Summit County leaders vet plan to add 1,500 moderate‑income homes over 10 years

County staff on June 4 presented a draft Moderate Income Housing Strategic Plan that sets a target of 1,500 deed‑restricted units over 10 years and sketches where and how the county might add those homes.

The plan, introduced by presenters Peter Barnes and Jeff Jones, lays out why the county needs housing aimed at local workers and families and walks through demographic modeling that shaped the 1,500‑unit target. "The chief commitment ... was that commitment to 1,500 units in 10 years," Barnes said, framing the number as a stated county goal rather than a precise production recipe.

Why it matters: County officials said they want housing that helps local workers, seniors and families stay in the community while preserving local character. The plan’s authors said the numbers show a large share of demand will be single‑person and one‑ and two‑bedroom units, but that rebuilding population base requires some larger‑family units that typically need subsidy.

Most important findings and tradeoffs - Scale and pace: The staff noted that 1,500 units over 10 years equals roughly 50 affordable units per year. That annual target, the presenters argued, could be delivered as many small infill projects rather than a few large developments. - Household and unit mix: Jones presented a demographic breakdown showing single‑person households and two‑person households dominate demand in the county’s labor‑import ZIP codes; the county’s modeling projects a need across studio through four‑bedroom units with the greatest affordability challenge for three‑ and four‑bedroom units. - Price and AMI constraints: Staff modeled maximum purchase prices and rents that would be affordable at 80% of area median income (AMI). For example, the analysis estimated an 80% AMI two‑bedroom purchase would need to be at about $381,000 or less to be attainable using typical financing assumptions; staff noted such price points are rare in the county’s market. - Geography: As a starting distribution exercise, staff suggested a roughly two‑to‑one split with about 1,000 units on the Basin side (Park City/Kimball Junction area) and about 500 units in Eastern Summit County — a simple “fair‑share” allocation based on current population, not a final site plan.

Policy and tools discussed: Presenters described a toolkit of possible actions, including site identification and mapping, small‑site infill strategies (duplexes, triplexes and other “missing middle” housing), rural exception overlay sites on the East Side, public‑private partnerships, county land use adjustments, and targeted infrastructure investments to enable small projects in towns that have sewer/water capacity.

Council reaction and next steps: Councilors welcomed the presentation but repeatedly asked for more specificity about who the county is building for. "I wouldn't be able to look at anybody in the public and tell them who we're building it for," Councilor Kenneth said, asking for targeted population and waterfall provisions (income tiers, priority occupations). Several councilors and staff said much of that work belongs to the housing authority and its subcommittee; council members urged the housing authority to develop priorities that the council could later adopt.

Barnes said staff will pursue more granular site identification and mapping and work with municipalities and local partners on parcels that could host small projects. He recommended creating an inventory of county‑owned and partner‑owned land to screen for feasible sites and emphasized the importance of accelerating approvals for projects that meet defined criteria.

Barnes and Jones said financing will vary by site and project type, with solutions likely to include combinations of donated or county‑owned land, subsidy, state and federal funds, housing authority programs, and privately financed components.

What the presentation did not decide: The council did not adopt any zoning changes or site approvals at the meeting. Several councilors asked staff to return with more detailed option sets, including sample financing packages and clear targets for the housing authority to implement.

Ending: Staff said they will continue inventorying sites, refining the household and unit mix analysis and coordinating with the newly formed housing authority. The county plans follow‑up work with a mapping exercise and expects to present options for targeted reforms and specific pilot projects in coming months.