans.
The State of Utah will use all of its CDBG allocation in meeting these highest housing and community development priorities as listed in this summary. The CDBG funds will be targeted more toward the community development kinds of projects and then make available the HOME funds and ESG funds to deal with the large housing needs. However, if grantees prioritize housing needs as their highest priority, CDBG funds will be targeted to augment these other program funds in the hope of accelerating solutions to the housing crisis in the state.
Utah's Action Plan identifies the implementation of the vision statements which in effect are the establishment of needs and priorities. The expenditure of funds as implemented in 1995 are in general compliance with the priories of the vision plan. The highest priorities are in water projects. Utah will spend 25% of the 1995 allocation on culinary water projects. This is the highest percentage of any of the funding categories. Planning, the second priority, is limited to regions primarily as well as the 20% program cap. There is still 5% of the allocation spent on physical planning as well as an additional 6% in economic development planning. In combination, planning is the fourth highest category in terms of actual expenditures. Emergency services is the third priority in the vision statement and due to past expenditures come in at only 4% of the funding available. Sewer and storm drainage and ADA projects are 13% and 10% respectively of the funding and they are at the lower end of the priorities but are very necessary despite this. We are seeing a decreasing trend due the large expenditures in years past to accomplish ADA compliance especially. There are only so many city building and facilities which need to be made accessible and then the funding will decrease significantly. Sewer projects will remain significant due to the aging of systems.
From the very beginning of this consolidated planning process it was the intention of the State of Utah to involve citizens at all levels of the process and we were able to accomplish this to a large degree. According to the original plan the state would decentralize the preparation of these plans to the each of the 7 regions of the state. The regions were expected to prepare a plan reflective of the needs of many people, agencies, cities, towns and counties. The steps expected in this process included scoping meetings, town meetings, development of committees, use of existing committees, detailed surveys sent to individuals, groups and elected officials, public hearings and productions of executive summaries sent to dozens of interested persons. The state then was able to summarize these efforts and then hold its own hearings and obtain validation from its citizens as well as from the CDBG Policy Committee and State housing committees. The public has access to one 30 day comment period for the state document and seven 30 day comment periods, 1 for each of the seven regions of the state. There were 7 public hearings held during the comment periods as well.
Utah citizens have had many opportunities to get involved in the
consolidated planning process at their own local level as well as the state
level. There were 240 days of public comment period available. There were over
20 public hearings and 10 scoping meetings held. Hundreds of copies of draft
documents and executive summaries were sent out to individuals and agencies. We
feel comfortable that this plan has received wide coverage and that it does
reflect a consensus of what needs to be done to improve the quality of life in
Utah by wise stewardship of public funds.
Based on the Bureau of the Census 1994 estimates, the State of Utah currently has a population of 1,907,975 and is growing about 2% per year and its growth rate is accelerating. This consolidated plan covers the non-entitlement areas of the state. The cities of Salt Lake, West Valley, West Jordan and Sandy as well as Salt Lake County itself are excluded from this plan. This reduces the population served by this plan by 795,340 persons to 1,112,635. Ogden City (67,763) in Weber County, Provo City (88,519) and Orem City (74,402) are excluded as is Clearfield City (23,345) in Davis County under a special designation. The overall population served by this consolidated plan is 858,606.
The state of Utah population is made up of 9% minority populations living primarily along the Wasatch Mountains (Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Weber Counties. The largest minority in the state is Hispanic (5%) followed by Asian (2%), Native American (1.5%) and Black (.5%). The are two large reservations in the state where a majority of Native Americans live. They are in the northeastern area of the state (Uintah Basin) and the extreme southeastern part of the state. The Navaho Reservation is primarily in Arizona with the northern extension in Utah.
The income characteristics of the state show lower per-capita income ($9,791) than other states in the west due primarily to an extremely high birth rate and a large number of persons in the younger age classifications. There are approximately half of the population living in the State of Utah which are classified as low or moderate income. There are a significant number of people underemployed due to the service nature of many of the jobs available in the state. We have a very low unemployment rate usually below 4%. Many of the jobs however are lower paying without much opportunity for advancement. The state has a very high rate of graduation from high school and a higher than normal number of persons with advanced college degrees. An atypical percentage of minorities persons are in the lower income categories and due to that lower income a higher percentage of inadequate housing is experienced by non-white persons. There are approximately 44,000 housing units in the non-entitlement areas of the state in need of significant rehabilitation which are occupied by persons with incomes 30% of median. Many of these families are minorities.
The State of Utah is in a rapid growth period currently with significant
in-migration from areas around the western and central parts of the country,
primarily California. It will be very easy to lose track of the lower income
persons and families during this growth period unless there is careful planning
done to insure that these persons are brought into the planning and
implementation processes. Provisions for job enhancement and training,
education opportunities, housing choice and assistance and infrastructure
improvement must be part of any consolidated planning analysis.
The current housing situation in the State of Utah can be generally summarized by stating the documented fact that there is a severe shortage of housing statewide. There are a lack of vacancies in all types of housing but it is particularly acute in rental housing. In those areas of the state which have higher unemployment rates such as the Uintah Basin, there are significant shortages of rental housing.
There are areas of the state, based on the information presented in the regional consolidated plans, which are experiencing current housing problems at rates higher than the statewide average. These problems may be supply problems or they may be higher deterioration rates in existing housing. Due to the lack of housing, cost of housing is a major problem for lower income people who desire to purchase or even to rent what housing might be available. These areas of the state which are experiencing the most severe problems excluding entitlement and consortium areas, include Utah and Weber Counties along the Wasatch Front with supply and affordability concerns. The Logan City area has a significant supply problem with some rehabilitation issues. The Uintah Basin is also experiencing supply, affordability and significant deterioration problems. Moab City/Spanish Valley and San Juan County generally have an overwhelming affordable housing supply shortage. The entire Six-County Region is suffering supply as well as significant deterioration problems in some areas and the St. George/Cedar City area has primarily a affordable housing shortage problem. There are of course other areas of the state where projects are needed and the state would like to focus state and federal resources in any project where there is a local organization willing to sponsor and administer a meaningful project.
Other housing issues which need to be addressed are:
Affordable Housing Needs
Those families and individuals who have incomes less than 30% of median are living in substandard conditions generally with the largest problem being overcrowding and a secondary problem is deterioration. There is a severe shortage of multiple family housing in the affordable classification. Most rural areas oppose multiple unit housing with affordable rental rents on the grounds that they perceive these units not to be well maintained and that they become law enforcement problems. Efforts should start with changing the public perceptions and then resources should be used to create new multiple family residential programs to increase supply. Rehabilitation of existing homes occupied by lower income persons should become the second priority. Beginning with frail elderly and elderly female heads of households on fixed social security incomes, which make up a majority of those in these categories which assume the highest priority. The next priority group who are in the 30% and 50% of median income are large families where the parents are underemployed or unemployed. We must increase the supply of large unit, 3 bed bedroom or more, rental housing to allow these families housing choice and to help to bring down the skyrocketing rental rates currently being experienced in our economy.
Homeless Needs
The homeless population in the State of Utah continues to grow and outpace the development of facilities to house them. Studies show that there are over 2400 homeless persons in Utah currently. An increasing number of these persons are members of homeless families which require different facilities separate from single homeless persons. There are 38 facilities throughout the state which provide short term housing for homeless persons. Some of these are specifically applied to special populations such a spousal abuse shelters or rape crisis centers. There are 1,400 beds available. Some of these facilities can be expanded in emergencies. This means of course that there are near 1000 of the states homeless population which do not have adequate shelter each night. In the winter this is a very serious problem. There are two new facilities being developed currently but it still does not meet the needs.
The strategy that the state has developed to begin to address this significant problem involves several steps. The first priority is to deal with the causes of homelessness and prevent it from happening in the first place. Secondly, support the creation and maintenance of shelters while creating transitional and permanent housing helping to alleviate the numbers of persons actually in shelters. To augment this step government must provide services to the homeless to help them to take advantage of programs, facilities, training, employment opportunities along with the provision of housing itself.
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
The need for section 8 certificates and vouchers as well as other public housing far exceeds the supply at this time. There are waiting lists for subsidized units which now exceed 48 months in some areas. The average would now be close to two years in many areas. The numbers of evictions and foreclosures has increased significantly over the last two years. We must be able to increase the availability or see the homeless population explode. Landlords know that they can rent an apartment quickly and get inflated rates due to the economy of the state and the state of housing as a result of this growth period. We will use all of the housing tools available to us in order to keep up at least to some degree in future. The housing authorities in the state are developing additional public housing. The housing we do have is in reasonably good repair at this time.
Persons with Special Housing Needs:
Elderly and Frail Elderly: There are over 200,000 persons in the state over the age of 60 years which is about 12% of the population. These people need special housing with varied kinds of care ranging from no need to 24 hour nursing care. We must try to keep elderly persons in their own home as long as possible. This can be done with family assistance and by home health care which needs to be expanded. Expansion of low income rental housing should be accomplished. Care facilities must be expanded as well as affordable rental facilities as transitional housing. There needs to be the development of this type of housing in advance of the significant increases of elderly as baby boomers advance into the elderly population in the next 10 to 15 years.
Disabled Persons: The statistics show that 70% of the approximately 72,000 disabled persons in Utah are unemployed and are confined to a wheelchair at least part of the day. Most of these persons are renters (59%) and virtually all of them would rather own their own home. Only 1 in 4 disabled persons lives in an accessible home or apartment. The state requires that 10% of units be accessible but this is apparently not fully addressing the problem. We must make more units accessible so that this large population of persons will be able to find suitable housing. Many owners find that they can not rent accessible units due primarily to the inability of disabled persons to afford to pay even a subsidized rent. This stems back to the fact that only 30% of the disabled are employed. While we provide more units we must find ways of training and employing disabled persons.
Persons with AIDs and Related Diseases: There were 1,698 cases of AIDS reported to the state in 1994 and estimates have been made that Utah experiences an increase of at least 10% of AIDS cases each year. The estimated total number of persons with HIV/AIDS infections is 6,500. The state actually lost ground last year in the number of housing units available to AIDS victims. An 8 unit facility was torn down and not replaced. There are approximately 20 units dedicated to persons with AIDS at this time far below the need. Persons with advanced cases of AIDS can not pay market rents and have limited ability to obtain employment and therefore need significant assistance. We concentrate on creating more housing units to address this need especially along the Wasatch front where more than 85% of the cases are found. In Utah there are not a large number of persons with Tuberculosis but without proper treatment and confinement it could get out of hand quickly. We will need at least 20 units of housing for these persons over the next five years.
Barriers to affordable and Fair Housing
A detailed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing plan is currently being created by the state and is looking at the impediments to fair housing choice for all persons. The study is looking at the supply of affordable housing, lending practices by banks in all areas of the state, local government land-use controls and biases. It will also analyze the types of housing being produced in terms of all of the various kinds of housing including but not limited to the major shortages in multiple family rentals, large unit single family rentals, etc..
Lead-Based Paint
Current estimates indicate that Utah has a problem with lead based paint. There are about 452,490 houses in Utah built before 1979 and about 203,000 are expected to have LBP used in them. Utah is just beginning to develop specific methods to deal with the LBP problem to determine just how extensive the situation really is at this time. Some activities are already in place and some are in the process of being initiated. The Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Air Quality has been identified as the States' main point of contact. This division has recently applied for and been awarded a grant of $171,367 to determine the State's need to conduct training, accreditation, and certification programs for lead-based paint activities identified under Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The project will identify key stakeholders, including minority groups, determine the status of data bases with information about previous lead related activities, including housing stock age, and prior LBP data collection and blood lead data collection status. It will identify locations of candidate structures for LBP sampling and shall compile a baseline library of State-specific lead-related information including the results of blood lead activities, training capacity, etc.
The State of Utah in calander year 1994, commissioned a detailed infrastructure study to determine the quality and quantity of all local government responsibilities. We desired to find out about the status of the various systems so that we could then determine how best to allocate federal and state funds in conjunction with local and private funds to address the highest priority problems.
Land Use Analysis
The state commenced in 1993 an effort, paid for by state funds, to completely rewrite all general plans for all of the rural counties. This is being done to allow counties to deal with public land issues as well as control growth in the unincorporated areas. Three counties have completed their plans and 4 more are underway now. The status of planning in rural communities is mixed in that some communities have decided to control growth to be the type they want and where they want it. These are the communities that trying to maintain a particular, usually rural, low density, relaxed, lifestyle. These communities are characterized by wide roads, large lots and few amenities due to a limited tax base. There are some communities that have made concerted efforts to develop by doing concerted economic development and investments in speculative infrastructure development like industrial or business parks. Most of rural Utah does deal with planning to limited degree in that individual freedoms to use land however they want is a right. The philosophical hesitation to do active land use management has limited state of the art planning in Utah.
Infrastructure Needs Assessments
The previously identified infrastructure studies reviewed all of the typical
services which are provided by local governments and the following goal and
objective or vision statement will identify the priorities in which they will be
addressed. The review of condition was accomplished mainly through surveys
delivered to mayors and public works directors or city engineers where available
or in direct interviews.
The key part of this strategic plan is to carefully design a plan for consensus at both the state and local levels. Local governments need to buy into the plans goals, objectives and then set its own priorities within the general framework. Through the use of locally developed Consolidated Plans we are able to obtain this commitment at all levels. The following priorities are listed based on state perceived problems and issues as well as the importance activities have in each regional Consolidated Plan. We will apply available funding not necessarily limited to just HUD funds, based on the priorities which are established. The development of these plans at the regional level is unprecedented and the importance is increasing into other state funding programs. We will try to enhance this trend.
Community Development
Economic Development
In 1995 the State will begin the implementation of this plan immediately in all HUD programs including the Community Development Block Grant, HOME and ESG.
Community Development Block Grants: These program funds are utilized consistent with the distribution methodologies developed by regional planning agencies and approved by the state. Existing distribution methodologies will be utilized in 1995 due to the fact that the new plan was not complete at that time and the updated "Final Statement was in effect. In the future, specifically in the 1996 update of the consolidated plan will be implemented by direct correlation and consistency with each rating and ranking criteria at the regional level. In that each region has completed a consolidated plan in their region we will require consistency with the regional plan first which they have prepared and then it will also be in compliance with the state plan as well. State certifications will be required nevertheless.
Community Development: The action plan identifies the implementation of the vision statements which in effect are the establishment of needs and priorities. The expenditure of funds as implemented in 1995 are in general compliance with the priorities of the vision plan. The highest priorities in the community development program are water related. We are spending 25% of the 1995 allocation on culinary water projects. This is the highest percentage of any of the funding categories. The planning priority in 2nd position is limited to regions primarily as well as the 20% program cap. There is still 5% of the allocation spent on physical planning as well as an additional 6% in economic development planning. In combination, planning is the fourth highest category in terms of actual expenditures. Emergency services is the third priority in the vision statement and due to past expenditures come in at only 4% of the funding available. Sewer/storm drainage and ADA projects were 13% and 10% respectively of the funding and they are at the lower end of the priorities but are very necessary despite this. We are seeing a decreasing trend due the large expenditures in years past to accomplish ADA compliance especially. There are only so many city building and facilities which need to be made accessible and then the funding will decrease significantly. Sewer projects will remain significant due to the aging of systems.
The State of Utah in preparation for the 1996 update of the Consolidated plan will expend its efforts to accomplish several tasks over the next few months:
Task 1. Prepare new regional Consolidated Plan updates. The new updates will consist of new capital investment plans, updated vision statements and new one year action plans.
Task 2. Education and public participation efforts will be accomplished with regional councils, local elected officials, citizens (especially low income persons), non-profits including housing authorities, and other organizations to get involved in the consolidated planning process. The decision makers especially will be educated so that the implementation process can be more effective.
Task 3. Projects will be developed to accomplish the priorities established in the local plans. The State and regions will begin to work with local governments and their engineers and other officials to create meaningful projects completed to address significant regional issues. The detailed analysis of problems and solutions will be the catalyst for this process.
Task 4. Projects will be developed based on the priories in the housing, community development and economic development sections of this State plan as amended in 1996 as well.
Task 5. Implementation of a "Performance Measure" program will be accomplished, beginning with a policy retreat in June of 1995 and ending with adoption of such a program with the consolidated plan update in 1996.
Task 6. Expand the citizen participation program initiated in 1995 and now emphasize individual involvement including the creation of neighborhood organizations to respond to and develop priories and projects with elected officials.
Task 7. Work with the Wasatch Front Region to develop four county or the "Council of Governments" level consolidated plans so as to make them meaningful in the decision making process. A separate plan would be developed in Davis, Weber, Morgan, and Tooele counties.
Task 8. Complete the development of a compatible but separate "affirmatively furthering fair housing plan" for the State.
Mr. Richard Walker
Program Manager
Division of Community Development
324 S. State Street, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Telephone: (801) 538-8730