The Summit County Housing Authority adopted a new strategic plan, but the Summit County Council is mixed on whether the document — and its push for affordable housing — is realistic.
The strategic plan outlines policies the Housing Authority hopes to implement to meet the County Council’s goal of establishing 1,500 affordable housing units over the next 10 years. Policy ideas include incentivizing accessory dwelling units, creating an affordable housing overlay zone and engaging in public-private partnerships to increase the housing supply.
However, County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong and County Councilor Chris Robinson expressed concerns that the Housing Authority’s strategic plan conflicts with the County Council’s philosophy regarding long-term growth, especially in the Snyderville Basin.
“We’re schizophrenic as a county where we set goals, want 1,500 units, want all of these aspirational things, but then when we come to do them, we say, ‘Oh jeez, we don’t want any of that because it’s going to induce growth and people,’” Robinson said. “I’m not opposed to these strategies, but I think the application of them has been thorny in our experience and will be in our future.”
The County Council created the Housing Authority last year, but the agency is technically independent from the county government. The Housing Authority needs councilors’ approval to create its strategic plan, but its own executive board will be able to amend the plan without oversight from the County Council in the future.
Robinson’s concerns about the strategic plan were largely centered on potential conflicts with the County Council. He said the Housing Authority could support a development because of its affordable housing offerings, but the County Council may reject the project for other reasons.
Robinson questioned whether it was appropriate for councilors to approve a document they may not support in its entirety and said he was nervous developers wouldn’t understand the difference between the Housing Authority’s strategic plan and the County Council’s independent decision making process.
However, Armstrong said he did not support the strategic plan because he felt the county government had not properly researched whether affordable housing is necessary in Summit County and in what form. He said state agencies and county officials often talk about the housing deficit but that he’s struggled to find concrete answers as to how many units are needed.
“I’ve been asking for it for four years now to identify what we want to hunt with more specificity so that our public can say, ‘This is our strategy to reach this.’ I don’t see any of that in here,” Armstrong said. “It’s a complex problem, and we are approaching it in an elementary way that does not do it justice.”
Armstrong called the 1,500-unit goal “arbitrary” and said the County Council arrived at the number without any “science” behind it. He said he wants the county to have an in-depth discussion regarding the type of housing needed and the demographic it’s trying to attract, such as commuters, young families or school teachers.
He also said Summit County residents predominantly oppose development, which is why he did not agree with approving a document that seemingly encouraged the creation of new housing units.
“By approving this, we’re saying, ‘Yes, we want this level of aggressiveness’ … as it relates to housing,” Armstrong said.
County Council Chair Canice Harte said he didn’t view the strategic plan’s approval as an endorsement or commitment from the council, calling the document a “tool” for the Housing Authority to consider as it explores housing policies to suggest to councilors.
He emphasized that the County Council would still retain control over its decisions and would not need to approve a policy simply because the Housing Authority recommended it.
“I would say one of the roles of the Housing Authority is to push the conversation, to try to push ideas forward, and understanding what is and is not feasible or palatable is helpful,” agreed Housing Authority Executive Director Maddy McDonough. “At the same time, if there’s a willingness and an openness to hear these proposals from the Housing Authority on the part of the council, I think that’s a step in the right direction.”
The County Council ultimately approved the plan in a 4-1 vote, with Armstrong in opposition.