UAC presenters outline new housing foundation to funnel county project-area set‑asides into local workforce housing grants

Brandy, a presenter for the Utah Association of Counties, told Morgan County commissioners on July 15 that a proposed nonprofit ‘‘housing foundation’’ would give some rural counties an option to keep required project‑area affordable housing funds locally and use them strategically to produce entry‑level homes. Nut graf: The presenters framed the foundation as a vehicle for counties that receive tax‑increment set‑asides from project areas (for example, increment from large solar or industrial projects) to pool those funds, vet developer proposals and award grants that reduce the cost gap preventing developers from building smaller, attainable units. The plan is advisory — counties would choose to participate and retain local land‑use control — and the foundation had not yet received county funds or taken formal action. The presenters described how earlier project areas in rural counties produced tax increment but lacked local housing plans; state statute requires a 10% set‑aside from certain project‑area increment for affordable housing. Brandy said many counties preferred to keep that money locally rather than sending it to statewide funds. Dan Hammer, a former state senator and cabinet official who now advises the foundation, said the program would target households earning roughly 81–100% of area median income (AMI) — a workforce/attainable band he said is not fully addressed by federal affordable housing programs (which target households at 80% AMI or below). Under the draft program the presenters described, developers in participating counties could apply for a post‑performance grant (the foundation pays after work is complete and costs are documented) of up to 40% of a project’s costs to ‘‘buy down’’ price or rent so a share of units meet attainable thresholds. For rental projects the unit rent would have to be set so housing costs do not exceed 30% of household gross income using federal AMI banding; for for‑sale units the presenters said their draft used a 4x household‑income cap method (they said a typo in printed handouts had left a different figure). Grants would carry recorded restrictions (deed restrictions or similar covenants) to preserve affordability for a limited period; presenters referenced 10–30 years as examples discussed with other counties. Presenters emphasized the foundation would be optional: counties could continue to hold and allocate set‑aside funds themselves or send them to the existing statewide housing fund. They said the foundation would accept only money from participating counties and only applications for projects located in those counties, and that the foundation’s board and application rules would be set by member counties. No grant awards or county commitments were made at the meeting; presenters asked the commission whether Morgan County was interested in participating and said they would return with more detailed documents if the county wished to proceed. Ending: Commissioners asked about governance, reporting and how pooled money would be prioritized; presenters proposed annual reporting, recorded deed restrictions to enforce affordability periods and a vetting process the foundation would perform on applicants. Presenters asked interested counties to signal intent so the foundation could refine governance and program rules.