The Emery County Community Reinvestment Agency voted Sept. 4 to authorize $5,000 to finalize a county housing plan that will guide use of the CRA’s affordable‑housing set‑aside. The motion passed on roll call: Tom Huntington, Jordan Leonard, Jay Humphrey, Jacob Sharp and Kevin Jensen voted “aye.”

Board discussion before the vote covered multiple concepts for deploying the 10 percent affordable‑housing set‑aside that CRA law requires. Ideas raised by board members and staff included:

- Using CRA funds to buy manufactured/mobile homes (single‑wide or small dwellings) to place in existing, underused mobile‑home parks that already have hookups, then offering those homes on a rent‑to‑own schedule or other low‑interest repayment plan so buyers build equity; proponents said this approach uses existing infrastructure and reduces the barrier of obtaining new water hookups.

- Establishing a revolving loan fund or forgivable-loan programs for down-payment assistance; the draft housing plan includes examples such as forgivable loans (the draft suggested figures like up to $10,000 for down payments and $3,000 for closing costs as illustrative amounts, to be finalized in program guidelines).

- Piloting small senior housing near the new senior center and identifying county‑owned parcels or vacant hookups that could be repurposed for affordable small units.

- Considering partnerships and public‑private models so the CRA funds seed projects while private developers handle construction and long‑term management.

Staff and the Utah Association of Counties presenter emphasized legal limits and compliance needs: affordable‑housing funds must be income‑targeted under the statute, funds set aside for housing must be held in a separate fund and earn interest that remains with the housing set‑aside, and purchases or projects must meet income‑targeting requirements. The presenter said a draft housing plan had been prepared with outside legal and technical assistance and could be adopted as a framework to guide later, more-detailed applications and agreements; adoption of the framework would not obligate the CRA to fund every conceptual program in the plan.

Board members discussed implementation risks — including ongoing administration, possible competition with private sellers and developers, and the need for deed restrictions, monitoring and potential enforcement to prevent misuse (for example, ensuring income targeting and preventing quick resale as market housing or conversion to short‑term rentals).

After discussion, a board member moved and a second was given to pay $5,000 toward the final housing plan. The motion passed on roll call. Staff said the plan would provide the framework for future program rules, applications and deed‑restriction language, and the CRA’s housing set‑aside could later be used for revolving‑loan capital, manufactured‑home purchases, infrastructure components directly tied to an income‑targeted housing project, or other eligible activities as allowed by statute and local policy.