housing needs assessment - Tooele County Economic Development

Transcription

2011
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT:
TOOELE COUNTY
PREPARED BY
JAMES WOOD
3/9/2011
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study was prepared by James A. Wood for the Tooele County Office of Economic
Development. The purpose of the study is to address the affordable housing needs of Tooele
County, the Unincorporated County and the county’s seven municipalities; Grantsville, Ophir, Rush
Valley, Stockton, Tooele City, Vernon and Wendover. This study presents the characteristics of the
current housing stock and the housing market in the study area.
The State of Utah recognized in House Bill 295 (State Statute 10-9-307, 17-27-307, 62A-9-138, 6328-11) that the availability of moderate income housing is a statewide concern that requires
municipalities and counties to propose a plan for moderate income housing as part of a general plan.
“Moderate income housing” is defined as housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by
households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80 percent of the median gross
income of the county. In Tooele County the median income for a household of four was $65,600 in
2010 (Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Moderate income housing is
therefore defined as housing that is affordable (housing and utility costs, utility costs apply to renters
only, do not exceed 30 percent of household income) for a household with an income of $52,480.
The spirit of the statute is to ensure that households who desire to live in Tooele County should not
be excluded from living in the county simply because they are moderate or low income households.
The statute states “municipalities should afford a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing,
including moderate income housing to meet the needs of the people desiring to live there…and to
fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.”
This housing analysis complies with the statute which requires an estimate of the “existing supply of
moderate income housing” and the “need for moderate income housing for the next five years.” In
addition to the requirements of the statute, the study relies on the Utah Affordable Housing Manual,
published by the Department of Community and Economic Development to identify data needs
and provide an analytical framework.
Tooele County Housing Needs Assessment
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4
I. Housing Supply Conditions: Characteristics of Housing Inventory ...................................................... 8
Summary of Current Housing Conditions ............................................................................................. 14
II. Housing Demand: Demographic and Economic Conditions ............................................................. 15
Demographic Trends ................................................................................................................................. 15
Economic and Employment Trends ....................................................................................................... 16
Summary of Tooele County Economy ................................................................................................... 18
III. Housing Affordability .............................................................................................................................. 19
Affordability Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 19
Affordability for Existing Owner Occupied Housing .......................................................................... 21
Affordability for Median Income Households ...................................................................................... 21
Affordability for Moderate Income Households................................................................................... 24
Affordability for Low Income Households ........................................................................................... 26
Affordability for Extremely Low Income Households ........................................................................ 28
Affordability of New Residential Housing ............................................................................................. 30
Rental Housing Affordability ................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
Statistical Housing Profiles: Cities and Unincorporated Salt Lake County ....................................... 47
VITA – James Wood ................................................................................................................................. 56
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
¶Utah’s affordable housing legislation (HB295) does not mandate that a community’s housing
market meet the homeownership desires of all moderate, low and extremely low income households.
Rather the legislation encourages a community to provide a “reasonable opportunity for a variety of
affordable housing for moderate income households.” The results of this housing needs analysis
show that the Tooele County housing market satisfies the language of HB295. The county’s
housing market has a substantial number of homeownership opportunities for moderate income
households while affordable housing opportunities for low and extremely low income households
are primarily met by the county’s affordable rental housing.
Housing Affordability in 2010
¶Housing affordability in Tooele County is derived from home sales and new construction data (see
below). For example, over the past five years 59.6 percent of all existing homes and condominiums
sold in the county were affordable to moderate income households. Over the same period 13.6
percent of all existing homes and condominiums sold were affordable to low income households.
Percent of Existing Homes and Condominiums Sold That Were Affordable
to Moderate and Low Income Households 2006-2010
Tooele Co.
Tooele City
Grantsville
Total
Existing
Units Sold
4,337
2,788
639
Number
Affordable
To
Moderate
Income
2,584
1,878
279
%
Affordable
59.6%
67.3%
43.7%
Number
Affordable
to Low
Income
589
449
57
%
Affordable
13.6%
16.1%
8.9%
¶New homes and condominiums were also affordable to moderate income households. Forty-nine
percent of all new homes and condominiums built in Tooele County since 2006 were affordable to
moderate income households. In Grantsville City nearly 66 percent of new homes and
condominiums were affordable to moderate income households.
Percent of New Homes and Condominiums Sold That Were Affordable to
Moderate Income Households 2006-2010
Tooele Co.
Tooele City
Grantsville
Total
New
Homes
Sold
1,342
414
375
Number
Affordable
To
Moderate
Income
662
187
247
%
Affordable
49.3%
45.3%
65.8%
Affordable Housing Needs Assessment
¶Compared to most counties, especially urban counties, Tooele has a very affordable housing
inventory. The local housing market is performing well in providing affordable housing to those
households in Tooele County with incomes above 50 percent AMI.
Page 4
¶Only six percent of all homeowners in Tooele County have severe housing cost burdens (paying
more than 50 percent of income for housing). Tooele County has the lowest percentage share of
severely cost burdened homeowners among seven major counties in Utah; this low percentage of
cost burdened owners indicates a relatively affordable housing market.
Percent of Home Owners and Renters with
Severe Housing Cost Burden
Owner
Box Elder
6.3%
Davis
6.3%
Salt Lake
9.6%
Tooele
6.0%
Utah
8.6%
Washington
10.7%
Weber
7.0%
Source: HUD CHAS 2009.
Renter
11.4%
14.8%
19.5%
20.0%
21.1%
16.8%
17.9%
Moderate Income Households ( =<80% AMI) - In 2010 the number of housing units (owner and rental)
affordable to moderate income households totaled 9,600. In the same year there were 7,600
homeowners and renters with incomes at 80% or less AMI. Hence, for moderate income
households the supply exceeds the demand by some 2,000 units, indicating a very affordable
housing market.
¶For those households with incomes below 50 percent AMI ($32,800 for family of four) there is a
deficit of affordable housing.
Low Income Households (=< 50% AMI) – In 2010 the number of housing units (owner and rental)
affordable to low income households totaled 3,550. The number of households with income less
than 50 percent AMI in 2010 was 4,750. Consequently the demand for low income housing exceeds
supply by 1,200 units, i.e. a deficit of 1,200 units.
Extremely Low Income Households (=<30% AMI) – In 2010 the number of housing units (owner and
rental) affordable to extremely low income households was less than 1,000 units. The number of
extremely low income households was 2,850. There is a deficit of at least 1,500 units for extremely
low income households.
¶The housing deficit or shortage of affordable housing for those households at 50 percent or less
AMI forces these households to take on higher housing costs. These households end-up in higher
cost housing which results in higher cost burdens.
¶Nearly two-thirds of all low and extremely low income households are renters. The rental inventory
provides most of the affordable housing for those households under 50 percent AMI. Tooele
County currently has 16 affordable housing projects with a total of 760 units; these units account for
21.1 percent of the rental inventory.
Page 5
Low Income Tax Credit Communities in Tooele County
Apartment Community
Willow Creek (Senior)
Grantsville Apartment
Orchard Park (Approved Credits)
Clark Street Apartments
Old Mill Stansbury
Somerset Gardens (Senior)
Oquirrh View Apartment (Senior)
Canyon Cove Senior Housing (Senior)
Remington Park Retirement (Senior)
Lake View Apartments
Valley Meadows
Address
236 West Plum Street
Subsidy
City
Units
Grantsville
RD Senior
20
63
83
278 West Main
Grantsville
RD 515
Country Haven Lane
Grantsville
Tax Credit
334 East Clark Street
Grantsville
Tax Credit
24
160 East Hilary Lane
Unincorporated
Tax Credit
128
143 North 400West
Tooele
RD Senior
28
16
552 North 270 East
Tooele
RD Senior
178 East Vine Street
Tooele
HUD Senior
21
495 Utah Avenue
Tooele
RD Senior
72
742 North 100 East
Tooele
Tax Credit
76
582 North Shay Land
Tooele
Tax Credit
40
11
130
Scattered Sites
Tooele
Tax Credit
232 W. Fenwick Lane
Tooele
Tax Credit
Westwood Mesa
780 West 770 South
Tooele
Tax Credit
22
Landmark Apartments
350 West 400 North
Tooele
HUD
52
Briarwood Apartments
145 Gardenia Way
Wendover
RD Family
32
Tooele
Public Housing
5
Tooele CROWN
Tooele Gateway Apartments
Five-Plex
Total
*Does not include the proposed Orchard Park.
Source: Utah Housing Corporation and Tooele County Housing Authority.
760*
¶Forty-three percent of all renters in Tooele County have moderate housing cost burdens and
twenty percent have severe housing cost burdens. At least 50 percent of those with severe cost
burdens are households at less than 30 percent AMI. A disproportionate share of those with severe
housing cost burdens are single-parents with children.
¶The greatest need is for family rental units at less than 50 percent AMI. The number of renters
with household income below 50 percent AMI and experiencing a severe housing cost burden is
estimated at 700 renters.
¶Tooele County Housing Authority administers 215 Section 8 vouchers. The waiting list is now at
2.5 years and increasing due to the recession. The need for affordable low income rental units is
also confirmed by the 100 percent occupancy of the 98 subsidized units owned by the Tooele
County Housing Authority.
¶Over the next five years the number of households in Tooele County will increase by at least 2,500.
In order to meet the needs of these new households and improve affordability for existing low and extremely low income
households an additional 350-450 affordable (<50% AMI) rental housing units will be needed over the five-year
period. The additional rental units will be located, depending on demand and land prices, between
Tooele City, unincorporated county and Grantsville City.
¶While Wendover has an ample supply of affordable owner and rental housing the critical housing
need for the city is an improvement in the quality of housing. The city’s housing inventory is near
substandard and has significant levels of overcrowding. A small tax credit apartment project (less
than 20 units) and some Crown homes on scattered sites would help improve housing quality and
choice.
Page 6
Special Needs Populations
¶Five of subsidized apartment projects in Tooele County are Senior housing apartments with a total
of 220 units. The Senior rental market has sufficient affordable units to meet current demand.
Senior projects are not recommended.
Low Income Senior Rental Projects in Tooele County
Units
Type
Willow Creek
83
RD Senior
Somerset Gardens
28
RD Senior
Oquirrh View Apartment
16
RD Senior
Canyon Cove
21
HUD 202
Remington Park
72
Tax Credit
Total
220
Source: HUD, Tooele County HA and Utah
Housing Corporation.
¶There are, at most, 900 households in Tooele County that have a disabled person and have
incomes below 80 percent AMI and pay more the 30 percent of their income for housing. Owner
households account for 460 of these households with disabled persons and renter households
account for 440 households. Thirteen percent of all renters have some type of disability. Therefore,
any new apartment projects should provide or set aside 5 percent of project units as accessible units.
Housing advocates and policymakers should be sensitive to the need and availability of accessible,
affordable rental units.
¶The 2010 point-in-time headcount of homelessness in Tooele County shows that there were four
homeless families with children. All of these families were sheltered. There were two families
without children and one was unsheltered. The chronically homeless estimate was 8 individuals with
2 sheltered and 6 unsheltered. It is likely the homeless population has increased in 2011 with the
severity of the recession. Tooele County’s unemployment rate has risen from 3.7 percent in January
2008 to 8.7 percent in January 2011. Coordinated efforts between county officials, nonprofits and
religious organization are recommended to address the housing needs of the homeless population.
Page 7
I. HOUSING SUPPLY CONDITIONS: CHARACTERISTICS OF
HOUSING INVENTORY
Housing Inventory - 2010
By the end of 2010 Tooele County had nearly 19,000 occupied dwelling units in its housing
inventory. Eighty-two percent of these dwelling units were owner occupied and 18 percent were
renter occupied Table 1.1. Tooele City accounts for 54 percent of owner occupied units in the
county and 56 percent of renter occupied units. Unincorporated Tooele County ranks second in
concentration of housing. The unincorporated county has 4,153 owner occupied units and 750
renter occupied units. Unincorporated Tooele County is the location of 27 percent of all owner
occupied dwelling units in the county and 22 percent of the rental units.
Table 1.1
Housing Inventory: Tooele County and Cities – 2010
Share of
Total
County
Occupied
Inventory
Units
Tooele County
18,975
100.0%
Grantsville
2,840
15.0%
Ophir
19
0.1%
Rush Valley
166
0.9%
Stockton
207
1.1%
Tooele City
10,230
53.9%
Vernon
114
0.6%
Wendover
496
2.6%
Unincorporated
4,903
25.8%
Source: Estimates by James Wood.
Owner
Occupied
15,575
2,450
16
138
179
8,332
86
221
4,153
Share of
County
Inventory
100.0%
15.7%
0.1%
0.9%
1.1%
53.5%
0.6%
1.4%
26.7%
Renter
Occupied
3,400
390
3
28
28
1,900
28
273
750
Share of
County
Inventory
100.0%
11.5%
0.1%
0.8%
0.8%
55.9%
0.8%
8.0%
22.1%
In Tooele County owner occupied units account for 82 percent of the housing units and rental units
account for 18 percent of the inventory Table 1.2. Statewide rental units account for about 25
percent of all housing units, significantly higher than Tooele County. For most cities the number of
rental units ranges from 15-20 percent of the occupied inventory. The one exception is Wendover
where rental units outnumber owner occupied units. In 2010, fifty-five percent of all occupied units
in Wendover were rental units.
Table 1.2
Tenure by City and County - 2010
Total
Occupied
Units
Tooele County
18,975
Grantsville
2,840
Ophir
19
Rush Valley
166
Stockton
207
Tooele City
10,230
Vernon
114
Wendover
496
Unincorporated
4,903
Source: James Wood.
Owner
Occupied
15,575
2,450
16
138
179
8,332
86
221
4,153
Share of
City’s
Inventory
82.1%
86.3%
84.2%
83.1%
86.5%
81.4%
75.4%
44.6%
84.7%
Renter
Occupied
3,400
390
3
28
28
1,900
28
273
750
Share of
City’s
Inventory
17.9%
13.7%
15.8%
16.9%
13.5%
18.6%
24.6%
55.0%
15.3%
Page 8
Residential Construction 2000-2010
During the past decade residential construction in Tooele County has had similar pattern to
statewide trends; acceleration in new homebuilding spiking in 2005 Table 1.3. However, in one
respect the experience of Tooele County is different. Most cities and counties in and near the urban
area hit all-time highs in new residential construction during the housing boom from 2004-2007.
But in Tooele County the number of building permits issued for new residential units did not reach
record levels in the 2004-2007 boom. The peak years for Tooele County were established in the late
1990s when the number of permits issued for three consecutive years (1997-1999) ranged between
1,000-1,015 units; 22 percent higher than the 832 permits issued during the recent housing boom.
This was a time of very high homebuilding activity in Tooele City and the unincorporated area.
Demand was driven primarily by the affordability of single-family housing in Tooele County.
Housing prices in Davis and Salt Lake County had increased by over 50 percent in the mid-1990s
giving the Tooele County housing market a significant price advantage. Consequently, developers
responded to market demand with affordable housing projects in Tooele County resulting in nearly
4,000 housing units added to the inventory in a four-year period (1997-2000).
Home building seems to have touched bottom in 2009 when only 186 permits were issued. In 2010
that number moved-up to 260 due in large part to 85 new rental units. Single-family construction
was down in 2010 to 173 units from 183 units in 2009.
Table 1.3
Building Permits Issued for All Types of Residential Units
Tooele
Tooele
County
City
Grantsville
Unincorporated
2000
914
615
117
182
2001
735
501
65
169
2002
620
351
57
212
2003
379
169
58
152
2004
568
221
67
280
2005
832
221
179
432
2006
692
254
194
244
2007
557
150
168
239
2008
236
77
26
133
2009
186
61
32
93
2010
260
128
32
100
Total
5,979
2,748
995
2,236
% Share
100.0%
46.0%
16.6%
37.4%
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah.
New residential construction since 2000 has been heavily concentrated in detached single-family
homes. Of the nearly 6,000 new dwelling units built in the past ten years 5,159 have been singlefamily homes, Table 1.4. The unincorporated county has been the location for 40 percent of these
new homes. From 2000-2010 there were building permits issued for 2,132 single-family homes in
the unincorporated county. Tooele City issued permits for 2,101 new single-family homes during
the decade.
Page 9
Table 1.4
Building Permits Issued for New Single Family Homes
Tooele
Tooele
County
City
Grantville
Unincorporated
2000
756
487
95
174
2001
551
331
62
158
2002
480
222
53
205
2003
359
149
58
152
2004
533
186
67
280
2005
695
178
157
360
2006
660
235
184
241
2007
535
133
165
237
2008
234
77
25
132
2009
183
60
30
93
2010
173
43
30
100
Total
5,159
2,101
926
2,132
Utah.
The number of permits issued for multifamily owner occupied units (condominiums, town homes
and twin homes) was only 218 for the decade Table 1.5. Ninety percent of these multifamily owner
occupied units were in Tooele City. Since 2005 very few condominiums have been built in the
county.
Table 1.5
Building Permits Issued for New Condominium,
Town Home and Twin Home Construction
Tooele
Tooele
County
City
Grantsville
Unincorporated.
2000
37
22
13
2
2001
39
39
0
0
2002
37
37
0
0
2003
17
15
2
0
2004
22
22
0
0
2005
43
43
0
0
2006
17
15
2
0
2007
4
2
2
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2009
2
0
2
0
2010
0
0
2
0
Total
218
195
23
2
Utah.
The number of apartment units receiving building permits has been more than double the number
of condominium units Table 1.6. Over the ten-year period 521 apartment units received building
permits, a 9 percent share of total permits for new dwelling units. Between 2006 and 2009 no
apartments were built countywide. Eighty-five apartment units received building permits in 2010.
Tooele City is the location of the greatest concentration of new apartment construction with 373
units since 2000; 72 percent of all apartment units.
Page 10
Table 1.6
Building Permits Issued for Apartment Units
Tooele
County
72
120
88
Tooele
City
Grantsville
Unincorporated.
2000
72
0
0
2001
120
0
0
2002
88
0
0
2003
0
0
0
2004
64
8
0
56
2005
92
0
20
72
2006
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2010
85
85
0
0
Total
521
373
20
128
Utah.
Existing Homes Sales Activity 2000-2010
As is typically the case the number of sales of existing homes and condominiums has exceeded new
residential construction Figure 1.1. For example, since 2000 existing real estate sales totaled 8,782
units compared to 5,979 new units Table 1.7. Ninety-four percent of all sales of existing homes and
condominiums were detached single-family homes. Sales activity peaked in 2006 with 1,308 existing
homes sold. The 644 units sold in 2010 was the lowest level of activity since 2002. From peak in
2006 to low point in 2010 sales of existing homes and condominiums dropped by 50 percent. In
contrast the decline in new residential construction was considerably steeper, falling 78 percent from
peak to trough.
Figure 1.1
Permits Issued for New Residential Construction and Sales of
Existing Homes and Condominiums
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
New Home Construc tion
Existing Home Sales
Page 11
Table 1.7
Sale of Existing Homes and Condominiums
Tooele County
Single
Family
Condos
2000
427
5
2001
519
13
2002
609
25
2003
745
55
2004
836
44
2005
1,086
81
2006
1,218
90
2007
941
84
2008
628
54
2009
629
49
2010
607
37
Total
8,245
537
Source: Wasatch Front Regional MLS.
Total
432
532
634
800
880
1,167
1,308
1,025
682
678
644
8,782
Unfortunately the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data does not provide sales data for
unincorporated Tooele County. But subtracting sales data for Tooele City and Grantsville City
indicates that the number of homes and condominium sales in the unincorporated county was
approximately 1,800 for the ten-year 2000-2010 period. Tooele City has had 5,351 single-family
homes sales and 449 condominium homes sales while Grantsville City has had 1,165 homes sales
and only 15 condominiums sales since 2000 Tables 1.8 and 1.9. Sales activity for both cities and the
county show a similar pattern; acceleration of sales from 2000 to 2006 when a peak was established
then a four to five year decline pushing activity down to the lowest levels since 2002.
Table 1.8
Tooele City
Single
Family
Condos
Total
2000
334
3
337
2001
360
11
371
2002
396
22
418
2003
476
54
530
2004
543
40
583
2005
707
71
778
2006
831
81
912
2007
607
66
673
2008
386
42
428
2009
374
27
401
2010
337
32
369
Total
5,351
449
5,800
Page 12
Table 1.9
Grantsville City
Single
Family
Condos
Total
2000
40
1
41
2001
62
1
63
2002
69
1
70
2003
84
0
84
2004
112
0
112
2005
159
1
160
2006
171
1
172
2007
142
6
148
2008
102
2
104
2009
101
1
102
2010
123
1
124
Total
1,165
15
1,180
Page 13
Summary of Current Housing Market Conditions
¶New residential construction in Tooele County has dropped to a 15-year low. In 2009 building
permits for all types of residential construction were issued for 183 units and in 2010 for 260 units.
¶New single-family construction continued to decline into 2010. In 2009 permits were issued for
183 single-family units. In 2010 the number of permits fell to 173.
¶In 2010 permits were issued for 85 new apartment units in Tooele City. These are the first
apartment units developed in Tooele County in five years.
¶Like new residential construction the level of sales of existing homes and condominiums in Tooele
County has also declined dramatically due to the recession. Sales have dropped from 1,300 in 2006
to 644 in 2010, a 50 percent decline.
¶With the recession the median sales price of single-family homes in Tooele County, Tooele City
and Grantsville have fallen back to near their 2006 levels. In 2010 the median sales price of a singlefamily home in Tooele County was $168,000, in Tooele City $150,000 and in Grantsville $193,250
Table 1.10.
Table 1.10
Median Sales Price for Existing Single-Family Home
Tooele County
Tooele City
Grantsville
2005
$138,000
$129,000
$157,000
2006
$163,900
$152,500
$184,500
2007
$194,000
$180,000
$239,000
2008
$189,450
$175,000
$204,500
2009
$175,329
$159,800
$220,000
2010
$168,000
$150,000
$193,250
Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service.
¶The median sales price for new single-family homes has remained relatively stable for the county
despite the recession. The sales price has fluctuated within a narrow range of $185,000 to $197,800.
In Tooele City the median price of a new home has fallen from $199,000 in 2008 to $171,250 in
2010 Table 1.11.
Table 1.11
Median Sales Price for New Single-Family Homes
Tooele
County
2006
$197,791
2007
$189,690
2008
$190,600
2009
$185,000
2010
$188,600
Source: New Reach.
Tooele
City
$186,300
$193,300
$199,000
$175,000
$171,250
¶For the apartment market the estimated vacancy rate is 6.2 percent. The median rent for a one
bedroom unit is $485, for a two bedroom unit $650 and a three bedroom unit $685.
Housing profiles for each city are provided in the Appendix.
Page 14
II. HOUSING DEMAND: DEMOGRAPHIC AND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Demographic Trends
Recently released Census data show that Tooele County is one of the fastest growing counties in
Utah. Since 2000 the population of the county has increased by nearly 17,500 people, an increase of
42.9 percent Table 2.1. The most rapidly growing area of the county is the unincorporated portion
that includes Stansbury Park. In the past ten years the population of Stansbury Park has more than
doubled, increasing from 2,385 to 5,145; an increased of 115.7 percent. Census data show that two
cities lost population during the past decade; Wendover with a 8.9 percent decline in population and
Rush Valley with a 1.3 percent decline.
Tooele County ranks third among Utah’s 29 counties in the rate of population increase since 2000.
Only Wasatch and Washington County grew at a faster pace Table 2.2. Tooele County’s population
increase is driven by three factors: (1) proximity to Salt Lake County and its employment base of
550,000, (2) affordable housing opportunities and (3) economic and employment growth of Tooele
County.
Table 2.1
Population Change in Tooele County and Cities
Tooele County
Grantsville
Ophir town
Rush Valley town
Stansbury Park CDP
Stockton town
Tooele City
Vernon town
Wendover
Balance of Tooele County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
2000
40,735
6,015
23
453
2,385
443
22,502
236
1,537
7,141
2010
58,218
8,893
38
447
5,145
616
31,605
243
1,400
11,558
%
Change
42.9%
47.8%
65.2%
-1.3%
115.7%
39.1%
40.5%
3.0%
-8.9%
61.9%
Table 2.2
Top Five Counties by
Population Growth 2000-2010
Percent
Change
Wasatch
54.7%
Washington
52.9%
Tooele
42.9%
Utah
40.2%
Duchesne
29.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Absolute
Change
8,315
47,761
17,483
148,028
4,236
Page 15
Economic and Employment Trends
In addition to demographic growth the demand for housing is closely correlated with local
economic conditions. Tooele County again is one the fastest growing counties in the state in terms
of job growth Table 2.3. In the past ten years the number of jobs in the county has increased from
11,130 to 15,674; a 40.8 percent increase. As Figure 2.1 shows almost all of this employment growth
occurred during the 2005-2007 period. About 15 percent of the employment growth in the county,
during this period, was due to location of the 1.2 million square foot Wal-Mart Distribution Center
in Grantsville in 2006. The distribution center employs over 700 workers.
Table 2.3
Top Five Ranked Counties by Change
in Nonfarm Employment
(Counties with over 5,000 Employment)
2010
County
2000
(July)
% Chg.
Duchesne
4,764
7,242
52.0%
Uintah
9,261
13,116
41.6%
Tooele
11,130
15,674
40.8%
Washington
33,579
45,804
36.4%
Summit
15,228
18,991
24.7%
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.
Absolute
Change
2,478
3,855
4,544
12,225
3,763
Figure 2.1
Nonfarm Employment in Tooele County
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
0
Page 16
The largest private investment in Tooele County in recent years is Allegheny Technologies $460
million titanium plant in Rowley. The facility opened in late 2009 and employs over a 100 people in
Tooele’s manufacturing sector. Allegheny Technologies uses magnesium from another large
employer in Tooele County—US Magnesium—to produce titanium Table 2.4. Extractive industries
located around the Great Salt Lake provide relatively high paying jobs for the local labor force. In
addition to extractive industrial Tooele has two large firms engaged in the treatment and disposal of
hazard and low level waste; EG&G Defense Materials and Envirocare of Utah, which is part of
Energy Solutions. The largest employer in Tooele County is the Department of Defense. The
Tooele Army Depot stores and demilitarizes weapons and provides support for Deseret Chemical
Depot which store chemical weapons. Dugway Proving Grounds is the third DOD facility in
Tooele County. This facility tests and stores chemical and biological weapons for the U.S. Army.
The presence of these DOD facilities increases government employment making government the
largest employment sector in Tooele County. Nearly one-third of all jobs in the county are in the
government sector Table 2.5.
Table 2.4
Major Employers in Tooele County - 2010
Major Employer
Employment
Department of Defense
1,000-1,999
Tooele School District
1,000-1,999
Wal-Mart
1,000-1,999
EG&G Defense Materials
500-999
US Magnesium
250-499
Tooele County
250-499
Detroit Diesel
250-499
Envirocare of Utah
250-499
Mountain West Medical
250-499
Source: Department of Workforce Services.
Table 2.5
Nonfarm Employment by Sector in Tooele County
Total
Employment
Tooele County
Mining
69
Construction
534
Manufacturing
1,487
Trade
1,827
Transportation/Utilities
1,024
Information
216
Financial Activities
343
Professional/Business Services
2,552
Health Care/Private Education
1,226
Leisure and Hospitality
1,270
Other Services
364
Government
4,533
Total
15,445
% Share
Tooele
0.4%
3.5%
9.6%
11.8%
6.6%
1.4%
2.2%
16.5%
7.9%
8.2%
2.4%
29.3%
100.0%
% Share
State
0.9%
5.9%
9.5%
15.6%
4.0%
2.5%
6.0%
12.6%
12.7%
9.3%
2.9%
18.1%
100.0%
Page 17
Tooele City is the location for over half of the employment in the county Table 2.6. The extractive
and hazardous waste industries and two of DOD installations are located in the unincorporated
county.
Table 2.6
Nonfarm Employment by City – 2008
Nonfarm
Employment
Tooele County
15,526
Tooele City
7,870
Grantsville
2,399
Wendover
232
Unincorporated County
5,025
Summary of Tooele County Economy
¶The Tooele County economy has experienced relatively high rates of employment growth. The
county rank third among Utah’s 29 counties in rate of employment growth from 2000-2010.
¶Tooele County’s location and geography play an important role in the economy. Close proximity
to Salt Lake County supports residential development. I-80, which runs just north of Tooele City
and Grantsville, makes the county attractive to distribution facilities (Wal-Mart). The Great Salt
Lake provides jobs in the chemical extraction industry. And finally the undeveloped open space is
suitable for hazardous and low level waste treatment and chemical and biological testing.
¶The county’s unique qualities, a bedroom community with a heavy presence of DOD, distribution
and mining employment provides a solid economic base for the county with prospects of above
average economic growth. The expected economic growth will support additional demand for
housing and the need for affordable housing in the county and major cities.
Page 18
III. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
In 2010 Tooele County had an estimated population of 58,200. Housing for this population includes
15,575 owner-occupied units and 3,400 renter-occupied units. Since 2000 the owner- and renteroccupied housing inventory has increased by nearly 6,000 units; a 43 percent increase in occupied
dwelling units. Owner-occupied units have increased by 5,400 units and renter-occupied units by
520 units.
Affordability Calculations
HUD provides median income estimates for counties Table 3.1. Using these estimates the price level
of affordable homes was determined for median-, moderate-, low- and very-low-income households
in Tooele County Table 3.2. These price estimates were derived based on the following assumptions:
30 percent of gross income devoted to housing, 3 percent down payment, prevailing mortgage rate,
and property taxes, homeowner’s insurance and mortgage insurance of 12 percent of total mortgage
payment Table 3.3.
Table 3.1
Household Income by AMI Level for Tooele
County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median
$56,800
$56,900
$59,900
$64,700
$65,600
80% AMI
$45,440
$45,520
$47,920
$51,760
$52,480
50% AMI
$28,400
$28,450
$29,950
$32,350
$32,800
30% AMI
$18,450
$17,070
$17,970
$19,410
$19,680
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah and HUD income estimate.
Table 3.2
Affordable Home Prices by Income Category for
Tooele County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Affordable Price Range for Household at:
Median Income
80% AMI
50% AMI
$209,237
$167,357
$104,619
$211,082
$168,900
$105,541
$242,197
$183,628
$114,725
$265,874
$210,218
$131,386
$288,772
$226,519
$141,574
30% AMI
$68,035
$63,360
$68,903
$78,831
$84,944
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah and
HUD income estimate.
Page 19
Table 3.3
Affordability Calculations for Tooele County
Median
80% AMI
50% AMI
30%
AMI
Income Available for Housing @ 30% of Income
$65,600
$52,480
$32,800
$19,680
Income Available Monthly
$19,680
$15,744
$9,840
$5,904
$1,640
$1,312
$820
$492
$1,460
$1,168
$730
$438
$280,109
$219,723
$137,327
$82,396
2010
After Taxes , Home Insurance, Mortgage Insurance
Mortgage Interest Rate
Amount of Loan Financed
Down Payment
$8,663
$6,796
$4,247
$2,548
$288,772
$226,519
$141,574
$84,944
$64,700
$51,760
$32,350
$19,410
$19,410
$15,528
$9,705
$5,823
$1,618
$1,294
$809
$485
Maximum Home Price
2009
Down Payment
$1,440
$1,152
$720
$432
$257,898
$203,911
$127,444
$76,466
$7,976
$6,307
$3,942
$2,365
$265,874
$210,218
$131,386
$78,831
$59,900
$47,920
$29,950
$17,970
$17,970
$14,376
$8,985
$5,391
$1,498
$1,198
$749
$449
$1,333
$1,066
$666
$400
$234,931
$178,119
$111,283
$66,836
Maximum Home Price
2008
Down Payment
$7,266
$5,509
$3,442
$2,067
$242,197
$183,628
$114,725
$68,903
$56,900
$45,520
$28,450
$17,070
$17,070
$13,656
$8,535
$5,121
$1,423
$1,138
$711
$427
Maximum Home Price
2007
Down Payment
$1,266
$1,013
$633
$380
$204,750
$163,833
$102,375
$61,459
$6,332
$5,067
$3,166
$1,901
$211,082
$168,900
$105,541
$63,360
$56,800
$45,440
$28,400
$18,450
$17,040
$13,632
$8,520
$5,535
$1,420
$1,136
$710
$461
$1,264
$1,011
$632
$411
$202,960
$162,336
$101,480
$65,994
Maximum Home Price
2006
Down Payment
Maximum Home Price
$6,277
$5,021
$3,139
$2,041
$209,237
$167,357
$104,619
$68,035
Source:
Page 20
Affordability of Existing Owner Occupied Housing
Housing affordability has improved in recent years in Tooele County as interest and mortgage rates
have declined due to the recession. In order to assess the current availability of affordable owneroccupied housing, five years of data from the Wasatch Front Multiple Listing Services were analyzed
regarding affordability for median-, moderate- (80% AMI), low-income (50% AMI) and extremely
low income (<30% AMI) households. Real estate sales data were used to infer the affordability of
owner-occupied housing in Tooele County. Due to insufficient data on several small cities in
Tooele County the affordability analysis is limited to Tooele County, Tooele City and Grantsville.
Affordability for Median-Income Households
The analysis of home sales showed that between 2006 and 2010 there were 4,337 existing singlefamily and condominiums units in Tooele County Table 3.4. Over the five-year period an average of
82.6 percent of all homes sold were affordable to the median income household; a very high level of
housing affordability. Surprising, 81 percent of all single-family homes sold were affordable. See
Table 3.3 for calculations of prices and affordability. For example, in 2010 a median income
household could afford a home priced at $288,772. As mentioned with the drop in mortgage rates
affordability has improved. In 2007, 71 percent of all single-family homes sold were affordable to
the median income household but by 2010 the share had increased to 94 percent.
Housing affordability in Tooele City is very similar to the county. Ninety percent of all existing
homes and condominiums sold were affordable to median income households Table 3.5. Of the 248
condominiums sold in the city all were affordable. Grantsville has a lower level of affordability with
68.5 percent of all existing homes and condominiums sold affordable to median income households
Table 3.6.
Page 21
Table 3.4
Number and Share of Housing Units Sold
that Were Affordable to Median-Income
Households in Tooele County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
1,218
980
941
672
628
493
629
558
607
572
4,023
3,275
Affordable
Share
80.5%
71.4%
78.5%
88.7%
94.2%
81.4%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
90
89
84
80
54
54
49
49
37
37
314
309
Affordable
Share
99.0%
95.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.0%
Combined Single-Family Homes and
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
1,308
1,069
81.7%
2007
1,025
752
73.4%
2008
682
547
80.2%
2009
678
607
89.5%
2010
644
609
94.6%
Total
4,337
3,584
82.6%
Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing
Service.
Page 22
Table 3.5
Households in Tooele City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
831
760
609
455
387
332
376
375
337
337
2,540
2,259
Affordable
Share
91.5%
74.7%
85.8%
99.7%
100.0%
88.9%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
81
81
66
66
42
42
27
27
32
32
248
248
Affordable
Share
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Combined Single-Family Homes and Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
912
841
92.2%
2007
675
521
77.2%
2008
429
374
87.2%
2009
403
402
99.8%
2010
369
369
100.0%
Total
2,788
2,507
89.9%
Service.
Table 3.6
Households in Grantsville City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
171
111
142
59
102
63
101
84
123
121
639
438
Affordable
Share
64.9%
41.5%
61.7%
83.1%
98.4%
68.5%
Service.
Page 23
Affordability for Moderate-Income Households (80% AMI)
Moderate income households also experience a high level of housing affordability in Tooele County.
Nearly 60 percent of all homes and condominiums sold in the county between 2006 and 2010 were
affordable to moderate income households Table 3.7. In 2010 the price affordability threshold for a
moderate income household was $226,519. That is any home price below $226,519 was affordable
to a moderate income household. Condominiums, although not a large share of the market, were
very affordable. Of the 297 condominiums sold over the five-year period 95 percent were
affordable. Sixty-seven percent of all existing housing units sold in Tooele City were affordable to
moderate income households but affordability drops in Grantsville Tables 3.8-3.9. Only 43.7 percent
of all housing units sold were affordable. Although Grantsville is less affordable than Tooele City
when compared to most other cities in Wasatch Front Counties, housing in Grantsville is very
affordable.
Table 3.7
that Were Affordable to Moderate-Income
Households
(80% AMI) in Tooele County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
1,218
636
941
430
628
282
629
441
607
498
4,023
2,287
Affordable
Share
52.2%
45.7%
44.9%
70.1%
82.0%
56.8%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
90
87
84
74
54
51
49
48
37
37
314
297
Affordable
Share
96.6%
88.0%
94.4%
97.9%
100.0%
94.6%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
1,308
723
55.3%
2007
1,025
504
49.2%
2008
682
333
48.8%
2009
678
489
72.1%
2010
644
535
83.1%
Total
4,337
2,584
59.6%
Service.
Page 24
Table 3.8
that Were Affordable to Moderate-Income
Households
(80% AMI) in Tooele City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
831
533
609
231
387
229
376
330
337
317
2,450
1,640
Affordable
Share
64.1%
37.9%
59.2%
87.8%
94.1%
66.9%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
81
80
66
58
42
41
27
27
32
32
248
238
Affordable
Share
98.8%
87.9%
97.6%
100.0%
100.0%
95.9%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
912
613
67.2%
2007
675
289
42.8%
2008
429
270
62.9%
2009
403
357
88.6%
2010
369
349
94.6%
Total
2,788
1,878
67.3%
Service.
Table 3.9
that Were Affordable to Moderate Income
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
171
73
142
31
102
31
101
53
123
91
639
279
Affordable
Share
42.6%
21.8%
30.3%
52.4%
73.9%
43.7%
Service.
Page 25
Affordability for Low-Income Households (50% AMI)
Low-income households could afford only 13.6 percent of the combined detached single-family
homes and attached condominiums sold in Tooele County since 2006 Table 3.10. The housing price
threshold for affordability in 2010 was $141,574. Affordability was much higher in 2010. Thirtyone percent of all homes sold were affordable to a low income household and 86 percent of the 32
condominiums sold were affordable. The decline in housing opportunities is to be expected as
income levels drop. Nevertheless Tooele County maintains a relatively high level of affordability
even for low income households. For these household there are ownership opportunities. In
Tooele City 16.1 percent of all existing housing units sold were affordable to low income households
and in Grantsville—again a lower level of affordability—8.9 percent of housing units sold were
affordable Tables 3.11-3.12.
Table 3.10
that Were Affordable to Low-Income
Households
(50% AMI) in Tooele County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
1,218
94
941
68
628
30
629
107
607
189
4,023
488
Affordable
Share
7.7%
7.2%
4.8%
17.0%
31.1%
12.1%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
90
25
84
12
54
10
49
22
37
32
314
104
Affordable
Share
27.7%
14.2%
18.5%
44.9%
86.5%
33.1%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
1,308
119
9.1%
2007
1,025
80
7.8%
2008
682
40
5.9%
2009
678
129
19.0%
2010
644
221
34.3%
Total
4,337
589
13.6%
Service.
Page 26
Table 3.11
that Were Affordable to Low-Income
Households
(50% AMI) in Tooele City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
831
77
609
21
387
24
376
91
337
147
2,450
360
Affordable
Share
9.3%
3.4%
6.2%
24.2%
43.6%
14.6%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
81
22
66
8
42
12
27
17
32
30
248
89
Affordable
Share
27.2%
12.1%
28.6%
63.0%
93.8%
35.9%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
912
99
10.9%
2007
675
29
4.3%
2008
429
36
8.4%
2009
403
108
26.8%
2010
369
177
48.0%
Total
2,788
449
16.1%
Service.
Table 3.12
that Were Affordable to Low Income
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
171
11
142
2
102
2
101
18
123
24
639
57
Affordable
Share
6.4%
1.4%
1.9%
1.7%
2.0%
8.9%
Service.
Page 27
Affordability for Extremely Low-Income Households (=<30% AMI)
Housing markets have very few owner occupied units affordable to extremely low income
households. In 2010, a four-person households with an extremely low income had an income below
$19,860 and the housing price threshold was $84,944. Only 2 percent of all housing units sold in
Tooele County were affordable to extremely low income households Table 3.13. In Tooele City 2.2
percent of homes sold were affordable but in Grantsville only 4 of 639 unit sold were affordable to
very low income households Tables 3.14-3.15.
Table 3.13
that Were Affordable to Extremely LowIncome Households
(=<30% AMI) in Tooele County
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
1,218
17
941
12
628
4
629
12
607
34
4,023
79
Affordable
Share
1.4%
1.3%
0.6%
1.9%
5.6%
1.9%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
90
2
84
0
54
0
49
0
37
5
314
7
Affordable
Share
2.2
0
0
0
13.5%
2.2%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
1,308
19
1.5%
2007
1,025
12
1.2%
2008
682
4
0.6%
2009
678
12
1.8%
2010
644
39
6.1%
Total
4,337
86
2.0%
Service.
Page 28
Table 3.14
that Were Affordable to Extremely LowIncome Households
(=<30% AMI) in Tooele City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
831
15
609
5
387
3
376
9
337
26
2,450
58
Affordable
Share
1.8%
0.8%
0.8%
2.4%
7.7%
2.4%
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Condominiums
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
81
2
66
0
42
0
27
0
32
4
248
6
Affordable
Share
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
2.4%
Total Units
Affordable
Affordable
Year
Sold
Units
Share
2006
912
17
1.9%
2007
675
5
0.7%
2008
429
3
0.7%
2009
403
9
2.2%
2010
369
30
8.1%
Total
2,788
64
2.2%
Service.
Table 3.15
that Were Affordable to Extremely Low
Income Households in Grantsville City
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Single-Family Homes
Total Units
Affordable
Sold
Units
171
0
142
0
102
0
101
0
123
4
639
4
Affordable
Share
0%
0%
0%
0%
3.2%
0.1%
Service.
Page 29
Affordability of New Residential Single-family and Condominiums Units
According to New Reach, a local real estate consulting firm, 1,342 new single-family homes and
condominiums units have been sold in Tooele County since 2006 Table 3.16-3.18. Over this period
74.3 percent of all new homes sold were affordable to median income households and 49.3 percent
were affordable to moderate income households. These data indicate a high degree of affordability
of new homes. For moderate income households 44.9 percent of all new homes were affordable, a
total of 532 homes. Eighty-three percent of all new condominiums units were affordable, a total of
130 units.
Unfortunately the data from New Reach are not disaggregated below $150,000 therefore it is not
possible to estimate new housing affordability for low and extremely low income households.
Table 3.16
Number and Percent of Combined New Homes and Condominiums
Affordable to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele County
Total New
Homes and
Condominiums
Closed
2006
405
2007
357
2008
232
2009
194
2010
154
Total
1,342
Source: New Reach.
Affordable to Median
Income Household
Number of
Homes and
Condos
Percent of
Closed
Total Closed
242
59.7%
229
64.1%
200
86.2%
179
92.2%
148
96.1%
998
74.3%
Affordable to Moderate
Income Households
Number of
Homes and
Percent of
Condominiums
Total
Closed
Closed
138
34.0%
111
31.0%
111
47.8%
161
82.9%
141
91.5%
662
49.3%
Table 3.17
Number and Percent of New Homes Affordable
to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele County
Income Household
Total New
Single-Family
Homes Closed
2006
348
2007
343
2008
191
2009
178
2010
126
Total
1,186
Source: New Reach.
Number of
Homes
Closed
194
223
159
165
120
861
Percent of
Total Homes
Closed
55.7%
65.0%
83.2%
92.7%
95.2%
72.5%
Income Households
Percent of
Total
Number of
Homes
Homes
Closed
Closed
90
25.9%
106
30.9%
72
37.7%
147
82.6%
117
92.9%
532
44.9%
Page 30
Table 3.18
Number and Percent of New Condominiums Affordable
to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele County
Total New
Condominiums
Closed
2006
57
2007
14
2008
41
2009
16
2010
28
Total
156
Source: New Reach.
Income Household
Number of
Percent of Total
Condominiums
Condominiums
Closed
Closed
48
84.2%
6
42.9%
41
100.0%
14
87.5%
28
100.0%
137
87.8%
Affordable to Moderate Income
Households
Number of
Percent of Total
Condominiums
Condominiums
Closed
Closed
48
84.2%
5
35.7%
39
95.1%
14
87.5%
24
85.7%
130
83.3%
New homes and condominiums in Tooele City have a similar degree of affordability. Since 2006
327 (78.9 percent) of the 414 new homes and condominiums built in Tooele City were affordable to
median income households and 187 (45.2 percent) were affordable to moderate income households.
Table 3.19
Number and Percent of Combined New Homes and Condominiums
Affordable to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele City
Total New
Homes and
Condominiums
Closed
2006
97
2007
128
2008
69
2009
73
2010
47
Total
414
Source: New Reach.
Income Household
Number of
Homes and
Condos
Percent of
Closed
Total Closed
67
69.1%
80
62.5%
61
88.4%
72
99.0%
47
100.0%
327
78.9%
Income Households
Number of
Homes and
Percent of
Condominiums
Total
Closed
Closed
23
23.7%
35
27.3%
25
36.2%
63
86.3%
41
87.2%
187
45.2%
Page 31
Table 3.20
to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele City
Income Household
Total New
Single-Family
Homes Closed
2006
88
2007
114
2008
60
2009
69
2010
39
Total
370
Source: New Reach.
Number of
Homes
Closed
67
74
52
69
39
301
Percent of
Total Homes
Closed
76.1%
64.9%
86.7%
100.0%
100.0%
81.4%
Income Households
Percent of
Total
Number of
Homes
Homes
Closed
Closed
23
26.1%
30
26.3%
18
30.0%
61
88.4%
37
94.9%
169
46.0%
Table 3.21
Number and Percent of New Condominiums Affordable
to Median and Moderate Income Households – Tooele City
Total New
Condominiums
Closed
2006
9
2007
14
2008
9
2009
4
2010
8
Total
44
Source: New Reach.
Income Household
Number of
Percent of Total
Condominiums
Condominiums
Closed
Closed
0
0.0%
6
42.9%
9
100.0%
3
75.0%
8
100.0%
26
59.0%
Affordable to Moderate Income
Households
Number of
Percent of Total
Condominiums
Condominiums
Closed
Closed
0
0.0%
5
35.7%
7
77.8%
2
50.0%
4
50.0%
18
40.9%
No new condominiums have been developed in Grantsville since 2006. Nevertheless the data on
new detached single-family housing show that 86 percent of new homes were affordable to median
income households and 65.8 percent were affordable to moderate income households Table 3.22.
Again a relatively high level of affordability for new homes.
Table 3.22
to Median and Moderate Income Households – Grantsville City
Income Household
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Total New
Single-Family
Homes Closed
97
124
69
39
46
375
Number of
Homes
Closed
85
98
59
36
46
324
Percent of
Total Homes
Closed
87.6%
79.0%
85.5%
92.3%
100.0%
86.4%
Income Households
Percent of
Total
Number of
Homes
Homes
Closed
Closed
58
59.8%
76
61.3%
37
53.6%
31
79.5%
45
97.8%
247
65.8%
Source: New Reach.
Page 32
Rental Housing Affordability in Tooele County
Tooele County’s rental housing market has a high degree of affordability. There are 16 subsidized
projects in the county with a total of 760 units, accounting for 21 percent of all occupied rental units
in the county. In terms of subsidized units as a percent of occupied rental units, Tooele County
ranks first among Utah’s 29 counties. Summit and Washington Counties rank second and third and
each have about a 15 percent share of subsidized rental units. Statewide the share is only 7.5
percent.
Table 3.23
Low Income Tax Credit and Subsidized Rental Communities in Tooele County
Apartment Community
Address
Subsidy
City
Units
Willow Creek (Senior)
236 West Plum Street
Grantsville
RD Senior
83
Grantsville Apartment
278 West Main
Grantsville
RD 515
20
Country Haven Lane
Grantsville
Tax Credit
63
334 East Clark Street
Grantsville
Tax Credit
24
128
Orchard Park (Approved Credits)
Clark Street Apartments
160 East Hilary Lane
Unincorporated
Tax Credit
Somerset Gardens (Senior)
143 North 400West
Tooele
RD Senior
28
Oquirrh View Apartment (Senior)
552 North 270 East
Tooele
RD Senior
16
178 East Vine Street
Tooele
HUD Senior
21
495 Utah Avenue
Tooele
RD Senior
72
76
40
Old Mill Stansbury
Canyon Cove Senior Housing (Senior)
Remington Park Retirement (Senior)
Lake View Apartments
Valley Meadows
Tooele CROWN
Westwood Mesa
742 North 100 East
Tooele
Tax Credit
582 North Shay Land
Tooele
Tax Credit
Scattered Sites
Tooele
Tax Credit
11
232 W. Fenwick Lane
Tooele
Tax Credit
130
780 West 770 South
Tooele
Tax Credit
22
52
32
Landmark Apartments
350 West 400 North
Tooele
HUD
145 Gardenia Way
Wendover
RD Family
Tooele
Public Housing
Five-Plex
Total
*Does not include the proposed Orchard Park.
Source: Utah Housing Corporation and Tooele County Housing Authority.
5
760*
Five of the subsidized projects are for Seniors. These five projects have a total of 220 units.
Table 3.24
Low Income Senior Rental Projects in Tooele County
Units
Type
Willow Creek
83
RD Senior
Somerset Gardens
28
RD Senior
Oquirrh View Apartment
16
RD Senior
Canyon Cove
21
HUD 202
Remington Park
72
Tax Credit
Total
220
Source: HUD, Tooele County HA and Utah
Housing Corporation.
Page 33
A recent survey of the classified advertisement in the Tooele Transcript showed the median one
bedroom rental rate in Tooele County was $485, the median two bedroom rental rate was $650 and
the median three bedroom rate $685. These estimated market rents are all below the 50% AMI
target rents of HUD, which are used for tax credit units. The HUD 50% AMI net rents are $565 for
a one bedoom unit, $660 for a two bedroom unit and $750 for a three bedroom unit. The fact that
market rents are between 40-45% AMI indicates an affordable rental housing market.
Page 34
1200 North 300 West
Tooele
Total Units
160
130 Tax Credit Units, 30 Market Rate Units
Year Built
2002, 2003
Two Bedroom
One Bedroom
Category
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
Number of Units
90
70
Average Rent
$675 mkt.
$775 mkt.
Average Sq. Ft.
910
1,150
Rent/Sq.Ft.
$0.74
$0.67
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
Yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
Page 35
Lakeview Apartments Homes
742 North 100 East
Tooele, City
Total Units
76
All Tax Credit Units
Year Built
1999
Two Bedroom
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
24
36
16
Average Rent
Average Sq. Ft.
tax credit
695
tax credit
780
tax credit
1,080
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
no
no
yes
Page 36
Landmark Apartments
350 West 400 North
Tooele, City
Total Units
52
Year Built
1981
Type of Project Section 8
Two Bedroom
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
13
26
13
Average Rent
30% of inc.
30 % of inc.
30% of inc.
Average Sq. Ft.
na
875
na
One Bath
Rent/Sq.Ft.
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
na
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
No
yes
Page 37
Valley Meadows
600 West 600 North
Tooele, City
Total Units
40
Year Built
1999
Type of Project Tax Credit
Category
Two Bedroom
One Bedroom
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
Number of Units
32
8
Average Rent
tax credit
tax credit
Average Sq. Ft.
NA
NA
Rent/Sq.Ft.
890
1,035
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
No
yes
Page 38
Westwood Mesa
780 West 770 South
Tooele, City
Total Units
22
Year Built
1985
Type of Project Tax Credit
Two Bedroom
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
2 (for disabled)
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
14
6
Average Rent
tax credit
tax credit
Average Sq. Ft.
865
1,000
Rent/Sq.Ft.
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
Page 39
Old Mill
160 East 6700 North
Tooele County
Total Units - Phase I, 56 units, Phase II 72 units
Type of Project - Tax Credit
Year Built - 2005
Category
Two Bedroom
One Bedroom
One Bath
Two Bath
Number of Units
Three Bedroom
128
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D Hookups
Private
Balcony
Tot
Lot
Covered
Parking
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
garage
Page 40
South Willow
211 South Hale
Grantsville
Total Units - 18
Year Built - 1971-74
Type of Project - Family RD 515
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
Average Rents
Two Bedroom
One Bath
Two Bath
Three Bedroom
18
RD Market Rate
$550
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D Hookups
swamp
room A/C
no
no
laundry rm
Private
Balcony
Tot
Lot
Covered
Parking
no
yes
yes
Page 41
Grantsville Family Apartments
284 West Main
Grantsville
Total Units - 20
Year Built - 2005
Type of Project – RD515
Two Bedroom
One Bedroom
Category
Number of Units
Average Rents
Square Footage
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
8
30% of income
850
12
30% of income
1,050
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
Page 42
145 Gardenia Way
Wendover
Total Units - 32
Year Built – Pre-1980
Type of Project – RD Family Project
Two Bedroom
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
Average Rents
Square Footage
32
30% of income
Unk
One Bath
Three Bedroom
Two Bath
A/C
Dishwasher
W&D
Hookups
Private
Balcony
Cable
Ready
Clubhouse
Swimming
Pool
Covered
Parking
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Page 43
Willow Creek
236 Plum
Grantsville
Total Units - 83
Year Built – 1980-1990
Type of Project – RD Senior
Category
One Bedroom
Number of Units
Average Rents
Square Footage
83
30% of income
Unk
A/C
Dishwasher
yes
no
W&D
Hookups
no
Two Bedroom
One Bath
Private
Balcony
yes
Cable
Ready
no
Two Bath
Clubhouse
no
Three Bedroom
Swimming
Pool
no
Covered
Parking
no
Page 44
Conclusions for Housing Affordability
¶Tooele County, Tooele City and Grantsville City have ample ownership opportunities for median,
moderate and low income households. These housing opportunities extend to both existing homes
and new homes.
¶Rental housing is also affordable to moderate and low income households due to the 733 units in
Tooele County that are subsidized or assisted through tax credits, vouchers or project based units.
¶The housing inventory of Tooele County, Tooele City and Grantsville satisfies HB295, Utah’s
affordable housing statute. The statute reads “municipalities should afford a reasonable opportunity
for a variety of housing, including moderate income housing to meet the needs of the people
desiring to live there…and to fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.”
Such housing opportunities are available in Tooele County.
Page 45
APPENDIX
Housing Profiles
VITA – James Wood
Page 46
Tooele County Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
Occupied Units
Owner Occupied
Vacant Units
Renter Occupied
Vacant Units
Number of Affordable Owner Units
Affordable to 50% to 80% AMI Household
Percent of Total Owner Units
Affordable to =<50% AMI Household
Number of Affordable Renter Units
Percent of Total Rental Units
19,700
18,975
15,575
500
3,400
225
6,500
5,100
31.7%
1,400
8.7%
3,100
950
26.2%
1,550
42.7%
600
16.5%
Source: Derived from HUD CHAS 2000, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Utah and New Reach.
Page 47
Grantsville Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
2,925
Occupied Units
2,840
Owner Occupied
2,450
Vacant Units
65
Renter Occupied
390
Vacant Units
20
960
750
30.0%
210
8.3%
400
100
24.3%
175
42.6%
125
30.0%
Page 48
Ophir Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
33
Occupied Units
19
Owner Occupied
16
Vacant Units
11
Renter Occupied
3
Vacant Units
3
7
5
18.5%
2
7.4%
3
0
0.0%
3
100%
0
0.0%
Source:
fromfrom
HUD CHAS
of Bureau
Economicof
and
Source:Derived
Derived
HUD 2000,
CHASBureau
2000,
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah
and New Reach.
Page 49
Rush Valley Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
179
Occupied Units
166
Owner Occupied
Vacant Units
Renter Occupied
Vacant Units
138
9
28
4
83
43
29.0%
40
27.2%
16
4
12.5%
4
12.5%
24
75.0%
Page 50
Stockton Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
223
Occupied Units
207
Owner Occupied
179
Vacant Units
8
Renter Occupied
28
Vacant Units
8
139
81
43.3%
58
31.0%
36
12
33.3%
12
33.3%
12
33.3%
Page 51
Tooele City Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
10,602
Occupied Units
10,232
Owner Occupied
Vacant Units
Renter Occupied
Vacant Units
8,332
260
1,900
110
3,625
2,825
32.9%
800
9.3%
1,620
700
34.8%
650
32.3%
270
13.4%
Page 52
Vernon City Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
118
Occupied Units
114
Owner Occupied
86
Vacant Units
4
Renter Occupied
28
Vacant Units
0
56
24
25.5%
32
34.2%
24
0
0.0%
4
14.2%
20
71.0%
Page 53
Wendover Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
542
Occupied Units
496
Owner Occupied
221
Vacant Units
36
Renter Occupied
273
Vacant Units
12
165
24
9.3%
141
54.8%
280
81
28.4%
127
44.5%
72
25.2%
Page 54
Unincorporated Tooele County Housing Profile - 2010
Total Housing Units
5,078
Occupied Units
4,903
Owner Occupied
4,153
Vacant Units
107
Renter Occupied
750
Vacant Units
68
1,465
1,348
31.7%
117
2.7%
721
53
6.5%
575
70.3%
77
9.4%
Page 55
VITA
JAMES A. WOOD
P.O. Box 58107
Salt Lake City, Utah 84158
Phone: (801) 581-7165 (office), fax (801) 581-3354
(801) 583-0392 (residence)
EDUCATION
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; B.S. Finance, June 1967.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Graduate Student in Economics, 1970-1974.
MILITARY EXPERIENCE
United States Army, Military Intelligence 1968-1970; Vietnam 1969-1970.
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
2002 to present, Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School
of Business, University of Utah.
1975 to 2002, Senior Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David
Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1975 to present, private consultant, James A Wood & Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1974-1975 - Legislative Aide on economic issues for Senator Frank E. Moss,
Washington, D.C.
1972-1974 - Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
1970 (summer) - Accountant, Jacobsen Construction Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1966-1967 - Accountant, Utah Idaho Sugar Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Trustees Downtown Alliance Salt Lake City.
Committee Member of Revenue Assumption Committee, State of Utah.
Board Member of NeighborWorks Salt Lake City
President of Wasatch Economic Forum 2008-2009
Advisory Board Member of the Salt Lake County Housing Trust Fund 2009-2011
Board Member Salt Lake Home Builders Association
Member Salt Lake County Consortium Housing (HOME) Committee
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS
“Nonresidential Construction: Past, Present and Future”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume
70 Number 2, Summer 2010.
“Utah’s Home Building Industry: Recovery and Challenges”, Utah Economic and Business Review,
Volume 70 Number 1, Spring 2010.
Residential and Nonresidential Construction Trends and Forecast for Utah and Wasatch Front Counties.
David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Summit Materials, May 2010.
Utah’s Sports Sector: Economic Activity and Impact. David Eccles School of Business, University of
Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Sports Commission. February 2010.
Page 56
“Utah’s Housing Market: Present Perspective, Future Prospects”, Utah Economic and Business Review,
Volume 69 Number 1, Spring 2009.
A Review of the Proposed Home Run Grant Program, David Eccles School of Business, University of
Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Housing Action Coalition. February 2009.
Economic Impact of Bonding for Capital Facilities in Utah, David Eccles School of Business, University
of Utah. Prepared for Commissioner’s Office of Higher Education. January 2009.
The Economic Impact of Thanksgiving Point on the Utah County Economy. David Eccles School of
Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Thanksgiving Point Foundation. November 2008.
Foreclosures in Utah Likely to Hit Record. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah.
Prepared for Foreclosure Prevention Taskforce, October 2008.
Economic Baseline Study for Vernal and Ashley Valley, Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Tightline Community Resources,
September 2008.
Pathways Project: A Study of the Cost of Services for Chronically Homeless Individuals in Salt Lake
County. Funded by Utah State Department of Community and Culture, August 2008
The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of the Davis County Economy, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Davis County
Community and Economic Development, June 2007.
Competitive Role of Commercial Development at West Bench, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land. January
2007.
An Analysis of the Land Use and Value of Weber State University’s Mountainside Parcel, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for
Weber State University. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. December 2006.
The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of Draper City, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Draper City Office of
Economic Development. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. September 2006.
West Bench Economic Impact: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Analysis, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, David Eccles School Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land.
Co-authored with Pam Perlich. Octorber 2005.
Economic Impact of Affordable Housing: Construction, Rehabilitation and Assistance Programs, Bureau
of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for
Utah Housing Coalition, September 2004.
“The Utah Economy: Outlook and Review”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 64, Numbers
1 and 2, January/December 2004.
Affordable Housing in Utah Cities: New Construction, Building Fees and Zoning. Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Fannie Mae
Page 57
Utah Partnership Office, Utah Housing Corporation, Envision Utah and The Olene Walker Housing Trust
Fund, June 2003.
Changing Economic Structure of Salt Lake City=s Central Business District, 1990 to 2002. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for
The Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City, 2002.
AThe Impact of Changing Economics and Demographics on the Characteristics of New Homes and
Housing Densities (Part II)@, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 61 Numbers 9 & 10,
September/October 2001.
AUtah=s Residential Construction: A Look at Past and Present Construction Cycles (Part I)@, Utah
Economic and Business Review, Volume 61, Numbers 1 &2, January/February 2001.
A Demand and Use Analysis of Research Park Land and Buildings 2000 to 2015. Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for
University of Utah Administration. Co-authored with Jan Crispin-Little, May 2000.
ASingle-Family Construction Bucks Trend@, Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 2. April, May,
June 1999, published by Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
AA Closer Look: Nonresidential Construction in Utah 1985 to 1998@, Utah Economic and Business
Review, Volume 59, Numbers 5 and 6, May/June 1999.
AResidential Construction Remains Surprisingly Strong@, Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 1.
January, February, March 1999, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University
of Utah.
AConstruction Value Reaches New High@, Utah Construction Report, Volume 41 No 4. October,
November, December 1998, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah.
ARetail Trends and the Need for Downtown Revitalization@, Utah Economic and Business Review,
Volume 58, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1998.
Gateway Retail Development and Downtown Revitalization. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Boyer Company and
Salt Lake City Council, October 1998.
"Overview of Construction and Housing in the Utah Economy", Economic Report to the Governor, 1998.
Utah Technology Finance Corporation: Economic Development Policy and Economic Impacts. Bureau
of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report
prepared for Utah Technology Finance Corporation, June 1998.
“
“Housing Prices and Affordability in Utah", Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 57 Numbers
5 and 6, May/June 1997.
Page 58
Demographic and Economic Trends for Utah, U.S., the Rocky Mountain Region and Hermes' Market
Areas. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of
Utah. Report prepared for Hermes Associates. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1997.
"Housing Price Trends in Utah 1980-1996", Economic Report to the Governor, 1997.
Impediments to Low and Moderate Income Housing in Unincorporated Salt Lake County and Selected
Municipalities. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business,
University of Utah. Report for Salt Lake County Office of Economic Development and Job Training.
December 1996.
The University of Utah Research Park: A Review of Policy and History. Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared University of
Utah Research Park Administration, December 1996.
Demographic and Economic Trends and Forecasts for Utah and Idaho. Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Oldcastle
Materials. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. February 1996.
"Construction Cycles in Utah" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 11 and 12,
November/December 1995.
"Losing Ground: Housing Affordability and Low-Income Renters in Utah", Utah Economic and Business
Review, Volume 55 Numbers 9 and 10, September/October 1995.
"The Performance of Wage Rates in Utah 1982-1993" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55
Numbers 3 and 4, March/April 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth E. Jensen, Utah Department of
Employment Security.
Demographic, Economic and Export Statistics for the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Reported
prepared for Salt Lake Airport Authority. May 1995.
A Study of the Custom Fit Training Program. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles
School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Utah State Office of Education. Coauthored
with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1995.
"Utah Wage Levels" Economic Report to the Governor, 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth Jensen.
"Management of State Trust Lands in Washington County" Utah Economic and Business Review,
Volume 54, Numbers 7 and 8, July/August 1994. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah, 1994.
"The Changing Demographic and Economic Structure of Washington County, 1970-1993." Utah
Economic and Business Review, Volume 54, Numbers 1 and 2, January/February 1994. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1994.
An Economic Analysis for the Management of State Lands in Washington County. Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of State Lands and Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, March 1994.
Page 59
"Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency's New Residential Mortgage Programs" Utah of
Economic and Business Review, Volume 53, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1993. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah December, 1993.
Economic Analysis for the Salt Lake Courts Complex. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Facilities and Construction Management,
Department of Administrative Services, State of Utah, October 1992.
"Economic Well-Being of Utah Households: 1979-1989" Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume
52, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May, 1992. Coauthored with R. Thayne Robson. Bureau of Economic and
Business Review, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1992.
Economic Impact of the Utah Technology Finance Corporation on the Utah Economy. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Report
prepared for the Utah Technology Finance Corporation, State of Utah, 1992.
"Manufacturing in the West Since World War II." Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume 51,
Number 3, March 1991. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1991.
"Utah's Adjustment to Declining Defense Budgets." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50,
Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1990. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.
"Utah's Electronics Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Number 9, September
1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.
Electronics Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community
and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.
"Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50,
Number 3, March 1990. Coauthored with Rose Ann Watson. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Utah, 1990.
Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah. Report prepared for the Women's Business Development Office, Division of Business and
Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.
"Utah Housing Finance Agency: The Economic Impact of Mortgage Programs for New Residential
Units." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 9, September 1989. Bureau of
Economic and Business Review, University of Utah, 1989.
Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency Programs on the Utah Economy. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Utah Housing Finance
Agency, 1989; annual report 1989 to present.
"Utah's Aerospace Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 8, August 1989.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1989.
Page 60
Utah's Aerospace Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored
with John Brereton. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development,
Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.
The Economic Impact of a Catastrophic Earthquake on Utah's Financial Institutions. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of
Comprehensive Emergency Management, Financial Institution Emergency Preparedness Committee, June
1989.
Public Education and Economic Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University
of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of
Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.
The Characteristics and Potential of the Health Care and Weight Control/Fitness Industries of St.
George. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Prepared for St. George City,
October 1988.
Economic Profile Summit County/Park City. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah. Report Prepared for Summit County/Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau,
September 1988.
The Economic Impact on Utah of the U.S. Petroleum Corporation's Wax Processing Plant. Report for the
Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic
Development, State of Utah, October 1987.
Projected Employment Growth Rates for State Government. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Report prepared for Wallace Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 1987.
A Proposal for US West Advanced Technologies. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin and Shipley Associates. Prepared for Division of
Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of
Utah, 1987.
"The Utah Housing Market: Demographic and Economic Trends." Utah Economic and Business
Review, Volume 47, Number 3, March 1987. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah, March 1987.
Utah as a Location for Frozen Prepared Food Manufacturing. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research University of Utah. Prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, State of
Utah, 1986.
Capital Flow in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1986. Report
prepared for Governor's Economic Development Conference, February 1986.
The Strategy and Economic Impact for the Development of a Western Town in Moab Utah. Report
prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and
Economic Development, State of Utah, June 1985.
Page 61
"The Changing Conditions of The Salt Lake County Apartment Market." Utah Economic and Business
Research, Volume 45, Number 3, March 1985. Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of
Utah, 1985.
"Utah's Expanding Service Sector," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44, Number 9,
September 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
September 1984.
Electronics Target Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report
prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and
Economic Development, State of Utah, September 1984.
"Salt Lake County Apartment Construction Activity," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44,
Number 6, June 1984. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1984.
Service Sector Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
May 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Report prepared for Division of Business and
Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, May
1984.
Survey of Utah's Exporting Firms. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
1983. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of
Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1983.
Market Feasibility Study for Apartment Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, December 1983.
Market Feasibility Study for Luxury Condominiums. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, October 1983.
"Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin." Utah Economic
and Business Review, Volume 43, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1983. Bureau of Economic and Business
Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin. Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Small Business
Development Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1983.
"The Electronics/Information Processing Industry in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review,
Volume 42, Number 10, October 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
1982.
The Electronic Components and Information Processing Industry and State Industrial Development
Programs. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982. Report prepared for
the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic
Development, State of Utah, 1982.
"Utah Homebuilding: Decline, Structural Changes, and Demand Factors." Utah Economic and Business
Review, Volume 42, Number 9, September 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
Page 62
"Utah's Thrust Belt: Exploration, Development and Economic Impacts." Utah Economic and Business
Review, Volume 41, Number 1, January 1981. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University
of Utah, 1981.
Demand for Cold and Frozen Storage in Utah and the Mountain States. Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic
Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1980.
Proposed Industrial Park Development in Grand County. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Report prepared for Division of Economic and Industrial Development, Department
of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, October 1979.
Utah Labor Market Conditions for Manufacturing Assemblers and Electronic Technicians 1979.
Coauthored with Randy Rogers and Ronda Brinkerhoff. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
Utah: A Profitable Location for Headquarters and Administrative Office Facilities, Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, University of Utah, September 1979. Report prepared for Division of Economic
and Industrial Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah,
1979.
Utah Demand for Bricks 1978, 1985, 1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
Utah. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, July
1979.
Market Feasibility Study for Kaolin Clay Production in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Utah, May 1979. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Office of
Small Business Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah,
1979.
Utah: A Profitable Location for the Machinery Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Division of Industrial Development, Department of
Development Services, State of Utah, 1978.
"Demand for Housing in Salt Lake County." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake Davis, Weber, Utah and
Cache Counties, Fall 1978. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and Bureau of Economic and Business
An Analysis of the Clay Roofing Tile Market in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, March 1978.
Sandy: An Economic Profile and Land Use Requirements. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah. Coauthored with John Brereton and Randall Rogers. Report prepared for Sandy City
Planning Office, January, 1977.
Demand for Selected Steel Products. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
October 1976. Coauthored with Dwight Israelsen, Robert Wood and Randall Rogers. Report prepared
for Steelco Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976.
Page 63
A Study of the Economic Potential of the Great Salt Lake State Park. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Utah, September 1976. Coauthored with John Brereton and Janet Kiholm.
Report prepared for Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah,
1976.
Married Student Housing Survey. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
August 1976. Report prepared for Housing Management, University of Utah, 1976.
"The Changing Composition of the State Budget," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 36,
Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1976. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,
1976.
"Utah Building Activity 1970-1975." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah and Cache
Counties, Fall 1975. Coauthored with Kathy Watanabe. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and the
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1975.
"Condominium Developments in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 34, Number 9,
September 1974. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1974.
Electronics Industry: Location Potential in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah, June 1973. Coauthored with Jean H. Hanssen. Report prepared for the Division of
Industrial Development, Department of Development Services, State of Utah, 1973.
Page 64

housing needs assessment - Tooele County Economic Development

Transcription

Similar documents

Shady View Apartments - 585 North Main Street Tooele.indd

972 North Main Street Tooele.indd

1118 North Main Street

Tooele Town Center - 1000 North Main Street.indd

traverse mountain Lehi, utah phone. 801.947.8300

ÿþM i c r o s o f t P o w e r P o i n t

Creedence Clearwater Revisited

Copper Globe Claim Link Flats Spurs Claims 3779C and 3779D

cottonwood plaza retail space

Virtual Data Fusion and True Mobility Virtual Data Fusion and True