Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Survey shows rising staff housing cost burden; district expands home‑building program and proposes pocket‑neighborhood on school land
Loading...
Summary
Staff survey results presented at the April 28 workshop show declining staff homeownership and rising housing cost burdens; the district described its home‑building program (three homes complete, fourth finishing), outlined a selection process and a proposed pocket‑neighborhood site on a Timpanogos Middle School parcel that would require county rezoning, and discussed deed‑restriction tradeoffs.
District staff presented results of a staff housing needs survey and described a district home‑building program the board could expand to help retain educators.
Presenter summarized two surveys, noting the 2023 survey had 414 responses; a follow‑up 2026 survey was discussed but the transcript did not specify the response count. Staff said ownership among district staff declined (a roughly 6 percentage‑point drop in ownership between 2023 and 2026), with corresponding increases in renting and in living with family. The presenter defined cost burden as housing costs exceeding 30% of income and said cost burden has grown, especially for education support professionals.
On the program side, staff said the district has completed three homes and is finishing a fourth. The home currently being finished was reported to cost about $580,000 "includes everything." The district described a process to solicit interest from staff when a home becomes available, to screen applicants and to consult principals to prioritize educators the district wants to retain.
Canyon Russo, a teacher and the home‑building program instructor, presented a conceptual site plan for using the north side of the Timpanogos Middle School parcel for clustered "pocket neighborhoods." Russo said the site is currently R‑1 zoning (one home per acre) and that the county planning department had given encouraging, informal feedback about denser quarter‑acre lots; nothing was approved. Russo described small, clustered lots with central greens, suggested 1,200–1,500 sq ft footprints, and said phasing would likely limit initial production (presently the program builds roughly one home per year) but could grow with partnerships. Under some density assumptions the site could yield units in the mid‑30s, though presenters characterized that as a long‑term buildout and not an immediate capacity.
Board members raised equity questions about deed restrictions. One member said restricting resale limits an educator’s ability to build wealth and proposed an exit mechanism that would allow larger resale gains after extended service (an example suggested was 15 years). Staff acknowledged the tradeoff and discussed deed restrictions that cap resale increases (an example cited: roughly a 3% annual cap), noting the district could explore policy options such as graduated exit provisions.
Board members and staff discussed costs, infrastructure and funding: the district would initially bear infrastructure costs (roads/utilities), then distribute those costs among lots; staff said program proceeds would replenish program funds and emphasized the district would not use routine education operating funds for commercial development. Staff said county approvals (rezoning and development review) would be required before any building beyond the program’s existing lots.
Next steps: staff sought feedback to continue county discussions and said specific action items and potential agreements would return to the board for future approval.
