WEBER COUNTY

HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
& ACCESS STUDY
Wasatch Front Regional Council | University of Utah | Weber County, Utah | October 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WEBER COUNTY WEBER AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (WACOG)
Scott Jenkins, Weber County Commission
Jim Harvey, Weber County Commission WACOG AFFORDABLE HOUSING PANEL
Gage Froerer, Weber County Commission
Charlie Ewert, Planning Division WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL (WFRC)
Scott Perkes, Planning Division
Melissa Freigang, Prosperity Center for Excellence Megan Townsend
Unincorporated Weber County Mikala Jordan
Christy Dahlberg
THE 15 CITIES AND TOWNS OF WEBER COUNTY Marcia White
Ted Knowlton
Farr West Andrew Gruber
Harrisville Bill Hereth
Huntsville
Hooper UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Marriott-Slaterville
North Ogden Madison Merrill
Ogden Anders Hart
Plain City
Pleasant View
Riverdale Weber County applied to, and received planning assistance in the
Roy form of WFRC staff support from, the Transportation and Land Use
South Ogden Connection Program, a collaborative partnership between WFRC,
Uintah Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, and Utah Department of
Washington Terrace Transportation.
West Haven

ii Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................1 Washington Terrace................................................................................65
West Haven................................................................................................68
Existing Conditions................................................................................... 1
West-central Weber County................................................................70
Best Practices.............................................................................................. 2
Wolf Creek..................................................................................................73
Methodology.............................................................................................. 3

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS: WEBER COUNTY......................4 4 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK................................................... 76

Population .................................................................................................. 4 Feedback Events & Methods...............................................................76
Population Characteristics..................................................................... 7 Feedback Themes...................................................................................76
Housing Characteristics.......................................................................... 8 Survey..........................................................................................................78
Zoning & Land Use.................................................................................22
Key Trends & Take-Aways.....................................................................24
5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEST PRACTICES.................. 88
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS: COMMUNITIES...................... 25 Community Land Trusts........................................................................90
Housing Trust Funds..............................................................................91
Eden ............................................................................................................25 Preservation..............................................................................................91
Farr West.....................................................................................................27 Redevelopment Agencies....................................................................92
Harrisville...................................................................................................29 Regional Housing Coordination........................................................93
Hooper........................................................................................................32 Regulatory Incentives............................................................................94
Huntsville...................................................................................................34 TOD & Form-Based Code......................................................................95
Liberty.........................................................................................................37 Workforce Housing.................................................................................96
Marriot-Slaterville...................................................................................39 Zoning Reform.........................................................................................96
North Ogden.............................................................................................41
Ogden.........................................................................................................44
Plain City.....................................................................................................47 6 TOOLS FOR PLANNING....................................................... 98
Pleasant View............................................................................................50 Factors of Suitability...............................................................................99
Riverdale.....................................................................................................53 Using the Housing Location Explorer Tool.................................. 102
Roy................................................................................................................56
South Ogden............................................................................................59
7 CONCLUSION........................................................................107
Uintah..........................................................................................................62

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study iii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Affordable housing is critical to a strong economy and healthy society. Yet minority households over the past decade. Communities with the most
across the Wasatch Front, affordable housing is dwindling and homelessness diversity also tend to have lower median household incomes.
is rising at alarming rates. While Weber County has been known for lower Renter Households are Significantly Cost-Burdened
housing prices than the other counties along the Wasatch Front, its lower
household incomes and rising housing costs have resulted in a housing Weber’s renter households are significantly more cost-burdened by housing
crisis. than those in Davis County, and only slightly less cost-burdened than Salt
Lake County and the state of Utah, despite having substantially lower
This effort, executed by Weber County and Wasatch Front Regional rents (due to its lower median household income). While Weber County
Council (WFRC), aims to help address Weber County’s affordability crisis became less cost-burdened from 2010 to 2019, rising housing and rental
while supporting economic and social opportunities for residents. This prices between 2019 and 2022 indicate that the share of cost-burdened
document is split into three major sections: existing conditions, community households in Weber County can be expected to rise, and homeownership
feedback, and best practices for housing affordability. Socioeconomic and rates decline.
demographic conditions are assessed for both Weber County as a whole
and the individual communities within the county. More Affordable Housing Units Are Needed
As of 2019, the county was short over 1,300 units for low and very low-
Existing Conditions income households. This deficit is likely much larger in 2022.
Our main findings related to existing conditions are: Fifty-five percent of Weber County’s rental units are affordable for
Weber County is Seeing Booming Population Growth and Changing households below 80 percent of the area median household income
Population Characteristics (AMHI). While Weber County has a surplus of moderate-income units (50
to 80 percent AMHI), it lacks 1,322 low-income and very low-income units
Weber County’s population grew 13 percent between 2010 and 2020
for those below 50 percent AMHI (likely more with rising housing costs from
and is expected to grow by 70 percent in the next 40 years, resulting in a
2019 to 2022).
substantial increase in housing demand.
Moderate-Income Housing (MIH) is Not Equally Distributed Across
Weber County’s average household size is increasing despite its median
the County
age increasing and the percent of households with children under 18
decreasing. This suggests that the increasing household size is due to more Ogden provides 68 percent of the county’s moderate-income housing (MIH).
intergenerational households and cohabitation than increased children in Ogden, Riverdale, and Washington Terrace are the only municipalities that
the home. This is a sign that living alone may be becoming prohibitively offer more than their share of MIH relative to their population. Many of the
expensive for Weber County residents. county’s greatest contributors to MIH are also nearing build-out, meaning
they have limited land available to construct new housing. Unless other,
Weber County is becoming more diverse, with a significant increase in

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 1

still developing communities start providing more affordable housing, the Council’s Real Estate Market Model.
county deficit in affordable units will likely grow as the county’s population Some 2022 data were available from national resources. For example, home
increases. sale prices in Weber County have increased by over 73 percent between
Developable Land is Located in Higher-Cost Areas January 2019 and February 2022 (Redfin Data Center). The existence of
Most of the county’s remaining developable land is located in areas with some 2022 data allowed us to calculate rates of change and approximate
high median housing costs. The majority of growth is anticipated to occur in figures for variables without 2022 data, painting a broader picture of 2022
these areas. conditions.

Specifically, much of the remaining developable land lies in unincorporated

western Weber County and the more rural and suburban municipalities
Best Practices
in that area. At 44,000 potentially developable acres, Weber County has We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the following practices for
room for continuing its trend of strong population growth. However, current housing affordability:
zoning in many of these areas limits residential density, potentially hindering Zoning Reform
housing affordability and leading to long commutes as outlying areas
Legalizing higher densities and mixed uses in residential areas in zoning
develop.
ordinances.
West Haven, North Ogden, and Hooper are projected to account for most
Regional Housing Coordination
population growth in the county through 2060. However, all are among the
highest median rents. In fact, North Ogden has the second-highest rent, Policies to encourage or require increased housing development (including
and Hooper has the fourth. All three communities have high percentages of affordable housing) across the region. These may be adopted at the regional
cost-burdened households and contribute substantially less to the county or state level.
MIH supply relative to their population. Community Land Trusts
Data Lags Behind A non-profit leases land on which residents can buy homes, making
At the time of this analysis, the most recent available data for most variables homeownership more affordable by eliminating the cost of land from home
came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 to 2019 American Community prices. Resale prices are capped to maintain affordability.
Survey Five-Year Estimates. Yet, affordability and the housing market Workforce Housing
changed drastically between 2019 and 2022, so having a picture of 2022
Housing provided by employers for their employees or other employer-
conditions is important. Various projections were calculated based on 2019
based housing initiatives.
American Community Survey data as well as using Wasatch Front Regional

Figure 1.1 - Project Methodology

2 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Form-Based Code The map of developable land is based on a WFRC dataset of parcels in
Form-based codes regulate building form instead of land use and can allow Weber County (excluding Ogden Valley). We defined “developable land” as
for higher densities than traditional zoning. TODs promote affordability by WFRC-categorized vacant or agricultural. We excluded parcels that were
allowing for higher densities. within 100 meters of environmentally hazardous sites obtained from the
Utah Geospatial Resource Center. Those sites were:
Preservation • Hazardous waste and used oil facilities
Using deed restrictions and subsidies to keep affordable units available for • Solid waste facilities
low-income households. • Solid waste facilities (open sites only)
Housing Trust Funds • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA, or “Superfund”) sites
Government or non-profit funds used to finance or assist in the preservation • Utah Division of Air Quality air emissions inventory sites
or construction of affordable housing.
We also excluded riparian areas, but not areas listed as wetlands using
Tax Increment Financing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Leveraging increased tax revenue in specific districts to finance affordable categorization scheme. The developable land map is an approximation
housing projects. because the WFRC parcel data are from 2019. Additionally, that dataset
Regulatory Incentives may contain errors, and development may occur closer or farther from the
hazards identified above. Much of the developable land would also require
Encouraging affordable housing development through density bonuses, a zoning change for development to occur on it. The map is meant to serve
reduced parking or aesthetic requirements, or streamlined approval as a rough depiction of where future development is likely to occur in the
processes. coming years in Weber County.

Tools for Implementation

This effort also produced an interactive, web-based mapping tool for
communities to use. This tool, the Housing Location Explorer can assist
housing and land use planning efforts throughout Weber County. Users
choose what factors are important to their community and prioritize them.
The tool then produces a heat map of locations from most to least suitable
based on the user’s prioritization.

Methodology
Except where noted otherwise, the data source for this project is the U.S.
Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for 2015 to
2019. This data source was the most accurate and up-to-date at the time
of writing. Total population data for 2000 to 2020 are from the respective
decennial Censuses. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) provided
data for housing types for Weber County communities, except for Wolf
Creek, Huntsville, Liberty, Eden, and Western Weber County. We used ACS
data (Table DP04) on housing type for those communities.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 3

CHAPTER 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
WEBER COUNTY
POPULATION of Utah. However, the Governor’s Office anticipates the county to grow
significantly faster than its neighboring counties in the coming decades, with
As of the 2020 Census, Weber County’s population was 262,223. Over the its population increasing by over 70 percent from 2020 to 2060.
past two decades, the county’s rate of growth has remained fairly consistent
with 18 percent growth between 2000 and 2010 and 13 percent growth Community Comparison: Population
from 2010 to 2020. According to the Utah Governor’s Office, the population Not all areas of the county are growing at similar rates. Growth in older,
is expected to continue growing at a similar rate, reaching a population of more built-out areas is slowing to a crawl, while newer, more rural areas
449,052 by 2060 using a “middle of the road” growth projection. Figure 2.1 are growing exponentially. Tables 2.1 and 2.2, (as well as Map 2.1, see page
illustrates the county’s past and projected population growth. 6) show the growth rates from 2010 to 2020 and anticipated growth rates
As illustrated in Figure 2.2, Weber County’s growth rate of 13 percent from 2020 to 2060 of Weber County’s various communities.
from 2010 to 2020 was slower than its neighboring counties and the state

Figure 2.1 - Weber County Past and Projected Figure 2.2 - County/State Comparison: Population Growth Rate

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020, Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Management & Budget Office of Management & Budget

4 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

 Table 2.2 - Community Comparison: Population Growth Projections
Percent
Projected 2019 Estimated 2022 Projected 2025 Projected 2032
Growth Rate Percent of County Community
Growth Rate Percent Population Population Population Population
Community (2010 to of County Growth
(2020 to Built-Out
2020) Population (2020 to
2060)
2060) Weber County 260,213 274,460 288,706 307,702
Weber County 13% 73% 90% 100.0% 100.0% West Haven 10,286 12,207 14,128 16,689
West Haven 63% 249% 64% 6.4% 22.3% Plain City 7,669 8,311 8,953 9,809
Plain City 43% 112% 29% 3.0% 4.7% Pleasant View 10,839 11,664 12,489 13,589
Pleasant View 39% 102% 57% 4.2% 6.0% West-Central 3,944 4,188 4,599 5,395
Area
West-Central 39% 63% 70% 1.5% No Data
Area Farr West 7,385 7,666 7,947 8,321
Farr West 30% 51% 59% 2.9% 2.1% Marriott- 1,443 1,692 1,942 2,274
Slaterville
Marriott- 26% 230% 38% 0.8% 2.6%
Slaterville Hooper 9,152 11,229 13,306 16,075
Hooper 26% 303% 93% 3.5% 14.7% Harrisville 6,872 7,073 7,274 7,542
Harrisville 26% 39% 76% 2.7% 1.5% Wolf Creek 1,391 1,467 1,543 1,645
Wolf Creek 23% No Data No Data 0.6% No Data North Ogden 20,582 22,809 25,037 28,007
North Ogden 21% 144% 71% 8.0% 16.2% Liberty 929 980 1,031 1,099
Liberty 21% No Data No Data 0.6% No Data Eden 794 837 881 939
Eden 15% No Data No Data 0.3% No Data Riverdale 8,838 8,843 8,847 8,853
Riverdale 11% 1% 85% 3.6% 0.0% Uintah 1,439 1,510 1,582 1,677
Uintah 10% 66% 73% 0.6% 0.6% Roy 39,613 40,014 40,415 40,950
Roy 7% 14% 94% 15.0% 2.8% South Ogden 17,199 17,340 17,480 17,668
South Ogden 6% 11% 88% 6.7% 1.1% Ogden 87,773 89,261 90,749 92,732
Ogden 5% 23% 94% 33.3% 10.5% Washington 9,022 9,320 9,619 10,017
Terrace
Washington
2% 44% 76% 3.5% 2.2% Huntsville 628 662 697 743
Terrace
Huntsville -6% No Data No Data 0.2% No Data Uintah 1,832 1,896 1,944 2,074
Highlands
Uintah No Data 37% No Data 0.7% No Data
Highlands Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s Office of Management & Budget. For
the West-Central Area and Uintah Highlands, the Wasatch Front Regional Council Real Estate Market
Model was Used to calculate growth projections. ForWolf Creek, Liberty, Eden, and Huntsville, the
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020, Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s county’s projected growth rate was Used to estimate their projected populations.
Office of Management & Budget; Built-Out Data: Wasatch Front Regional Council (2018), AGRC 2021
(See Map 2.3), and WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 5

West Haven was the fastest-growing community in the county, with a growth are expected to continue to grow at fast rates through the coming
growth rate of 63 percent in the past decade. Other communities that have decades. West Haven, the county’s fastest-growing community from
seen significantly higher growth rates in the past decade include Plain City 2010 to 2020, is expected to nearly quadruple its population from 2020
(43 percent), Pleasant View (39 percent), and Farr West (30 percent). to 2060. Hooper is projected to grow even faster, with a growth rate of
On the other hand, more built-out Weber communities are seeing over 300 percent. Four other communities are expected to at least double
significantly slower growth, including Huntsville (six percent decline), their population by 2060, including Plain City, Pleasant View, Marriott-
Washington Terrace (two percent), Ogden (five percent), South Ogden (six Slaterville, and North Ogden. It should be noted that many of the fastest-
percen), and Roy (seven percent). All these areas are expected to continue growing communities account for very small portions of the county’s total
to grow at similarly low rates through 2060. However, these areas should population. However, with rapid growth, communities such as West Haven,
not be overlooked as they currently account for nearly 60 percent of the Hooper, and North Ogden will soon become major population centers. As a
county’s population. whole, Weber County communities can expect to see significant growth as
soon as the next three to ten years (Table 2.2, see page 5).
Many of the communities currently experiencing the most significant

Map 2.1 - Community Comparison: Population Growth Rate (2010 to 2020)

6 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Table 2.6 - Percent Minority-Headed Householders (2019)
Community Percent Minority-Headed Households
The following section summarizes key population and household
characteristics related to housing affordability. Weber County 18.9%
Ogden 29.6%
Race and Ethnicity Roy 19.7%
As illustrated in Figure 2.3, three-quarters of Weber County is white and
Riverdale 17.0%
non-Hispanic or Latino, 14 percent is white and Hispanic or Latino, four
percent is Pacific Islander, and less than four percent is black, Asian, Eden 15.2%
American Indian, or two or more races (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates). Weber Pleasant View 14.9%
County has 18.9 percent minority-headed households, which is more than
Box Elder County, Davis County, and the state of Utah but less than Salt Lake Washington Terrace 14.8%
County (Table 2.5). The share of minority households increased from 12.5 South Ogden 13.9%
percent in 2010 to 18.9 percent in 2019, indicating that Weber County may
Harrisville 12.9%
be becoming more diverse.
Wolf Creek 11.2%
Figure 2.3 - Weber County Race West Haven 10.3%
and Ethnicity (2019) Table 2.5 - Percent Minority
Householders (2019) Marriott-Slaterville 9.3%
Liberty 8.5%
Percent Minority
Farr West 8.1%
Households
West-central Weber 7.5%
Weber County 18.9% Uintah 7.3%
Box Elder County 10.5% North Ogden 7.1%
Davis County 13.3% Plain City 6.4%
Salt Lake County 23.7%
Hooper 4.5%
State of Utah 17.0%
Huntsville 2.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
Estimates, Table CP05, S2502

Ogden is the most diverse community in Weber County, with nearly a third
of its households minority-headed, followed by Roy (19.7 percent) (Table
2.6). The least diverse areas include Huntsville (2.7 percent), Hooper (4.5
percent), Plain City (6.4 percent), and North Ogden (7.1 percent). American
Community Survey data estimate that 100 percent of Eden’s residents
identify as white with only five percent also identifying as Hispanic/Latino.
The high percentage of minority-headed households may be due to the
community’s small size or sampling error.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 7

Other Key Characteristics Harrisville (50.1 percent). Where populations of children are increasing and
decreasing should be analyzed against school locations to ensure sufficient
Median Age and accessible educational opportunities.
Weber County has a median age of 32.7 years, similar to Box Elder and Single-Parent Households
Salt Lake counties and slightly older than Davis County and the state of
Utah. Weber County’s median age has increased significantly from 30.6 in Weber County has a higher single-parent household rate than does its
2010, signaling that the county is aging. Weber’s youngest communities surrounding counties or the state, with nearly seven percent of households
include Harrisville (28.2), West Haven (29.2), and Plan City (30.5) (2019 ACS headed by single parents in 2019. However, this rate has decreased
5-Year Estimates). An aging median age can indicate the need for increased over the past decade, with 9.4 percent of households headed by single-
services for older adults. parents in 2010. Seventy-four percent of single-parent households in 2019
were headed by single mothers and 26 percent by single fathers. Weber
Household Size communities with the highest percentage of single-parent households were
Weber County has a household size of 2.97 persons. This is lower than Harrisville (10.4 percent), Ogden (8.7 percent), and Washington Terrace (8.6
Davis, Box Elder, Salt Lake counties and the state of Utah. The average percent)
household size has increased from 2.84 in 2010 to 2.97 in 2019, despite 65+ Living Alone Households
the county median age increasing and the percent of households with
children under 18 decreasing. This suggests that the increasing household Over eight percent of Weber County households are residents 65 or older
size may be due to more intergenerational households, young adults living living alone – significantly higher than Davis (4.5 percent) and Salt Lake (5.3
with parents, or cohabitation amongst adults, rather than more children in percent) counties and slightly higher than the state average (7.3 percent).
the community. More intergenerational living can indicate limited housing, Communities that have the greatest proportion of 65 years and older
childcare, or older adult care options. householders living alone are Liberty (16.6 percent), Washington Terrace
(14.6 percent), and Riverdale (12.5 percent).
Age Dependency
The age dependency ratio compares the amount of traditionally dependent Table 2.7 - County/State Comparison: Other Key Population
age groups (infant to fourteen years and older than 65 years) to age groups Characteristics (2019)
that are traditionally in the workforce (15 to 65 years). Weber County has an
age dependency ratio of 66.4, meaning that 66.4 percent of its population Average Age
Percent Percent
Percent 65+
Median Households Single-Parent
is likely not in the workforce (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates). As shown in Table County Age
Household Dependency
with Children Households
Living Alone
2.7, Weber’s ratio lies in the middle of its neighboring counties and is similar Size Ratio Households
Under 18 Households
to the state average (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates). However, 66.4 indicates a
high age dependency, meaning people aged 15 to 65 years likely face higher Weber 32.7 2.97 66.4 40% 6.9% 8.4%
tax burdens to support the larger amount of dependent older and younger Box Elder 32.6 3.1 80.3 - - -
people. Davis 31.1 3.3 73.1 42% 5.5% 4.5%
Children Under 18 Households
Salt Lake 32.6 3.0 61.4 35% 5.2% 5.3%
In 2019, 40 percent of Weber County households had children under 18
State of Utah 30.8 3.1 68.4 41% 5.4% 7.3%
years old – a decrease from 41.3 percent in 2010. The state of Utah and
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101, S1101, DP02
Davis County also have a similar rate, while Salt Lake County has less.
Communities that have the largest percentage of households with children
under 18 were Plain City (55 percent), West Haven (52.5 percent), and

8 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Figure 2.4 - Weber County Housing Unit Tenure (Left: 2010, Right: 2019)

Tenure
In 2019, there were 91,756 housing units in Weber County. As indicated
in Figure 2.4, 66.9 percent of those were owner-occupied, 24.2 percent
renter-occupied, and 8.9 percent vacant. Tenure in 2010 had a similar
distribution. Since the population is growing yet housing tenure is remaining
proportionately consistent, there is an increasing amount of total renter and
homeowner households. Table 2.8 compares Weber’s household tenure to
adjoining counties and the state of Utah. At 26 percent, Weber County has
a greater portion of renter-occupied housing units than Davis (23.0 percent)
and Box Elder (22.2 percent) counties but a lower portion than Salt Lake
County (32.9 percent) and the state (29.8 percent). Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003
Table 2.8 also compares the change in homeownership rates over time
Table 2.8 - Household Tenure & Homeownership Rates (2019)
across counties. Weber County is the only county out of Box Elder, Davis,
and Salt Lake to have an increase in homeownership over the past decade. Percent Change in
Percent Owner Percent Renter
Utah as a whole saw a decrease of one percent in homeownership, while Homeownership Rates
Occupied Occupied
Weber saw an increase of nearly a percent; this is a positive sign for home- (2010-2019)
ownership attainability in Weber County. With that being said, minorities are Weber County 73.4% 26.6% 0.8%
not equally represented in Weber’s homeownership rates. About 15 percent
Box Elder County 77.8% 22.2% -1.3%
of Weber’s owner-occupied units are owned by minorities, compared to 19
percent of households headed by minorities. Davis County 77.0% 23.0% -3.7%
Salt Lake County 67.1% 32.9% -1.4%
Housing Types State of Utah 70.2% 29.8% -1.0%
Table 2.9 compares housing types to neighboring counties and the State. Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
Weber County has a similar distribution as the state overall, with 71.6
percent single-family detached, 5.3 percent single-family attached, 19.8 Table 2.9 - Housing Units by Type (2019)
percent multi-family, and 3.5 percent mobile homes. Weber County has
more multi-family than Box Elder (12.9 percent) and Davis (16.9 percent) Single-Family Single-Family
Multi-Family Mobile Homes
counties but less than Salt Lake County (21.9 percent) (WFRC & County Detached Attached
Assessor’s Parcel Data). Weber has a higher percentage of mobile homes Weber County 71.6% 5.3% 19.6% 3.5%
than all three other counties.
Box Elder County 81.2% 2.8% 12.9% 3.1%
Davis County 75.3% 5.1% 16.9% 2.7%
Salt Lake County 62.6% 7.2% 28.3% 1.9%
State of Utah 68.3% 6.4% 21.9% 3.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 9

Map 2.2 shows the geographic breakdown of built housing units throughout
Figure 2.5 - Weber County
Weber County as of January 2020 (see page 11). West of I-15 predominantly
Housing Types (2019)
consists of detached single-family units. Even when including areas east
of I-15, Weber County’s housing stock is primarily single-family by several
measures. 72 percent of the units are single-family detached units, and
single-family units take up about 96 million square feet compared to multi-
family units at 18 million square feet (WFRC Housing Inventory Explorer,
2020). Additionally, single-family parcels take up 62 thousand acres while
multi-family parcels take up only 2.7 thousand acres.
Multi-family housing is not evenly distributed across the county. Much
of the western half of Weber County is overwhelmingly single-family
housing units. When compared to the total housing stock of an individual
community, some communities have a much higher share of multi-family
housing while others have none. Wolf Creek (39.2 percent), Ogden (36.8 Source: WFRC
percent), and South Ogden (36.8 percent) have the highest composition of Database,
December 2019
multi-family housing relative to their total stock; the multi-family housing
in Wolf Creek, however, is predominantly second homes (WFRC & County
Assessor’s Parcel Data). Multi-family housing makes up less than one
percent of these communities’ housing stock: Liberty, Eden, Hooper, Farr
West, and Plain City (WFRC & County Assessor’s Parcel Data).
Figure 2.6 - Weber County
Figure 2.5 breaks down the housing stock further, showing the supply is
Housing Permits 2010- 2021
predominantly single-family detached homes (68.9 percent), followed by
13.6 percent apartments, 6.7 percent townhomes, 3.5 percent duplexes,
3.3 percent mobile homes, and less than three percent each of planned
unit developments (PUDs), condominiums, and mixed townhome/PUDs
(WFRC & County Assessor’s Parcel Data). Additionally, the housing stock
has shifted over the past decade. Figure 2.6 illustrates the share of housing
permits approved by housing type from January 2010 to August 2021.
When comparing Figure 2.5 to Figure 2.6, new housing is proportionally less
single-family detached, less mobile homes, and more single-family attached
and multi-family.
Source:
Ivory Boyer
Database: Jan.
2010 - Aug.
2021

10 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Map 2.2 - Housing Unit Types in 2020

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 11

Table 2.10 breaks down housing permits from January 2010 to August 2021 Table 2.10 - County Comparison: Housing Permits
by county and the state of Utah, and Table 2.11 does so by Weber County
Single-Family Single-Family
community. By far, the majority (26 percent) of housing permits issued Multi-Family Mobile Homes
Detached Attached
were in West Haven, followed by Ogden at 16 percent and North Ogden
at 10 percent. West Haven, Ogden, and South Ogden had the most multi- Weber County 71.6% 5.3% 19.6% 3.5%
family housing units constructed. Multi-family units made up 72 percent Box Elder County 81.2% 2.8% 12.9% 3.1%
of all units permitted in South Ogden, compared to 53 percent in Ogden,
Davis County 75.3% 5.1% 16.9% 2.7%
and 25 percent in West Haven. Only a relatively small number of mobile
homes were permitted in most communities; however, Ogden (40 permits), Salt Lake County 62.6% 7.2% 28.3% 1.9%
Pleasant View (34 permits), Farr West (29 permits), and Uintah (25 permits) State of Utah 68.3% 6.4% 21.9% 3.4%
permitted the most. Several communities permitted almost exclusively Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04
single-family detached homes, including Plain City, Farr West, Riverdale, and
Huntsville.

Table 2.11 - Community Comparison: Housing Permits (January 2010 to August 2021)
Percent
Total Percent # Single- Percent # Single- Percent
of County Percent # Mobile
Community Permitted Single-Family Family Single-Family Family # Multi-Family Mobile
Permitted Multi-Family Homes
Units Detached Detached Attached Attached Homes
Units
Weber County 100% 11,290 58.0% 6,548 17.8% 2,012 22.8% 2,570 1.3% 146
West Haven 26% 2,953 53% 1563 22% 657 25% 732 0% 0
Ogden 16% 1,768 23% 411 22% 386 53% 931 2% 40
North Ogden 10% 1,137 77% 878 19% 217 3% 38 0% 0
Pleasant View 8% 897 53% 479 39% 349 4% 35 4% 34
Plain City 8% 868 96% 830 4% 32 1% 6 0% 0
South Ogden 7% 776 13% 97 16% 123 72% 556 0% 0
Roy 7% 735 54% 399 11% 80 33% 245 1% 11
Farr West 6% 669 96% 640 0% 0 0% 0 4% 29
Harrisville 2% 199 50% 99 49% 97 2% 3 0% 0
Riverdale 1% 119 91% 108 0% 0 3% 4 6% 7
Huntsville 1% 110 95% 104 0% 0 4% 4 0% 0
Washington Terrace 1% 99 62% 61 19% 19 10% 10 9% 9
Uintah 0% 51 51% 26 0% 0 0% 0 49% 25
Source: WFRC Database, December 2019

12 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Household Income and Cost Burden portion of Weber’s households is cost-burdened. A household is considered
cost-burdened when it spends more than 30 percent of its gross income
Table 2.12 shows Weber’s 2019 median household income compared on housing. As of 2019, 23.8 percent of all households and 39.2 percent
to its neighboring counties and the state of Utah (See page 14). Weber of renter households were cost-burdened in Weber County, which is lower
County had a lower median household income ($67,244) than Davis County than the state (25.8 percent) and Salt Lake County (27.4 percent) but higher
($83,310), Salt Lake County ($74,865), and the state of Utah ($71,621), than Box Elder (20.2 percent) and Davis County (21.4 percent) (2019 ACS
and a higher income than Box Elder County ($62,233) (2019 ACS 5-Year 5-Year Estimates).
Estimates). Accounting for inflation, median household income has
increased from 2010 ($63,412) to 2019 ($67,224) by nearly $4,000 (2019 Table 2.12 - County/State Comparison: Median Household Income,
ACS 5-Year Estimates). For Weber County’s renters, median household Percent Cost-Burdened Households (2019)
income was only 39,620 dollars.
Percent Cost-
Percent Percent Cost-
Housing Costs – County-Wide Median Burdened
Cost- Burdened
Household Homeowner
The median homeowner in Weber County spent $1,378 per month on Burdened Renter
Income Households with a
housing costs in 2019 (Figure 2.7). That is less than the median for the state Households Households
Mortgage
of Utah ($1,551), Davis County ($1,600), and Salt Lake County ($1,645) but
more than Box Elder County ($1,298) (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates). Median Weber County $67,244 23.8% 39.2% 22.2%
renters paid $891 each month – less than the State ($1,037), Davis County Box Elder County $62,233 20.2% 32.9% 22.0%
($1,105), and Salt Lake County ($1,118) but more than Box Elder County
Davis County $83,310 21.4% 32.2% 19.6%
($747) (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates).
Salt Lake County $74,865 27.4% 42.7% 24.0%
Rent and owner costs vary across Weber County (Table 2.13, see page 14).
Unsurprisingly, the unincorporated resort community of Wolf Creek had State of Utah $71,621 25.8% 41.9% 23.6%
the highest median rent ($2,642) and owner costs ($2,542). Other high- Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503
rent communities included Huntsville, Hooper, and West Haven. This is
particularly significant considering West Haven and Hooper are some of the
Figure 2.7 - County/State Comparison: Housing Costs (2019)
fastest-growing communities. Over the past decade, many of the high-rent
communities, such as Huntsville, Harrisville, Uintah, and Pleasant View
permitted almost exclusively single-family homes.
The most affordable rent was in Plain City ($736), Washington Terrace
($820), and Riverdale ($854). West Haven, North Ogden, and Hooper are
projected to have the most relative growth in Weber County through 2060.
However, as of 2019, all but North Ogden have relatively higher median rent
and owner costs, which may have housing affordability implications in the
future, particularly if those areas do not permit a variety of housing choices
(see Zoning and Land Use on page 22).
Housing and Transportation Cost-Burden
Table 2.12 also shows the percent of households (overall, homeowner, and
renter-only) cost-burdened by housing. Despite having lower housing costs
than the state overall and most of its comparable counties, a significant Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 13

Weber’s renter households are significantly more cost-burdened than Davis Table 2.13 - Community Comparison: Housing Costs (2019)
households and only slightly less cost-burdened than Salt Lake households
despite having substantially lower rents, likely because of Weber’s lower Community Median Monthly Rent Median Monthly Owner Costs
median household income. Overall, Weber County has seen a decrease in
cost burden since 2010. This might be due to increased median income and Weber County $891 $1,378
decreased median owner costs. However, the percentage of cost-burdened
Wolf Creek $2,642 $2,542
renting households has increased from 2010 to 2019 to 42.2 percent,
potentially due to rising rent or increasing disparities in wages among North Ogden $1,503 $1,503
income groups. Huntsville $1,250 $1,607
Additionally, rates vary significantly among communities within Weber
Hooper $1,216 $1,774
County (Table 2.14, see page 15). In fact, 35.5 percent of households in
Liberty were cost-burdened, while only 10.6 percent of households in Ogden $1,185 $1,185
Eden were (2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates). Liberty, Ogden, Wolf Creek, and
West Haven $1,161 $1,567
Washington Terrace are the most cost-burdened communities. Ogden and
Washington Terrace have some of the cheapest housing, but they also have Harrisville $1,131 $1,357
some of the lowest household incomes, the highest percentage of renter- Uintah $1,125 $1,602
occupied housing, and a high percentage of single-parent households.
Liberty and Wolf Creek, however, have some of the highest income and Pleasant View $1,104 $1,896
the lowest percent of renter-occupied units, but they also have very high Roy $1,061 $1,317
housing costs. This indicates that both low incomes and high housing costs
Marriott-Slaterville $972 $1,525
are significant factors in housing affordability in Weber County.
Transportation costs depend in part on housing location and accessibility South Ogden $961 $1,270
and are an essential factor in overall affordability. A household is cost- Farr West $950 $1,757
burdened when their housing and transportation costs exceed 45 percent
Riverdale $854 $1,291
of their gross income. In 2015, housing and transportation costs consumed
46 percent (23 percent for housing, 23 percent for transportation) of the Washington Terrace $820 $1,215
median household income ($56,581), indicating that many Weber County Plain City $736 $1,712
households are cost-burdened by combined housing and transportation
costs. For households at the moderate-income threshold, combined housing West-central Weber $923 $1,687
and transportation costs consume 53 percent of income on average (28 Eden No data $2,142
percent for housing and 25 percent for transportation). These figures are
Liberty No data $1,621
based on the most recent version of the H+T index, which uses data from
the 2015 American Community Survey, and does not consider the alarming Uintah Highlands No data No data
recent housing cost rates depicted on page 16.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S2506 and B25070, and WFRC’s Real Estate
Market Model. For the West-Central Area and Uintah Highlands, the projected growth rate in median
household income was calculated Using the WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model. All other communities
Used U.S. Census Bureau ACS Data. West-central Weber and Uintah Highlands data for percent cost-
burdened households are estimates based on available data for similar but not exact geographies.

14 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 2.14 - Community Comparison: Cost-Burdened Households (2019)

Percent Cost- Percent Cost- #Cost-Burdened Percent Cost-Burdened

Median Household #Cost-Burdened
Community Burdened Burdened Renter Homeowner Households Homeowner Households
Income Renter Households
Households Households with a Mortgage with a Mortgage

Weber County $67,244 23.8% 8,723 39.2% 9,660 22.2%

Liberty $93,583 35.5% 0 0.0% 94 19.9%
Ogden $50,061 28.9% 5,417 41.9% 2,869 11.8%
Wolf Creek $114,306 28.1% 60 69.8% 90 13.1%
Washington $63,503 27.9% 535 51.6% 298 10.7%
Terrace
Harrisville $74,342 24.3% 94 41.2% 386 12.5%
Marriott-Slaterville $75,317 23.4% 49 40.2% 110 14.2%
West Haven $77,733 22.8% 419 42.3% 478 8.9%
Plain City $74,714 21.5% 0 0.0% 403 15.8%
Hooper $96,688 20.7% 36 36.0% 471 12.4%
Roy $70,032 20.4% 752 36.4% 1,682 10.6%
Riverdale $56,000 19.9% 228 25.8% 235 8.2%
South Ogden $68,585 19.8% 479 27.7% 689 11.6%

North Ogden $81,198 19.3% 334 37.8% 716 9.6%

Uintah $90,208 19.0% 6 10.7% 60 12.4%
Pleasant View $98,765 17.6% 179 41.6% 323 9.3%
Huntsville $69,861 17.3% 3 12.0% 36 16.1%
Farr West $90,917 14.7% 29 18.3% 248 9.6%
Eden $118,558 10.6% 0 0.0% 27 8.5%
West-central Weber $77,463 21% 49 23% No data No data
Uintah Highlands $74,331 21% 25 23% No data No data
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S2506 and B25070, and WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model. For the West-Central Area and Uintah Highlands, the projected growth rate in median
household income was calculated Using the WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model. All other communities Used U.S. Census Bureau ACS Data. West-central Weber and Uintah Highlands data for percent cost-burdened
households are estimates based on available data for similar but not exact geographies.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 15

Monthly Housing Costs
Figure 2.9 - Weber County Median Residential Sales Price 2019 to 2022
Housing prices have grown since 2013 and skyrocketed since 2019 (Figure
2.8). Median rent in Weber County rose from $891 to $1,084 in the past
three years (2019 to 2022), which is a 22 percent increase (CoStar Group
via Washington Post “Rising Rent Prices,” 2022). In that same time frame,
median household sale price increased by 73 percent (Figures 2.9 and 2.10)
(Redfin National Real Estate Brokerage). In 2019, the median residential
sale price was $250,000; in 2022, the number jumped to $433,000 (Redfin
National Real Estate Brokerage). Assuming a 30-year fixed mortgage at 6
percent interest, those sale prices indicate a jump in monthly mortgage
payments from $1,499 to $2,596. During this three year period, housing
inflation rose by 9.7 percent too (CPI Inflation Calculator).

Figure 2.8 - Weber County Median Residential Sales Price 2013 to 2022
Source: Redfin National Real Estate Brokerage

Figure 2.10 - County Comparison: Median Residential Sales Price

Source: Redfin National Real Estate Brokerage

Source: Redfin National Real Estate Brokerage

16 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Affordable Housing Table 2.15 - Weber County Rental Affordable Gap Analysis (2019)
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Weber County is shown in Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Table 2.15. Income ranges are based on area median household income Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
(AMHI) for renter households. Maximum affordable rents are assumed at Monthly Rent at that Price Available
30 percent of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households Less than 30 percent
$297 3,037 2,051 -986
AMHI ($11,886)
in each income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available for
30 to 50 percent
each income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number AMHI ($11,886- $495 2,285 1,949 -336
of households and the number of units available, indicating the surplus or $19,810)
deficit of housing units for each income range. 50 to 80 percent
The lowest income brackets (30 to 50 percent AMHI and less than 30 AMHI ($19,810- $792 3,439 8,278 4,839
$31,696)
percent AMHI) have large deficits of 336 and 986 units, respectively,
indicating that the county is short 1,322 units below 50 percent AMHI. 80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 2,246 4,829 2,583
Households in these brackets do not have enough housing available within $39,620)
their affordability range and are being forced to pay more than they can
100 to 125 percent
afford. There is a deficit of 6,185 units in the highest income bracket AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 2,649 2,735 86
(greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 6,185 households must $49,525)
rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more. This results in the > 125 percent AMHI
> $1,238 8,581 2,396 -6,185
highest income bracket consuming most of the surplus units in the 50 to (> $49,525)
125 percent AMHI income brackets. Source: U.S. Census Bureau: ACS 2019, 2015, 2010 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25118, B25119

Table 2.16 compares the number of moderate, low, and very low-income
households (below 80 percent AMI) in Weber and its neighboring counties
Table 2.16 - County Comparison: MIH Households Over Time
between 2010 and 2019. The number of households below 80 percent AMI
has actually decreased, where an increase was seen in the other counties.
But, as shown in Figures 2.9 to 2.11, home sale prices have increased rapidly 2010 2015 2019
since 2019, meaning the true affordable-housing deficit is likely larger than % Change %Change
County <80% AMI <80% AMI <80% AMI
2010-2015 2015-2019
this analysis indicates. Projections of housing affordability, discussed in the Households Households Households
“Affordability Gap Looking Ahead” section, indicate a growing deficit in
affordable units.
Weber 8,827 1.3% 8,946 -2.1% 8,761
Box Elder 926 27.7% 1,281 10.8% 1,435
Davis 5,851 15.6% 6,931 -6.3% 6,522
Salt Lake 37,804 3.4% 39,136 -2.2% 38,303

Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau: ACS 2019, 2015, 2010 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25118, B25119

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 17

Distribution of Moderate-Income Housing Options Table 2.17 - Affordable Housing & Land Availability Community
The communities in Weber County do not contribute equally to the county’s Comparison (2019)
moderate-income housing (MIH) supply, as indicated in Table 2.17 and Map
%County %County Estimated
2.3 (see page 19). In fact, Ogden provides over 68.6 percent of the county’s Community %Developable
MIH Supply Population Developable Acres
MIH supply while only accounting for 33 percent of the population. Ogden,
Riverdale, and Washington Terrace are the only municipalities that provide Ogden 68.6% 33.3% 6.5% 1,150
more than their share of MIH relative to their population. Many of Weber
Roy 6.5% 15.0% 6.1% 317
County’s greatest contributors to MIH are also nearing build-out, meaning
they have limited land available to construct new housing. Unless other, still- South Ogden 6.4% 6.7% 11.7% 294
developing communities start providing more affordable housing, the deficit Washington 5.2% 3.5% 24.0% 309
of affordable units will likely grow as the county’s population increases. Terrace
Communities with the biggest gaps between share of MIH and population
Riverdale 4.2% 3.6% 15.1% 446
include North Ogden (2.6 percent of MIH, 8.0 percent of population), West
Haven (1.1 percent of MIH, 6.4 percent of population), Pleasant View (0.8 North Ogden 2.6% 8.0% 29.3% 1,415
percent of MIH, 4.2 percent of population), and Hooper (0.2 percent of
MIH, 3.5 percent of population). All of these communities are some of West Haven 1.1% 6.4% 36.0% 2,483
the fastest-growing communities and are expected to account for nearly Plain City 0.8% 3.0% 70.7% 5,503
60 percent of Weber County’s growth through 2060. Thus, it will be vital
Pleasant View 0.8% 4.2% 43.5% 1,952
that these communities start providing affordable housing relative to their
population. Farr West 0.6% 2.9% 41.3% 1,559
Harrisville 0.6% 2.7% 27.3% 453
Marriott-Slaterville 0.4% 0.8% 62.0% 2,928

Hooper 0.2% 3.5% 6.6% 3,706

Uintah 0.2% 0.6% 27.2% 218
Huntsville 0.1% 0.2% No data No data
Wolf Creek 0.1% 0.6% No data No data
Eden 0.0% 0.3% No data No data
Liberty 0.0% 0.6% No data No data
Uintah Highlands No data 0.7% No data No data
West -Central Area No data 1.5% No data No data
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2020, Table P1; Wasatch Front Regional Council, 2018, Utah Geospatial
Resource Center

18 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Map 2.3 - Distribution of Moderate-Income Housing

Affordability Gap Looking Ahead Table 2.18 - Recent Changes in Housing Costs
If current housing trends continue, housing will become increasingly Median Housing Median Monthly Mortgage Payment for
Weber
expensive. Based on rates of change between 2019 and 2022, median County
Monthly Inflation by Residential 30-year fixed 6% interest rate at
monthly rent could increase to $1,319 in 2025, which is a 48 percent Rent 2019 Dollars Sale Price the Median Residential Sale Price
increase in costs from 2019 (Table 2.18). Using 2019 to 2022 trends, median 2019 $891 $1.00 $250,000 $1,499
residential sale price is also likely to increase sharply. The median residential
sale price may rise to $749,956 in 2025, which is almost three times the 2022 $1,084 $1.10 $433,000 $2,596
median residential sale price of $250,000 in 2019 (Redfin). Rate of
21.7% 9.7% 73.2% 73.2%
Increase:
2025
$1,319 $1.21 $749,956 $4,496
Projection

Source & Methodology: 2022 Median Monthly Rent - According to a national study by the firm Costar,
rent increased by 21.7 percent in Weber County between 2019 and 2022. That rate of 21.7 percent was
Used with the baseline 2019 ACS data to estimate the costs for 2022. https//www.washingtonpost.com/
bUsiness/interactive/2022/rising-rent-prices/; Median Residential Sale Price - Redfin National Real Estate
Brokerage; Inflation - https://www.in2013dollars.com/Us/inflation/2019/

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 19

Because of these large increases in cost over the past three years, the Table 2.19 - Projected Unit Deficits
percentage of cost-burdened households has likely increased. Using a
Deficit of Units Available across
predicted growth rate for median household income, Weber County’s Year
Income Brackets
median rent increase of 22 percent, and Weber County’s anticipated annual
growth rate of 4.38 percent, it is possible to estimate the percentage of 2019 -7,508
cost-burdened renter households in 2022 and onward. These estimates
2022 -8,805
paint a bleak picture of housing affordability within Weber County, as
only seven communities would have less than 99 percent of their renter 2025 -11,071
households be cost-burdened with housing by 2022 if trends continue 2032 -25,158
(Appendix A, Table 1). At minimum these projections show that, if the Source: U.S. Census Bureau: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B25118, B25119,
current ratio of housing cost increases to median household income B25056 projected to 2022, 2025, 2032

increases continues, then housing will be increasingly unaffordable to most

residents. Table 2.20 - Projected Rental Affordability Gap in 2019 Dollars
In addition to increased housing costs, insufficient wage increases are also 2022
responsible for the predicted increase in cost-burdened households. Wages
and income are not keeping pace with housing costs. Using the 4.2 percent
annual growth rate in median household income between 2017 and 2019
as an estimate for the rate of change between 2019 and 2022, median
household income has lagged far behind inflation, rent increases, residential
sale price increases, and mortgage payment increases. The median
household could not afford the monthly mortgage for new units at the
median sales price in any community in Weber County except Wolf Creek 2025
and Eden in 2022 (Table 2.21, see page 21). This means that single-family
homes available on the market will continue to be largely unaffordable to
the majority of the population. Median households are predicted to be able
to afford the median monthly rent; however, cost is not the only factor in
housing affordability.
Indeed, when taking projected housing availability into account, renting
as an affordable housing option is not predicted to be sufficient. The gap
between the number of units and number of households will likely increase,
creating a larger deficit of available housing units across income brackets 2032
(Table 2.19). While Weber County lacked 7,508 units in 2019, the county
may lack as many as 25,158 units by 2032.
In 2025, households at 80 to 100 percent, 100 to 125 percent, and over 125
percent of the area median household income will have the largest deficits
in available units (Table 2.20). In 2032, those income brackets, as well as
the 50 to 80 percent area median household income bracket, will face large
deficits. Source: U.S. Census Bureau: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B25118, B25119, B25056, projected to 2022, 2025, 2032

20 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 2.21 - Can the median household afford mortgage and rent in 2022 and 2025?

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, projected to 2022, 2025, and WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model for West-Central Area and Uintah Highlands.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 21

ZONING & LAND USE undeveloped area adjacent to FrontRunner tracks.
Roy has mixed-use downtown and FrontRunner station districts, and these
Zoning generally allow commercial, residential, and office uses. These districts
are limited to Roy’s downtown area near 5600 South on the city’s east
Weber County municipalities have established several zoning districts for side. South Ogden has form-based zoning districts that allow mixed uses
mixed and multi-family land uses. Table 2.22 and the text below summarize around its envisioned downtown. Weber County’s Ogden Valley Destination
how Weber communities define and plan for these land uses. and Recreation Resort Zone (DDR-1) allows mixed commercial uses, and
Multi-Family Zoning its commercial CV-2 zone allows residential uses if they are stipulated in
a development agreement. The DDR-1 zone is found around Snowbasin
Huntsville, Farr West, Marriott-Slaterville, Plain City, and Washington Terrace Resort and Trapper’s Loop above Ogden Valley, while CV-2 is clustered
do not allow multi-family residential development. Uintah allows duplexes around Eden in Ogden Valley. West Haven’s mixed-use zone, which is
conditionally in its residential zoning districts. Hooper allows up to ten interspersed throughout the city, allows commercial and residential
percent of lots in most residential districts to have duplexes or twin homes.
Hooper also allows townhouses in all its residential zones. Table 2.22 - Community Comparison: Multi-Family Zoning in the
The other communities in Weber County only allow multi-family housing to County’s Fastest Growing Communities
varying degrees in their residential districts. Most communities restrict this Growth
Multi-
housing type to higher-density residential and mixed-use districts. Density Rate
Community Family Details
limits vary, with some (like Ogden and Riverdale) allowing densities of up to (2010 to
Permitted
49 units in a building. South Ogden limits multi-family to 12 units in building 2020)
or lot, while North Ogden lists multi-family dwellings as conditional uses West Haven 63% Yes Allowed in all R3 and Mixed Use Zones

in its R-4 district. Weber County municipalities allocate a much smaller Plain City 43% No
percentage of their residential land to districts that allow multi-family Pleasant View 39% Limited
housing than single-family housing. Additionally, these districts are usually
situated where multi-family housing already exists. South Ogden is an Farr West 30% No
exception, as it allows multi-family housing in a larger percentage of its area Marriott-Slater- 26% No
ville
in zones interspersed throughout its jurisdiction. Allows twin homes and Duplexes in up
to 10 percent of lots in new subdivisions
Mixed-Use Zoning Hooper 26% Limited provided they meet minimum lot
Most Weber County municipalities include some form of mixed-use requirements
zoning – though the specifics of each district vary widely. Ogden has Very limited areas. Mixed-Use zone allows
Harrisville 26% Limited clusters of up to 5 attached units, possibly
the most sophisticated mixed-use zoning district near the Ogden River more
and downtown, which specifies which uses may be mixed vertically or
Some MF zoning in FR-3 district (up to
horizontally, sets a maximum lot size of 3,000 square feet, creates maximum Wolf Creek 23% Yes four-plex) (Weber Co zoning code)
setbacks and parking requirements, and requires a master plan for
mixed-use developments. Farr West has a mixed-use zone, but it requires North Ogden 21% Limited
developments to be at least 40 acres in size, and the city’s zoning map Allowed in CV-2 zone if in development
Liberty 21% No agreement (Weber Co zoning code)
indicates that this zone is not established anywhere in the city as of 2021.
Allowed in CV-2 zone if in development
Riverdale’s mixed-use zone allows for commercial and residential uses, Eden 15% No agreement (Weber Co zoning code)
with residential densities of up to 13 units per acre. This zone covers an Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020, Table P1; Various applicable zoning codes

22 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

uses, with densities up to 30 units per acre. Harrisville’s mixed-use zones Land Use and Developable Land
are divided into commercial and residential sub-districts and require
development agreements to specify land-use details; the commercial sub- Map 2.4 shows the potentially developable land in Weber County (no
district must include at least 51 percent commercial uses. Pleasant View has data for Ogden Valley). In this context, “potentially developable” is any
a mixed-use zone, but it is unclear which uses are permitted. vacant or agricultural parcel farther than 100 meters from environmentally
contaminated sites. This map intends to show general locations of
Several communities have zoning districts that potentially allow mixed uses. developable land and does not indicate the developability of a specific
North Ogden has a master planned community zone that could allow mixed parcel, as considerations such as slope are not included. The parcel data
uses dependent on development agreements. Uintah includes residential used for this analysis are from 2018, so some of the developable land shown
uses as conditional uses in its commercial C-1 zone. here could have been developed since. Also, this map depicts the delineated
Hooper, Plain City, Huntsville, Marriott-Slaterville, and Washington Terrace flood plain (areas with at least a one percent annual chance of flood)
do not have mixed-use zoning. This means that in western Weber County, according to the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Such
only West Haven has mixed-use zoning, and in southern Weber County, only flood plain areas are generally not developable. Some flood hazard areas
Washington Terrace does not offer mixed-use zoning. may be developed after significant mitigation measures are implemented,
and such areas are unlikely to develop in the short-term future.

Map 2.4 - Potentially Developable Land

in Weber County (2018)

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 23

Farr West has the highest percentage, while unincorporated western Weber Growing Deficit in Affordable Units
County has the largest developable acreage. Using this analysis, there
Fifty-five percent of Weber County’s rental units are affordable for
are 22,734 developable acres in western Weber County municipalities
households making 80 percent of the AMHI. While Weber County has a
and 21,010 developable acres in unincorporated western Weber County,
surplus of moderate-income units (50 to 80 percent AMHI), it lacks 1,322
for a total of 43,743 developable acres. The bulk of developable land is
low-income and very low-income units for those below 50 percent AMHI
in the western regions of the county, especially in unincorporated areas.
(likely more with rising housing costs from 2019 to 2021). Ogden provides
Established communities like Ogden and Roy are mostly built-out and have
over 68 percent of Weber County’s moderate-income housing. Ogden,
little room for further development absent zoning changes. As indicated
Riverdale, and Washington Terrace are the only municipalities that offer
above, most of the municipalities in western Weber County have limited
more than their share of MIH relative to their population. Many of the
zoning for denser, multi-family development, meaning that without zoning
county’s greatest contributors to MIH are also nearing build-out, meaning
changes, future housing on much of the remaining developable land will
they have limited land available to construct new housing. Unless other,
occur at lower densities and predominantly consist of detached single-
still developing communities start providing more affordable housing, the
family homes.
county deficit in affordable units will likely grow as the county’s population
increases.
KEY TRENDS & TAKE-AWAYS Communities with Greatest Projected Growth are also the
Increasing Household Size but Fewer Children Least Affordable
Weber County’s average household size is increasing despite its median West Haven, North Ogden, and Hopper are projected to account for the
age increasing and the percent of households with children under 18 most population growth in the county through 2060. However, all are
decreasing. This suggests that the increasing household size is due to among the highest median rents in the county. In fact, North Ogden has the
more intergenerational households and cohabitation rather than increased second-highest rent, and Hooper has the fourth. All three communities have
children in the home. This is a sign that living alone may be becoming high percentages of cost-burdened households and contribute substantially
prohibitively expensive for Weber County residents. less to the county MIH supply relative to their population.

Increasing Diversity Most Developable Land is in Western Weber County

Weber County is becoming more diverse, with a significant increase in Much of the remaining developable land lies in unincorporated western
minority households over the past decade. Communities with the most Weber County and the more rural and suburban municipalities in that area.
diversity also tend to have lower median household incomes. At almost 44,000 potentially developable acres, Weber County has room for
continuing its trend of strong population growth. However, current zoning in
High Cost-Burden many of these areas limits residential density, potentially hindering housing
Weber’s renter households are significantly more cost-burdened by housing affordability and leading to long commutes as outlying areas develop. It also
than Davis County, and only slightly less cost-burdened than Salt Lake prompts the question of how best to accommodate inevitable growth.
County and the state of Utah, despite having substantially lower rents (due
to its lower median household income). Weber County has become less
cost-burdened from 2010 to 2019. However, housing prices and cost-burden
are likely significantly higher than indicated in this report due to increased
home prices in the past three years. If housing prices continue to climb at
similar rates, the share of cost-burdened households in Weber County can
be expected to rise, and homeownership rates decline.

24 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

CHAPTER 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES
EDEN Table 3.1 - Eden: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Population Characteristics Characteristic Eden Weber County

Eden’s population grew from 600 to 690 between 2010 and 2019, a 15 Median Household Income (2019 $s) $118,558 $67,244
percent increase (compared to a 13 percent increase in the county-wide % Cost Burdened Households 11% 24%
population). This growth rate ranked 11 out of 18 of the Weber County
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 12% 39%
communities. Unfortunately, the Utah State Governor’s Office does not have
population projections for Eden at this time. Median Age 47.9 32.7

One-hundred percent of Eden’s residents are white, with 4.9 percent Average Household Size 3.1 2.97
identifying as Hispanic or Latino in 2019. However, 15.2 percent of Eden % Single-Parent Households 0% 6.9%
households were headed by racial minorities in 2019, the fourth highest
in the county. This discrepancy with the population-level racial breakdown % 65+ Living Alone Households 0% 8.4%
may be due to the community’s small size and sampling error in American % Households with Children Under 18 25.4% 39.6%
Community Survey data. Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

Eden had the second-highest median age in the county as of 2019 at 47.9
years. It also had the lowest percentage of single-parent households and homeownership rate rose by 9.4 percentage points between 2010 and
percentage of people 65 years or older living alone. Eden had the lowest 2019, which is significant as the county rate rose by only 0.8 percent.
percentage of cost-burdened households in the county at 10.6 percent, However this is likely more due to the lack of rental units in the community
likely due to its extremely high median household income of $118,558. Cost than to increased economic prosperity.
burden in Eden appears to be declining as the percentage of cost-burdened Housing Costs
households fell from 21.2 percent in 2010 to 10.6 percent in 2019.
The median owner housing cost was $2,142 in 2019, the second-highest
Housing Characteristics in the county. This figure decreased from $2,259 in 2010 (after adjusting
for inflation). Households with a median regional income spent 55 percent
Tenure of their income on housing (29 percent) and transportation (26 percent).
All of Eden’s occupied housing units were owner-occupied as of 2019, Households with a moderate regional income (80 percent AMHI) spent 67
with a vacancy rate of 13.5 percent. This relatively high vacancy rate may percent of their income on housing and transportation.
be due in part to short-term rental properties and second homes. Eden’s

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 25

Housing Types Zoning Provides Little Opportunity For Affordable
All of Eden’s housing stock was single-family detached as of 2019, and this Housing
percentage was the same in 2010. The community provides no moderate-income housing and under current
Affordable Housing zoning has little potential to increase density to provide more housing,
though it may see further development of large-lot detached single-family
As 100 percent of Eden’s units are owner occupied, the community homes that are unlikely to be affordable.
has no rental units, let alone affordable rental units. This is not to say
that there is no demand for affordable units in Eden, as the county as a
whole is short over 1,300 units. Despite accounting for 0.3 percent of the
county’s population, Eden supplies zero percent of the county’s affordable
housing. For Eden to provide its fair share of affordable units relative to its
population, it would need to provide 37 affordable units.

Zoning & Land Use

Eden’s zoning is codified in the Weber County zoning code. Much of the
community is zoned for AV-3, an agricultural zone that permits single-
family dwellings and cluster subdivisions. Eden’s zoning does not allow for
attached-single-family or multi-family homes. This situation corresponds
with the community’s housing stock, which is 100 percent single-family
detached. No data are available on the number or type of housing permits
issued in Eden.

Key Trends & Take-Aways

Homogeneous In Race And Housing
In 2019, 100 percent of Eden’s population was reported as white with just
five percent also identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Eden’s housing stock also
has little diversity: all of its housing stock owner-occupied single-family
homes. Eden has the second-highest median owner costs in Weber County.
Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
Housing
Eden accounts for 0.3 percent of the county’s population yet it provides
zero percent of the county’s affordable housing. For Eden to provide a share
of affordable units proportionate to its population, it would need to provide
37 affordable units.

26 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

FARR WEST exceeds the Weber County figure by a large margin and is the sixth-highest
in the county. Farr West also has a low share of cost burdened households
at 15 percent compared to the county’s 24 percent. It also has the sixth-
Population Characteristics largest household size in the county with 3.3 persons per household.
Farr West has grown by 30 percent in the past decade – the fourth-highest However, the proportion of households with children under 18 is similar to
rate in the county. From 2010 to 2020, Farr West grew nearly two times the county at around 39 percent.
faster than predicted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget,
Table 3.2 - Farr West: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
reaching a population of 7,691, as indicated in Figure 3.1. The Governor’s
Characteristic Farr West Weber County
Figure 3.1 - Farr West Past and Projected Population
Median Household Income $90,917 $67,244
% Cost Burdened Households 15% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 18% 39%

Median Age 36.7 32.7

Average Household Size 3.30 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 3.9% 6.9%

% 65+ Living Alone Households 6.4% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 38.9% 39.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

Housing Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Management & Budget Tenure
Figure 3.2 - Farr West Race Office projections anticipate Farr West As shown in Figure 3.3, at 87.5 percent, Farr West has the fifth-highest
(2019) will continue to grow rapidly through home-ownership rate in the county. Homeownership increased by 1.5
2060, reaching a projected population of percent between 2010 and 2019.
11,593 residents by 2060. Though if the Housing Types
community’s growth trends continue, Farr
West will likely exceed these predictions by As illustrated in Figure 3.4, Farr West’s housing stock is 86.8 percent
a remarkable margin. detached single-family homes, 13.1 percent mobile homes and just 0.1
percent duplexes. A total of 669 units were permitted in Far West from
With about 95 percent of Farr West’s 2010 to 2021. Of those units, 640 (96 percent) were single-family detached
residents identifying as White (see Figure and 29 (4 percent) were mobile homes. Comparing these numbers to the
3.2) and only 6.4 percent identifying as existing housing supply by type in Figure 3.4 indicates that Farr West’s
Hispanic/Latino, the city is among the least housing stock is shifting even more towards detached single-family housing
racially diverse in the county. and away from mobile homes. Farr West was one of two Weber County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
As indicated in Table 3.2, Farr West’s median municipalities that did not permit any multi-family housing within the last
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05 household income of almost $91,000 decade.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 27

Figure
Figure 3.3
3.X--Farr
FarrWest
WestHousing Figure 3.4 - Farr West Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
Unit Tenure
Housing (2019)
Unit Tenure Housing by Type (2019) number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing
units for each income range.
According to this analysis, there was a surplus of moderate, low, and very-
low-income rental units relative to Farr West’s household demographics.
However, housing prices have increased rapidly since 2019, meaning that
by this report’s date in 2022, the community’s affordable-housing surplus
is likely smaller than this analysis indicates. All together, 43 percent of the
city’s rental units are affordable to households at 80 percent of area median
income (AMI). There is a deficit of 107 units in the highest income bracket
(greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 107 households must rent
at a lower price despite being able to afford more, resulting in the highest
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
income bracket consuming some of the surplus units in the lower-income
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council brackets.
Though Farr West may be providing near enough affordable units for its
Housing Costs
residents, it is not pulling its weight regionally. Despite housing 2.9 percent
Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Farr West was $950 of Weber County’s population, Farr West only provides 0.6 percent of
(the sixth-lowest of the Weber County communities), compared to the the county’s affordable housing. To provide a share of affordable units
county median at $891. However, the median owner cost was $1,757 for proportionate to its population, it would need five times more supply.
Farr West in the same period (the fifth-highest in the county) compared to
the county median at $1,378. The median gross rent in Farr West decreased Table 3.3 - Farr West Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
from $988 in 2010 to $950 in 2019. The large discrepancy between the
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
renting and owner costs may be due to the large number of mobile homes
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
in the city. These tend to be more affordable than other housing types. Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Farr West households with a regional median income (100 percent Less than 30 percent
$297 6 10 4
AMHI), spent an average of 56 percent of their income on housing AMHI ($11,886)
and transportation costs (30 percent for housing and 26 percent for 30 to 50 percent
transportation). Households with a regional moderate-income (80 percent AMHI ($11,886- $495 10 19 9
$19,810)
AMHI), spent 66 percent of their income on housing and transportation (38
percent for housing and 28 percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017). 50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 9 40 31
Farr West’s more remote location in Weber County may partially account $31,696)
for the high transportation costs. 80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 7 38 32
Affordable Housing $39,620)
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Farr West is shown in Table 100 to 125 percent
3.3. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 5 36 31
$49,525)
(AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The > 125 percent AMHI
third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket, > $1,238 121 15 -107
(> $49,525)
followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data

28 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Zoning & Land Use HARRISVILLE
Farr West’s housing stock consists almost entirely of detached single-family
and mobile homes. Farr West permitted 669 housing units between January Population Characteristics
2010 and August 2021, the eighth-highest number of any Weber County
Harrisville had the fifth-highest 2010 to 2020 growth rate in Weber County,
jurisdiction. About 96 percent of those permits were single-family detached,
at 26.4 percent. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget predicts
and the remainder were mobile homes.
West Haven will continue to grow rapidly through 2060, with the exception
Farr West’s zoning does not allow for multi-family homes, but its mixed-use
area allows both single-family attached and detached homes. Based on Figure 3.5 - Harrisville Past and Projected Population
2018 data, about 41 percent of Farr West’s land is potentially developable,
which ranks fourth out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available.
That percentage equates to roughly 1,559 developable acres. As noted
above, the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget projects Farr
West will continue its trend of strong population growth through 2060,
potentially reaching almost 12,000 residents by that year.

Key Trends & Take-Aways

Rapid Growth but Little Affordability
Farr West has experienced strong population growth and is projected to
continue that trend with a large amount of developable land. However,
Farr West’s current zoning does not allow for increased density that could
provide more affordable homes.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Does Not Provide Proportional Share of Affordable Office of Planning & Budget

Housing Figure 3.6 - Harrisville Race of 2030 to 2040. The reasons for a decline
Farr West adequately provides enough affordable units for its (2019) in population during this time are not clear
demographics; however, the community accounts for 2.9 percent of and are likely not accurate considering the
the county’s population yet it only provides 0.6 percent of the county’s historic growth rate of the community.
affordable housing. For Farr West to provide a share of affordable units Harrisville’s population was 7,036 in 2020
proportionate to its population, it would need five times more than its and it is projected to reach nearly 10,000
current supply. residents by 2060.
As illustrated in Figure 3.6, 91.7 percent of
High Owner Costs, Low Renter Costs. Harrisville residents are white, while 10.9
Farr West has the sixth-lowest median rent and the fifth-highest median percent are Hispanic or Latino (of any race).
owner costs. The large number of existing mobile homes may provide As of 2019, 12.9 percent of Harrisville’s
some affordability and account for the large gap between renter and owner households were composed of racial
housing costs in the community. minorities. This percentage increased from
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Tables B02001, B03003 12.8 percent in 2010. Harrisville ranked 5

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 29

out of 18 for the percentage of housing cost-burdened households in the were attached single-family, and three (two percent) were multi-family.
county in 2019. The cost-burdened percentage declined from 26.6 percent Comparing these numbers to the overall housing stock in Figure 3.8
in 2010 to 24.3 percent in 2019. Harrisville has a much higher share of indicates that Harrisville’s housing stock is shifting even more towards
households with children under 18 than the county (50.1 percent vs. 39.6 attached single-family housing and slightly away from detached single-
percent) and a larger average household size (3.31 in Harrisville vs. 2.97 family.
in the county overall). These figures suggest that Harrisville is home to
proportionally more large, young families than the entire county. Housing Costs
Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Harrisville was
Table 3.4 - Harrisville: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
$1,131 (seventh-highest in the county), compared to the county median at
Characteristic Harrisville Weber County $891. The median owner cost was $1,357 for Harrisville in the same period
(ranked 13th in the county) compared to the county median at $1,378. The
Median Household Income $74,342 $67,244 median gross rent in Harrisville increased from $945 in 2010 to $1,131 in
% Cost Burdened Households 24% 24% 2019.
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 41% 39% Harrisville households with a regional median income (100 percent
AMHI), spend an average of 46 percent of their income on housing
Median Age 28.2 32.7
and transportation costs (22 percent for housing and 24 percent for
Average Household Size 3.31 2.97 transportation). For households with a regional moderate income (80
% Single-Parent Households 10.4% 6.9% percent AMHI), those expenses rise to 53 percent (27 percent for housing
and 26 percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017).
% 65+ Living Alone Households 3.3% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 50.1% 39.6% Figure

Figure 3.7
3.X -- Harrisville
Farr West Housing Figure 3.8 - Harrisville
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007 Unit Tenure
Housing Unit (2019)
Tenure Housing by Type (2019)

Housing Characteristics
Tenure
In 2019, Harrisville had a higher percentage of owner-occupied housing
units than Weber County overall (84.7 percent vs. 66.9 percent) and a lower
vacancy rate (4.2 percent compared to 8.9 percent) (Figure 3.7). Harrisville’s
homeownership rate declined 4.6 percent between 2010 and 2019, while
the county rate increased by 0.8 percent during that period.
Housing Types
Sixty-eight percent of the housing units in Harrisville are detached single- Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
family, while 26.8 percent are townhomes. Five percent are planned-unit Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
developments. Other housing types make up negligible fractions of the city’s
housing stock.
A total of 199 units were permitted in Harrisville from 2010 to 2021. Of
those units, 99 (49 percent) were detached single-family, 97 (49 percent)

30 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Affordable Housing Harrisville supplies 0.6 percent of Weber County’s affordable housing
despite having 2.7 percent of the county population. For Harrisville to
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Harrisville is shown in Table
provide a share of affordable units proportionate to its population, it would
3.5. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income
need nearly five times more than its current supply. Overall, the community
(AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The
ranked 16 out of 18 communities for the percentage of county affordable
third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket,
housing provided.
followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket.
Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing Zoning & Land Use
units for each income range. Between 2010 and 2021, Harrisville permitted 99 detached single-family
Harrisville is short 16 (3+13) units between 30 to 80 percent AMHI, meaning units, 97 townhomes, and three multi-family units for a total of 199 units,
that households in this bracket do not have enough housing available within the ninth-highest number of any Weber County community. Harrisville only
their affordability range and are likely consuming the surplus of units in the allows single-family detached homes in its residential zones and clusters of
very low income bracket (less than 30 percent AMHI). There is also a deficit up to five connected units in its mixed-use zone. Based on 2018 data, about
of 88 units in the highest income bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI), 24 percent of Harrisville’s land is potentially developable, which ranks ninth
meaning that 88 households must rent at a lower price despite being able out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage
to afford more. This results in the highest income bracket consuming units in equates to roughly 453 developable acres. However, as noted above, the
lower income brackets, potentially making fewer affordable units available Governor’s Office of Management and Budget projects Harrisville will
to moderate and low-income households. continue its trend of strong population growth through 2060, potentially
reaching 10,000 residents by that year.
Table 3.5 - Harrisville Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
Key Trends & Take-Aways
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units Rapid Growth But Little Affordability
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Harrisville has seen strong population growth and is projected to continue
Less than 30 percent
AMHI ($11,886)
$297 0 25 25 growing, though it only has roughly 453 remaining developable acres.
30 to 50 percent
The city’s zoning does not currently allow for multi-family homes, and it
AMHI ($11,886- $495 16 14 -3 provides proportionally less affordable housing than its share of the county
$19,810) population.
50 to 80
percent AMHI $792 49 36 -13 Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
($19,810-$31,696)
Housing
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 24 17 -6 Harrisville supplies 0.6 percent of Weber County’s affordable housing
$39,620) despite having 2.7 percent of the county population. For Harrisville to
100 to 125 percent
provide a proportional share of affordable units, it would need nearly five
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 15 99 85 times more than its current supply.
$49,525)
> 125 percent AMHI Large Households And Many Children
> $1,238 125 37 -88
(> $49,525) Harrisville has an above-average median household income, has a relatively
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
young population, and a large proportion of households with children.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 31

HOOPER ($96,688 versus $67,244). Hooper has a lower proportion of cost-burdened
households than the entire county. Hooper has a larger average household
size and higher proportion of households with children under 18 than the
Population Characteristics county, indicating that a large number of young families call the city home.
Hooper ranked sixth out of 18 in the county for 2010 to 2020 population
growth rate, with a rate of 26 percent, compared to the county’s rate of 13
percent. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects Hooper will Table 3.6 - Hooper: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Figure 3.9 - Hooper Past and Projected Population Characteristic Hooper Weber County

Median Household Income $96,688 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 21% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 36% 39%

Median Age 33.6 32.7

Average Household Size 3.54 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 1.5% 6.9%

% 65+ Living Alone Households 4.1% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 46.0% 39.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s Housing Characteristics
Office of Planning & Budget
Tenure
Figure 3.10 -Hooper Race see even stronger growth through 2060, Over 94 percent of the housing units in Hooper are owner-occupied, while
(2019) reaching a population of over 36,000 just four percent are renter-occupied and 1.7 percent vacant. This high
residents by that year – over quadruple its home ownership rate differs with the figure for the county, where 66.9
2020 population of 8,967 (see Figure 3.9). percent of housing units are owner-occupied.
As indicated in Figure 3.10, 96.9 percent
Hooper residents are white, with 91.0
Housing Types
percent being non-Hispanic white and 7.4 Hooper’s high home ownership rate corresponds with a homogeneous
percent identifying as Hispanic or Latino. housing stock, which is 99.0 percent detached single-family homes. In
Other racial groups make up a small contrast, Weber County’s housing stock (excluding Ogden Valley) is 68.8
proportion of the city’s population. percent detached single-family. This homogeneity in housing types may limit
options for non-traditional households and renters who cannot afford to
Table 3.6, shows various population
purchase single-family homes in Hooper.
characteristics relative to Weber County.
Hooper’s median household income is Housing permitting data over the past decade was unavailable in Hooper.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05 higher than the overall county figure

32 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Figure
Figure3.X - Farr
3.11 West Housing
- Hooper Figure 3.12 - Hooper followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket.
Housing Unit (2019)
Unit Tenure Tenure Housing by Type (2019) Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing
units for each income range.
As of 2019, there were no units available for households below 50 percent
AMHI in Hooper. There was a small surplus (eight) of moderate income
units. There is a deficit of eight units in the 80 to 100 percent AMHI bracket
and 61 units in the highest income bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI),
meaning that 69 households must rent at a lower price despite being able to
afford more, resulting in the higher income brackets consuming some of the
surplus units in the lower-income brackets. Additionally, housing prices have
increased rapidly since 2019, meaning that now in 2022, the community’s
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS affordable-housing surplus is likely smaller than this analysis indicates.
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
Hooper ranks 13 out of 18 for its percentage of county affordable housing
Housing Costs provided. Hooper provides the smallest share of affordable housing in the
county relative to its population. The community supplies 0.2 percent of
Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Hooper was $1,216 Weber County’s affordable housing units despite comprising 3.5 percent of
(fourth-highest out of the county communities), compared to the county’s the county’s population. For Hooper to provide a share of affordable units
median of $891. The median gross rent in Hooper increased from $825 proportionate to its population, it would need nearly 18 times more than its
in 2010 to $1,216 in 2019. However, the dearth of rental units in Hooper current supply.
means this figure is based on a small sample size. The median owner cost
was $1,774 for Hooper in the same period (ranked fourth in the county) Table 3.7 - Hooper Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
compared to the county’s median of $1,378.
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Hooper households with a regional typical income (100 percent Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
AMHI), spend an average of 59 percent of their income on housing Monthly Rent at that Price Available
and transportation costs (33 percent for housing and 27 percent for Less than 30 percent
$297 0 0 0
transportation). For households with a regional moderate income (80 AMHI ($11,886)
percent AMHI), those expenses rise to 70 percent (41 percent for housing 30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 0 0 0
and 29 percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017). Hooper ranks third of $19,810)
18 in the county for housing and transportation expenses as a percentage 50 to 80 percent
of regional moderate income. These figures indicate that lower- and middle- AMHI ($19,810- $792 15 23 8
$31,696)
income residents in Hooper are spending large portions of their income on
transportation and housing. 80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 8 0 -8
$39,620)
Affordable Housing 100 to 125 percent
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Hooper is shown in Table 3.7. AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 0 61 61
$49,525)
Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income > 125 percent AMHI
(AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The > $1,238 77 16 -61
(> $49,525)
third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket, Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 33

Zoning & Land Use HUNTSVILLE
Hooper’s housing stock is almost exclusively detached single-family. No
data are available on Hooper’s housing permits. Hooper allows duplex, twin Population Characteristics
homes, and townhouses in all its residential zones, though it limits duplexes
As indicated in Figure 3.13, Hunstville’s population declined between 2000
and twin homes to ten percent of the lots in subdivisions. Based on 2018
and 2020, falling from 639 to 573. Huntsville was the only Weber County
data, about 6.6 percent of Hooper’s land is potentially developable, which
community to see a population decline between 2010 and 2020. However,
ranks 12 out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available. However,
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects the town’s population
due to Hooper’s large size, that percentage equates to roughly 3,706
developable acres. As noted above, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Figure 3.13 - Huntsville Past and Projected Population
Budget projects Hooper will continue its trend of strong population growth
through 2060, potentially reaching 37,000 residents by that year.

Key Trends & Take-Aways

Fastest Projected Growth In The County
Hooper’s area is the largest of the incorporated jurisdictions in Weber
County and is projected to continue growing rapidly, with over 3,700
remaining developable acres. It is projected to see the highest percent
growth over the next three decades. The community is projected to almost
quadruple its population, with an anticipated 36,586 residents in 2060.
However, as stated below, Hooper has high rents and is not pulling its
weight in affordable housing regionally.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Hooper Provides The Least Amount Of Affordable Office of Planning & Budget
Housing Relative To Its Population Figure 3.14 - Hunstville will grow to 727 by 2030 and then stabilize
The community supplies 0.2 percent of Weber County’s moderate-income Race (2019) around 700 residents in the following
housing units despite comprising 3.5 percent of the county’s population. decades.
For Hooper to provide a share of affordable units proportionate to its
As shown in Figure 3.14, almost all (98.2
population, it would need nearly 18 times more than its current supply – an
percent) of Huntsville’s residents are white,
increase substantially higher than all other Weber County communities.
with 96.2 percent identifying as non-
High Housing Costs Hispanic white and 2.9 percent identifying
as Hispanic or Latino. Table 3.8 shows
Housing costs are relatively high in the city (fourth highest in the county
various population characteristics relative
for both owners and renters), but the city’s high median income means
to Weber County. The median household
the proportion of cost-burdened residents is similar to the county average.
income in Huntsville is similar to that of the
Hooper has zero affordable units for households below 50 percent AMHI.
countywide average, while the percentage
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS of housing cost-burdened households (all
5-Year Estimates, Tables B02001, B03003 and renter households) is much lower than

34 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

the countywide figures. At 48, Huntsville’s median age is much older than Figure3.X
Figure 3.15 - Huntsville
- Farr West Figure 3.16- Huntsville
the countywide median. Huntsville has proportionally fewer households HousingUnit
Housing UnitTenure
Tenure (2019) Housing by Type (2019)
with children under 18 years and proportionally more households with
people 65 or older living alone compared to the county.

Table 3.8 - Huntsville Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Characteristic Hunstville Weber County

Median Household Income (2019 dollars) $69,861 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 17% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 12% 39%

Median Age 48 32.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year
Average Household Size 2.79 2.97 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Estimates, Table DP04

% Single-Parent Households 3.1% 6.9% Housing Costs

% 65+ Living Alone Households 11.6% 8.4% Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Huntsville was $1,250
% Households with Children Under 18 25.3% 39.6% (the third highest in the county), compared to the county’s median of $891.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007 The median gross rent in Huntsville increased from $836 in 2010 to $1,250
in 2019. The median owner cost was $1,607 for Huntsville in the same
period (ranked eighth in the county) compared to the county’s median of
Housing Characteristics $1,378.
Tenure Huntsville households with a regional median income (100 percent
As illustrated in Figure 3.15, 68.5 percent of Huntsville’s housing units that AMHI), spend an average of 54 percent of their income on housing
are owner-occupied is similar to the proportion in Weber County. However, and transportation costs (29 percent for housing and 25 percent for
the large percentage of vacant housing units (22.9 percent) in Huntsville transportation). For households with a regional moderate income (80
may be due to second or seasonal homes in the town. percent AMHI), those expenses rise to 64 percent (36 percent for housing
and 28 percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017).
Housing Types
Affordable Housing
The vast majority (91.8 percent) of housing units in Huntsville are single-
family detached, with the next largest category being mobile homes at 5.1 A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Huntsville is shown in Table
percent. A total of 110 units were permitted in Huntsville from 2010 to 3.9. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income
2021. Of those units, 104 (96 percent) were single-family and four units (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The
(four percent) were multi-family. Comparing these numbers to the overall third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket,
housing stock in Figure 3.16 indicates that Hunstville’s housing stock is followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket.
shifting even more towards detached single-family housing and away from Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
mobile homes. number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing
units for each income range.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 35

According to this analysis, there was a small surplus of low and very-low- Zoning & Land Use
income rental units relative to Huntsville’s household demographics.
However, housing prices have increased rapidly since 2019, meaning Huntsville’s zoning does not allow for multi-family development. No data
that now in 2022, the community’s affordable-housing surplus is likely are available for housing permits issued in Huntsville, nor for developable
smaller than this analysis indicates. There is a deficit of 15 units in the land. However, most of the town is developed, so opportunities for future
highest income bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 15 growth are limited absent increases in allowed densities. Partly due to these
households must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more, constraints, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects little
resulting in the highest income bracket consuming some of the surplus units future population growth in Huntsville over the coming decades.
in the lower-income brackets.
Huntsville does not provide a share of affordable housing units that is equal
Key Trends & Take-Aways
to its proportion of the county’s population. Huntsville provides 0.1 percent Declining Population
of Weber County’s moderate-income housing units and makes up 0.2 Huntsville was the only Weber County community that saw a decline
percent of the county’s population. For Huntsville to provide its fair share of in population from 2000 to 2020; though, its population is projected to
affordable units relative to its population, it would need double its current stabilize in the future. Most of the town’s housing stock is detached single-
supply. family, with little room for further development.
Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
Table 3.9 - Huntsville Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
Housing
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units Huntsville provides very little affordable housing (just 0.1 percent of the
Monthly Rent at that Price Available county’s MIH), though it constitutes only 0.2 percent of Weber County’s
Less than 30 percent population. However, Huntsville’s proximity to ski resorts makes it a
$297 0 7 7
AMHI ($11,886) potentially convenient location for future workforce housing.
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 0 1 1 High Renter Costs, Average Owner Costs
$19,810)
50 to 80 percent Huntsville’s median household income is similar to the county average and
AMHI ($19,810- $792 5 3 -2 its median owner costs are slightly above the county median. However,
$31,696) Huntsville has the third-highest median rent in the county.
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 2 5 2
$39,620)
100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 3 9 6
$49,525)
> 125 percent AMHI
> $1,238 15 0 -15
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data

36 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

LIBERTY Table 3.10 - Liberty: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
Characteristic Liberty Weber County
Population Characteristics
Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $93,583 $67,244
Liberty’s population grew from 1,257 to 1,522 between 2010 and 2020, a
21 percent increase (compared to a 13 percent increase in the countywide % Cost Burdened Households 36% 24%
population). This growth rate was the ninth-highest of the Weber County % Cost Burdened Renter Households N/A 39%
communities. No population projection figures are available for Liberty, and Median Age 36.6 32.7
its population was not recorded in the 2000 Census.
Average Household Size 2.94 2.97
As shown in Figure 3.17, 97.3 percent of
Figure 3.17 - Liberty Race Liberty’s residents are white, and 12.3 % Single-Parent Households 0% 6.9%
(2019) percent identified as Hispanic or Latino % 65+ Living Alone Households 16.6% 8.4%
of any race as of 2019. However, the
% Households with Children Under 18 43.0% 39.6%
percentage identifying as Hispanic or Latino
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
was 4.3 percent in the 2020 Census. This
discrepancy may be due to sampling error in
the American Community Survey data. 8.5 Housing Characteristics
percent of Liberty households were racial
Tenure
minorities in 2019, ranking 12 out of 18 in
the county. As shown in Figure 3.18, all of Liberty’s occupied housing units were owner-
occupied as of 2019, with a vacancy rate of 29.7 percent. This relatively high
Table 3.10, shows various population
vacancy rate may be due in part to short-term rental properties and second
characteristics relative to Weber County.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS homes. Liberty’s homeownership rate rose by 3.7 percent between 2010
Liberty had the seventh-highest median
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05 and 2019.
age in the county as of 2019 at 36.6 years.
Over sixteen percent of Liberty households Housing Types
Figure 3.18 - Liberty Tenure were seniors living alone – the highest rate
Based on 2019 Census figures, 92.4 percent of Liberty’s housing stock was
(2019) in Weber County. Liberty had no single-
detached single-family in 2019, with 7.8 percent being mobile homes.
parent households recorded in 2019 but had
Housing permitting data over the past decade was unavailable in Liberty.
the highest percentage of cost-burdened
households in Weber County at 35.5 percent Housing Costs
overall. The percentage of cost-burdened The median owner housing cost was $1,621 in 2019, the seventh-highest
households rose from 32.4 percent in 2010 in the county. This figure decreased from $2,741 in 2010 (after adjusting
to 35.5 percent in 2019. for inflation). Households with a median regional income spent 60 percent
of their income on housing (32 percent) and transportation (28 percent).
Households with a moderate regional income spent 71 percent on housing
(40 percent) and transportation (31 percent) (H+T Index, 2017).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS

5-Year Estimates, Table CP05

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 37

Affordable Housing
As 100 percent of Liberty’s units are owner occupied, the community has no
rental units. This is not to say that there is no demand for affordable units
in Liberty as the county is short over 1,300 units. Despite accounting for
0.6 percent of the county’s population, Liberty supplies zero percent of the
affordable housing. To provide a share of affordable units proportionate to
its population, it would need to provide 74 affordable units.

Zoning & Land Use

Liberty’s zoning is codified in the Weber County zoning code. Much of the
community is zoned for AV-3, an agricultural zone that permits single-family
dwellings and cluster subdivisions. Some parcels are zoned as FV-3 and RE-
15, which also permit single-family homes. Liberty’s zoning does not allow
for attached-single-family or multi-family homes. No data are available on
the number or type of housing permits issued in Liberty.

Key Trends & Take-Aways

High Cost Burden
Liberty has the highest percentage of cost-burdened households in the
county, though it’s unclear why, given its high median household income
and only slightly above average owner costs. Liberty has a high percentage
of seniors living alone, who may be more likely burdened by high housing
costs.
Does Not Provide Proportionate Share Of Affordable
Housing
Liberty accounts for 0.6 percent of the county’s population yet it only
provides zero percent of the county’s affordable housing. For Eden to
provide a share of affordable units proportionate to its population, it would
need to provide 74 affordable units.
Zoning Provides Little Opportunity For Affordable
Housing
The community provides no moderate-income housing and under current
zoning has little potential to increase density to provide more housing,
though it may see further development of large-lot detached single-family
homes that are unlikely to be affordable.

38 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

MARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE Slaterville has a lower proportion of households with children under 18 and
households of people over 65 living alone compared to the county.

Population Characteristics Table 3.11 - Marriott-Slaterville: Other Key Population

As shown in Figure 3.19, Marriott-Slaterville had the seventh-highest 2010 Characteristics (2019)
to 2020 population growth in Weber County. At 26 percent, the city’s
growth rate was double the county’s. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Characteristic Marriott-Slaterville Weber County
Budget projects the city will continue growing over the coming decades, Median Household Income $74,342 $67,244
Figure 3.19 - Marriott-Slaterville Past and Projected Population % Cost Burdened Households 21% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 40% 39%

Median Age 36.8 32.7

Average Household Size 2.95 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 3.9% 6.9%

% 65+ Living Alone Households 6.2% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 29.8% 39.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

Housing Characteristics
Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s About 78 percent of Marriott-Slaterville’s housing units are owner-occupied,
Office of Planning & Budget
compared to 66.9 percent of all housing units in Weber County. About 18
Figure 3.20 - Marriott- with the fastest projected growth occurring percent of the city’s units are rented, and 4.2 percent are vacant (see Figure
Slaterville Race (2019) between 2030 and 2040, reaching a 3.21).
population of 7,054 by 2060.
Housing Types
As shown in Figure 3.20, like many Weber
County communities, most residents of As illustrated in Figure 3.22, nearly 87 percent of Marriott-Slaterville’s
Marriott-Slaterville are white (93.0 percent). housing units are detached single-family homes, with most of the remainder
6.7 percent of the city’s residents identify as being townhomes. This means the city has very little multi-family housing.
Hispanic or Latino. Table 3.11, shows various This breakdown differs from Weber County’s (not including Ogden Valley),
population characteristics relative to Weber which is 68.8 percent detached-single-family and 6.7 percent townhomes.
County. At $74,342 Marriott-Slaterville has Housing permitting data over the past decade was unavailable in Marriott-
a higher median household income than Slaterville.
Weber County as a whole. The city has
similar housing cost-burdened percentages Housing Costs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
as the county. Additionally, Marriott- Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Marriott-Slaterville

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 39

Figure 3.21
3.X - -Farr
Marriott-Slaterville
West Figure 3.22 - Marriott-Slaterville housing prices have increased rapidly since 2019, meaning that now in
Housing Unit Tenure (2019) Housing by Type (2019) 2022, the community’s affordable-housing deficit is likely larger than this
analysis indicates. There was also a deficit of 50 units in the highest income
bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 50 households
must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more, resulting in the
highest income bracket consuming some of the surplus units in the lower-
income brackets.
Marriott-Slaterville is not pulling its weight regionally. Despite housing 0.8
percent of Weber County’s population, Marriott-Slaterville only provides 0.4
percent of its affordable housing. For Marriott-Slaterville to provide a share
of affordable units proportionate to its population, it would need to double
its current supply.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Table 3.12 - Marriott-Slaterville Rental Affordable Housing Gap
(2019)
was $972 (11th-highest out of the county communities), compared to the
county’s median of $891. The median gross rent in Marriott-Slaterville Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
decreased from $1,001 in 2010 to $972 in 2019 after accounting for Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
inflation. The median owner cost was $1,525 for Marriott-Slaterville in the
Less than 30 percent
same period (ranked 11th in the county) compared to the county’s median AMHI ($11,886)
$297 11 7 -4
of $1,378.
30 to 50 percent
Marriott-Slaterville households with a median regional income (100 AMHI ($11,886- $495 4 4 0
percent AMHI), spend an average of 53 percent of their income on $19,810)
housing and transportation costs (27 percent for housing and 26 percent 50 to 80 percent
for transportation). For households with a regional moderate-income (80 AMHI ($19,810- $792 38 37 -1
$31,696)
percent), those expenses rise to 64 percent (34 percent for housing and 28
percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017). 80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 12 55 43
Affordable Housing $39,620)

A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Marriott-Slaterville is shown in 100 to 25 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 5 18 13
Table 3.12. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household $49,525)
income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent
> 125 percent AMHI
of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each (> $49,525)
> $1,238 59 9 -50
income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of
households and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or
deficits of housing units for each income range. Zoning & Land Use
This analysis showed a small deficit of moderate and very-low-income rental Marriott-Slaterville recently zoned 55 acres as mixed-use and entered an
units relative to Marriott-Slaterville’s household demographics. However, agreement for a combination of commercial and 200 single-family and

40 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

multi-family units. Marriott-Slaterville also has an R-4 zone for multi-family
where an additional 20 units are being constructed. Based on 2018 data,
NORTH OGDEN
about 62 percent of Marriott-Slaterville’s land is potentially developable.
That percentage equates to roughly 2,928 developable acres. However, Population Characteristics
Marriott-Slaterville is in a low-lying area, with flood concerns, wetlands, As shown in Figure 3.23, North Ogden’s population in 2020 was 20,916.
and other sensitive lands that may limit the ability for development. In fact, From 2010 to 2020, North Ogden grew by 21 percent – significantly higher
a portion of the City is within the FEMA designated flood plain. To further than the overall county growth rate of 13 percent. Currently, North Ogden
complicate development, Central Weber Sewer Improvement District is
Figure 3.23 - North Ogden Past and Projected Population
located in the City and has acquired a large acreage of property to buffer
its odor from the sewer disposal process and to protect environmental
hazards of buried sewer sludge from the 1950s. Such hazard properties are
designated as sensitive lands by the City along with other flood hazards
and wetlands. Further analysis would be needed at the site level to
mitigate potential flood hazards and other sensitive lands that may affect
developability of certain properties. As noted above, the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Budget projects Marriott-Slaterville will continue its trend
of strong population growth through 2060, potentially reaching 7,000
residents by that year. In 2022, the City issued 8 single-family residential
building permits, and 20 multi-family building permits.

Key Trends & Take-Aways

Small But Growing Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget
While Marriott-Slaterville is one of Weber County’s smaller communities, it
is projected to grow quickly over the coming decades. The large amount of only accounts for eight percent of the
developable land in the community will support this potential growth. Figure 3.24 - North Ogden county population, but it is anticipated
Race (2019) to account for 17 percent of the county’s
Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable growth in the next three decades –
Housing the second most of all Weber County
Despite housing 0.8 percent of Weber County’s population, Marriot- communities (second to West Haven who
Slaterville only provides 0.4 percent of its affordable housing. For Marriot- is anticipated to account for 22 percent of
Slaterville to provide its fair share of affordable units relative to its growth). The community is projected to
population, it must double its current supply. grow by 144 percent from 2020 to 2060,
reaching an expected population of 51,103.
Zoning Provides Little Opportunity For Affordable As illustrated in Figure 3.24, over 94 percent
Housing of North Ogden’s residents are white, 3.4
Marriott-Slaterville does not allow for multi-family housing, and it provides percent a combination of two or more
a lower proportion of the county’s affordable housing than its share of the races, with all other races accounting for
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
county’s population. 5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
less than one percent of the population.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 41

Seven percent of the population identified as Hispanic or Latino. Altogether, Figure 3.25 - North Ogden Figure 3.26 - North Ogden
seven percent of North Ogden households were headed by minorities in Housing Unit Tenure (2019) Housing by Type (2019)
2019, which is significantly lower than the county at 18.9 percent, making
North Ogden the fourth least diverse community in Weber County. The
community’s diversity appears to be decreasing as in 2010 nearly nine
percent of households were headed by minorities.
Table 3.13, shows various population characteristics of North Ogden
compared to Weber County in 2019. North Ogden had a significantly higher
median household income at $81,198 than Weber County at $67,224.
North Ogden has the eighth-highest median household income out of the
county’s 18 communities. In 2019, only 19.3 percent of households spent
more than 30 percent of their income on housing – significantly lower than
Weber County with 24 percent of households cost-burdened. These lower Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
rates can likely be attributed to the higher median income. However, North 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
Ogden has a higher rate for renter-only households: 38 percent of renter
households are cost-burdened. Housing Characteristics
North Ogden’s median age and average household size are significantly Tenure
higher than the county’s, though it has a very comparable rate of As illustrated in Figure 3.25, in 2019, 80.7 percent of housing units were
households with children under 18. This suggests that there may be a higher owner-occupied, 14.5 percent were renter-occupied, and 4.8 percent were
rate of intergenerational households, young adults living with parents, or vacant. Five percent of North Ogden’s owner-occupied units are owned
households with multiple adult roommates than in the rest of the county. by minorities even though minority households account for seven percent
Despite having a higher median age, the percentage of seniors living alone is of households. North Ogden’s homeownership rate fell by 3.2 percent
still substantially lower than the county rate. between 2010 and 2019 (despite the county’s rising by 0.8 percent),
meaning that significantly more residents are renting instead of owning
Table 3.13 - North Ogden: Other Key Population Characteristics their housing in 2019 than in 2010.
Characteristic North Ogden Weber County Housing Types
Median Household Income $81,198 $67,244 Figure 3.26 shows the distribution of housing types in North Ogden. Eighty-
% Cost Burdened Households 19% 24% two percent of the community’s units are single-family, followed by six
percent apartments, four percent PUDs, three percent townhomes, two
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 38% 39%
percent condos, and one percent duplexes.
Median Age 36.8 32.7
A total of 1,137 units were permitted in North Ogden from 2010 to 2021 –
Average Household Size 3.18 2.97 the third most of all Weber communities. Of those units, 878 (77 percent)
% Single-Parent Households 6.5% 6.9%
detached single-family homes, 217 (19 percent) attached single-family,
and 38 (three percent) were multi-family. Comparing these numbers to the
% 65+ Living Alone Households 5.7% 8.4% overall housing stock in Figure 3.28 indicates that North Ogden is shifting
% Households with Children Under 18 39.2% 39.6% more towards attached single-family homes (such as townhomes), slightly
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007 away from detached single-family, and significantly away from multi-family

42 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

units. Despite only adding 38 multi-family units in over a decade, North Table 3.14 - North Ogden Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
Ogden ranked fifth out of 13 for communities that permitted the most
multi-family units. Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Housing Costs Monthly Rent at that Price Available
The median owner housing cost was $1,215 in 2019, about $125 more Less than 30 percent
$297 27 24 -3
AMHI ($11,886)
expensive than the Weber County median. Median rent in North Ogden was
30 to 50 percent
$998 which is significantly slightly than the county median at $891. Overall, AMHI ($11,886- $495 89 50 -39
North Ogden has the seventh-lowest owner costs and eighth-lowest rent $19,810)
out of 18 Weber County communities. When accounting for inflation, from 50 to 80 percent
2010 to 2019, rent increased by seven dollars while owner costs decreased AMHI ($19,810- $792 83 244 161
$31,696)
by $354. It should be noted that housing costs have risen rapidly between
80 to 100 percent
2019 and 2022, likely significantly increasing median housing costs. AMHI ($31,696- $991 77 283 206
Households with a regional moderate-income spent 58 percent on housing $39,620)
and transportation costs combined, indicating that overall North Ogden 100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 118 146 28
residents are significantly cost-burdened (households that spend more than $49,525)
45 percent of their income on housing and transportation are considered
> 125 percent AMHI
cost-burdened). > $1,238 537 184 -353
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
Affordable Housing
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for North Ogden is shown in
North Ogden provided 2.6 percent of the county’s affordable units despite
Table 3.14. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
comprising eight percent of the county’s population. North Ogden would
income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of
need three times its current supply in order to provide a share of affordable
AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each income
units proportionate to its population. However, North Ogden is only 42 units
bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within the income
short in providing enough affordable units for its residents.
bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of households
and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of
housing units for each income range. Zoning & Land Use
North Ogden is short 42 (3+39) units for households below 50 percent North Ogden’s housing stock mostly consists of detached single-family
AMHI, meaning that many households in this income bracket do not have homes (81.8 percent), though it has small percentages of apartments (6.3
enough housing available within their affordability range and are being percent) and planned-unit developments (4.2 percent), among others.
forced to pay more than they can afford. Otherwise, North Ogden has North Ogden permitted 1137 housing units between January 2010 and
a surplus of units affordable to the 50 percent to 125 percent income August 2021, the third-highest number of any Weber County jurisdiction.
brackets. However, there is a deficit of 353 units in the highest income About 77 percent of those permits were single-family detached, 19 percent
bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 353 households were for attached single-family homes, and three percent were for multi-
must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more. This results in family homes.
the highest income bracket consuming much of the surplus units in lower- North Ogden’s zoning allows for two-family homes in its R-2, R-3, R-4
income brackets. districts and multi-family homes as a conditional use in its R-4 district.
The master planned community zone also allows attached single-family

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 43

and multi-family homes. However, the extent of these zones is currently
quite limited in North Ogden. Based on 2018 data, about 29 percent of
OGDEN
North Ogden’s land is potentially developable, which ranks sixth out of the
15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage equates to Population Characteristics
roughly 1,415 developable acres. As noted above, the Governor’s Office of As shown in Figure 3.27, Ogden is the most populous municipality in Weber
Planning and Budget projects North Ogden will continue its trend of strong County, with a population of 87,231 in 2020. However, it ranked 16 out of
population growth through 2060, potentially reaching 51,000 residents by 18 for 2010 to 2020 population growth, with an increase of 5.3 percent.
that year.
Figure 3.27 - Ogden Past and Projected Population
Key Trends & Take-Aways
Will Account For Much Of The County’s Future Growth
From 2010 to 2020, North Ogden grew by 21 percent – significantly higher
than the overall county growth rate of 13 percent. However, this is only the
beginning, as the community is anticipated to grow by 144 percent over the
next thirty years. Currently, North Ogden only accounts for eight percent of
the county population, but it is anticipated to account for 17 percent of the
county’s growth in the next three decades – the second most of all Weber
County communities (second to West Haven who is anticipated to account
for 22 percent of growth).
Rapid Growth Came Almost Exclusively Through
Single-Family Homes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
A total of 1,137 units were permitted in North Ogden from 2010 to 2021 – Office of Planning & Budget
the third most of all Weber communities. Of those units, 878 (77 percent)
detached single-family homes, 217 (19 percent) attached single-family, and Figure 3.28 - Ogden Race The Governor’s Office of Planning and
38 (three percent) were multi-family. North Ogden appears to be moving (2019) Budget projects that Ogden will grow more
away from multi-family housing and toward more detached and attached quickly between 2020 and 2030 and then
single-family homes. at a slower pace, reaching about 107,000
residents by 2060.
Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable Ogden is among the most racially diverse
Housing communities in Weber County. While 84
North Ogden has a surplus of affordable units for its low and very low- percent of its residents identify as white,
income households; however, the community accounts for eight percent only 61.3 percent of its residents are
of the county’s population yet only provides 2.6 percent of the county’s non-Hispanic white. About 32 percent of
affordable housing. For North Ogden to provide a proportionate share of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, and
affordable units relative to its population, it would need three times more 29.6 percent of households were composed
than its current supply. of racial minorities as of 2019, compared to
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
the county’s 18.9 percent (see Figure 3.28).

44 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 3.15, shows various population characteristics relative to Weber second most permitted units in the entire county. Of those units, 931 (53
County. Ogden’s median household income is considerably lower than the percent) were multi-family, 411 (23 percent) were detached single-family,
countrywide figure. Ogden also has the second-highest percentage of cost- 386 (22 percent) were attached single-family, and 40 (2 percent) were
burdened households at 28.9 percent. However, this percentage declined mobile homes. Comparing these numbers to the overall housing stock
from 33 percent in 2010. Ogden has a smaller household size and a lower in Figure 3.32 indicates that Ogden’s housing stock is shifting even more
percentage of households with children in the home than the county as a towards detached multi-family housing. Ogden permitted the most multi-
whole. family units in the past decade than any other Weber County municipality.
Table 3.15 - Ogden Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
Figure3.X
Figure 3.29 - Ogden
- Farr West Housing Figure 3.30- Ogden
Characteristic Ogden Weber County Unit Tenure (2019)
Housing Unit Tenure Housing by Type (2019)

Median Household Income $50,061 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 28.9% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 41.9% 39%

Median Age 31.8 32.7

Average Household Size 2.76 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 8.7% 6.9%

% 65+ Living Alone Households 9.9% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 31.6% 39.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502

Housing Characteristics Housing Costs

Tenure Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in Ogden was $1,185
As shown in Figure 3.29, 80.7 percent of the housing units in Ogden are (5th-highest out of the county communities), compared to $891 for the
owner-occupied, compared to the Weber County rate of 73.4 percent. entire County. The median owner cost was $1,185 for Ogden in the same
Ogden’s homeownership rate rose by 1.7 percent between 2010 and 2019. period (ranked 18th in the county) compared to $1,378 for the entire
Ogden had a vacancy rate of 8.5 percent in 2019. County. The median gross rent in Ogden increased from $768 in 2010 to
Housing Types $818 in 2019.

As illustrated in Figure 3.30, Ogden has a diverse housing stock compared Ogden households with a median regional income (100 percent
to other Weber County communities, with 21.8 percent of its units being AMHI) spent an average of 40 percent of their income on housing
apartments, 6.2 percent being duplexes, and 6.4 percent being townhomes and transportation costs (18 percent for housing and 22 percent for
as of 2019. Only 59.6 of Ogden’s units are detached single-family homes. transportation). For households with a regional moderate income (80
This contrasts with Weber County (excluding Ogden Valley), where 68.8 percent AMHI), those expenses rise to 46 percent (23 percent for housing
percent of the housing stock consists of detached single-family homes. and 23 percent for transportation) (H+T Index, 2017).
A total of 1,768 units were permitted in Ogden from 2010 to 2021 – the

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 45

Affordable Housing Zoning & Land Use
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Ogden is shown in Table 3.16. Ogden has a diverse housing stock compared to other Weber County
Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income communities, with 21.8 percent of its units being apartments and only
(AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The 59.8 percent being detached single-family homes. Ogden permitted 1,768
third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket, housing units between January 2010 and August 2021, the second-highest
followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket. number of any Weber County jurisdiction. About 23 percent of those
Column five indicates the surpluses or deficits of housing units for each permits were single-family detached, 22 percent were attached single-
income range. family, and 53 percent were multi-family. Ogden had the 2nd-highest share
There was a 1,143-unit deficit (856+287) of low and very-low-income rental of multi-family permitted units out of total permitted units in Weber County
units in 2019. However, housing prices increased rapidly between 2019 and for 2010 to 2021.
2022, so the community’s affordable-housing deficit is likely larger now. Ogden’s zoning allows for multi-family development in its R-3, R-4, and R-5
There is a deficit of over 3,000 units in the highest income brackets (greater zones, and two-family homes in its R-2 zone. Based on 2018 data, about
than 100 percent AMHI), meaning that over 3,000 households rent at a seven percent of Ogden’s land is potentially developable, which ranks
price lower than they can afford, resulting in the highest income bracket 13 out of the 15 jurisdictions. That percentage equates to roughly 1,450
consuming surplus units in lower-income brackets. developable acres.
Ogden provides 65 percent of the county’s affordable housing – far more
than any other individual municipality (the next highest is Roy at 6.5
Key Trends & Take-Aways
percent). It is one of three communities that provides more than its fair Population Growth Is Expected To Slow
share of affordable housing regionally.
Ogden is Weber County’s largest community and is projected to continue
Table 3.16 - Ogden Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) seeing population growth, though at a slower rate than most other
communities as only seven percent of its land is potentially developable.
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units Diverse With Lower Incomes
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Less than 30 percent Ogden is more racially diverse and has a lower median household income
$297 2,369 1,513 -856 than most Weber County communities. Ogden has near-average rental costs
AMHI ($11,886)
30 to 50 percent and the lowest owner housing costs in Weber County.
AMHI ($11,886- $495 1,668 1,381 -287
$19,810) Ogden Provides More Than Its Proportional Share Of
50 to 80 percent Affordable Housing But Is Still Cost-Burdened
AMHI ($19,810- $792 2,221 5,528 3,307
$31,696) Ogden provides 65 percent of the county’s affordable housing – far more
80 to 100 percent than any other individual municipality (the next highest is Roy at 6.5
AMHI ($31,696- $991 1,295 2,440 1,145
$39,620)
percent). This situation is reflected in its high proportion of multi-family
100 to 125 percent
housing, which it permitted as a large share of its total housing construction
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 1,388 1,109 -279 between 2010 and 2021. However, many households are still cost-burdened
$49,525) by housing and Ogden is still lacking thousands of affordable units for its low
> 125 percent AMHI and very low-income groups
> $1,238 3,975 945 -3,030
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data

46 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

PLAIN CITY 0.2 percent a combination of two or more races. Only 1.7 percent of the
population identified as Hispanic or Latino. Altogether, 6.4 percent of Plain
City households were headed by minorities in 2019, significantly lower
Population Characteristics than the county at 18.9 percent, making Plain City the third least diverse
As shown in Figure 3.31, Plain City’s population in 2020 was 7,833 – community in Weber County. However, the community’s diversity appears
twenty-two percent higher than projected by the Utah Governor’s Office to be increasing slightly as in 2010 only 5.5 percent of households were
of Planning and Budget. From 2010 to 2020, Plain City grew by nearly headed by minorities.
Table 3.17 shows various population characteristics of Plain City compared
Figure 3.31 - Plain City Past and Projected Population to Weber County in 2019. Plain City had a slightly higher median household
income at $74,714 than Weber County at $67,224. When accounting for
inflation, Plain City’s median household income has decreased by over
$20,000 in the past decade with the median in 2010 being $95,061 (in 2019
dollars).
In 2019, only 22 percent of households spent more than 30 percent of
their income on housing – a comparable number to Weber County with
24 percent of households cost-burdened. Despite household income
decreasing in the past decade, the share of household’s cost-burdened has
decreased slightly from 24 percent in 2010. Plain City has a small share
of renting households (only 5 percent), however, none of them are cost-
burdened, which is significant considering nearly 40 percent of renter
households are cost-burdened across the county.
Plain City has the third-highest average household size and first-highest
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget percent of households with children in Weber County. Fifty-five percent of

Figure 3.32 - Plain City 43 percent – the second-highest growth Table 3.17 - Plain City: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
Race (2019) rate in the county. Currently, Plain City
Characteristic Plain City Weber County
only accounts for 3 percent of the county
population, but it is anticipated to account Median Household Income $74,714 $67,244
for nearly 5 percent of the county’s growth
% Cost Burdened Households 22% 24%
in the next three decades. The community is
projected to grow by 112 percent from 2020 % Cost Burdened Renter Households 0% 39%
to 2060, reaching an expected population Median Age 30.5 32.7
of 16,572. Though this may be a significant
Average Household Size 3.48 2.97
underestimation as growth in Plain City is
already occurring faster than projected. % Single-Parent Households 3.2% 6.9%
As illustrated in Figure 3.32, over 98.6 % 65+ Living Alone Households 8.5% 8.4%
percent of Plain City’s residents are % Households with Children Under 18 55.0% 39.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
white, 1.2 percent American Indian, and
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 47

Figure 3.33
3.X - -Farr
Plain City Housing
West Figure 3.34 - Plain City Housing Plain City is shifting even more towards detached single-family housing.
Unit Tenure
Housing Unit (2019)
Tenure by Type (2019) Despite only adding six multi-family units in over a decade, Plain City ranked
eighth of 13 for communities that permitted the most multi-family units.
Housing Costs
The median owner housing cost in Plain City was $1,712 in 2019, about
$330 more expensive than the Weber County median. Median rent in Plain
City was $736, which is significantly lower than the county median at $891.
Overall, Plain City has the sixth-highest owner costs and third-lowest rent
out of 18 Weber County communities. When accounting for inflation, from
2010 to 2019, rent increased by $83 while owner costs decreased by $69.
It should be noted that housing costs have risen rapidly between 2019 and
2022, likely significantly increasing median housing costs.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Households with a regional moderate-income spent 64 percent on housing
and transportation costs combined, indicating that overall Plain City
the community’s households have children under 18 years old, causing Plain residents are significantly cost-burdened (households that spend more than
City to also have the largest age dependency ratio in the county with 86 45 percent of their income on housing and transportation are considered
percent of residents age-dependent. cost-burdened).

Housing Characteristics Affordable Housing

A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Plain City is shown in Table
Tenure 3.18. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
As illustrated in Figure 3.33, in 2019, 86.2 percent of housing units were income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent
owner-occupied, 4.7 percent were renter-occupied, and 49.1 percent were of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each
vacant. Seven percent of Plain City’s owner-occupied units are owned income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within
by minorities, which is significant as only 6.4 percent of households are the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of
minority-headed. Plain City’s homeownership rate rose by 0.3 percent households and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or
between 2010 and 2019, slightly less than the county at 0.8 percent, deficits of housing units for each income range.
meaning that slightly more residents were owning instead of renting their According to this analysis, there was a surplus of moderate, low, and very-
housing from 2010 to 2019. low-income rental units relative to Plain City’s household demographics.
Housing Types However, housing prices have increased rapidly since 2019, meaning that
now in 2022, the community’s affordable-housing surplus is likely smaller
Figure 3.34 shows the distribution of housing types in Plain City. Ninety-two than this analysis indicates. There is a deficit of 80 units in the highest
percent of the community’s units are single-family, six percent PUD, one income bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI) and seven units in the 80
percent townhomes, and 11 percent duplexes. to 100 percent AMHI bracket, meaning that 87 households must rent at a
A total of 830 units were permitted in Plain City from 2010 to 2021. Of lower price despite being able to afford more. This results in the highest
those units, 830 (97 percent) were detached single-family homes, 32 (four income bracket consuming some of the surplus units in the lower-income
percent) were attached single-family, and six (one percent) were multi- brackets.
family. Comparing these numbers to the overall housing stock indicates that

48 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 3.18 - Plain City Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) and planned-unit developments. However, Plain City’s mixed-use overlay
zone does allow for multi-family development, though its zoning map shows
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
no areas covered by this zone. Based on 2018 data, about 71 percent of
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Monthly Rent at that Price Available Plain City’s land is potentially developable, which ranks first out of the
Less than 30 percent
15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage equates to
$297 0 12 12 roughly 5,503 developable acres. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
AMHI ($11,886)
Budget projects Plain City will see strong population growth through 2060,
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 0 23 23 potentially reaching almost 16,000 residents by that year.
$19,810)
Key Trends & Take-Aways
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 15 67 52 Many Young Dependents
$31,696)
Plain City has the highest age dependency ratio (86 percent) and the highest
80 to 100 percent percentage of households with children under 18 years old (55 percent)
AMHI ($31,696- $991 7 0 -7 in all of Weber County. The community also has the third-highest average
$39,620)
household size and first-highest percent of households with children in
100 to 125 percent Weber County at 3.48.
AMHI ($39,620- $1,233 0 0 0
$49,525) Very Low Rents But High Owner Costs
> 125 percent AMHI Plain City has the sixth-highest median homeownership costs in the
> $1,238 80 0 -80
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
county while they also have the third-lowest median rent. Zero percent of
renting households are cost-burdened, compared to 22 percent of owner
households. However, it should be noted that rental units only account for
Plain City provided 0.8 percent of the county’s affordable units despite five percent of the community’s housing stock.
comprising three percent of the county’s population, indicating that as of
2019, Plain City would need to provide four times its current supply in order Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
to provide a proportional share of affordable units relative to its population. Housing
Though Plain City may be providing near enough affordable units for its
Plain City has a surplus of affordable units for its low and very low-income
residents, it is not pulling its weight regionally.
households; however, the community accounts for three percent of
the county’s population yet it only provides 0.8 percent of the county’s
Zoning & Land Use affordable housing. For Plain City to provide a share of affordable units
Plain City’s housing stock mostly consists of detached single-family homes, proportionate to its population, it would need four times more than its
with a small percentage (5.8 percent) of the remainder being planned-unit current supply.
developments. Plain City permitted 868 housing units between January
2010 and August 2021, the fifth-highest number of any Weber County
jurisdiction. About 96 percent of those permits were for single-family
detached homes.
Plain City’s zoning does not allow for multi-family development in its
residential zones, except for duplexes on lots at least one-half acre in size

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 49

PLEASANT VIEW a combination of two or more races. Thirteen percent of the population
identified as Hispanic or Latino. Altogether, 14.9 percent of Pleasant
View households were headed by minorities in 2019, slightly lower than
Population Characteristics the county at 18.9 percent, making Pleasant view the fifth most diverse
As shown in Figure 3.35, Pleasant View’s population in 2020 was 11,083 community in Weber County. The community’s diversity appears to be
– twenty percent higher than projected by the Utah Governor’s Office of increasing as in 2010 only eight percent of households were headed by
Planning and Budget. From 2010 to 2020, Pleasant View grew by nearly 40 minorities.
Table 3.19, shows various population characteristics of Pleasant View
Figure 3.35 - Pleasant View Past and Projected compared to Weber County in 2019. Pleasant View had a significantly higher
median household income at $98,765 than Weber County at $67,224.
In fact, Pleasant View has the third-highest median household income in
the county. In 2019, only 17.6 percent of households spent more than
30 percent of their incoming on housing – significantly lower than Weber
County with 24 percent of households cost-burdened. These lower rates can
likely be attributed to the higher median income. However, when comparing
cost-burden rates for only renting households, Pleasant view has a higher
rate of cost-burdened households with 42 percent of renter households
cost-burden compared to 39 percent of Weber County households.
Pleasant View’s median age, average household size, and percent of
households with children are higher than Weber County’s. In fact, the
community has the largest household size in the county. Pleasant View
has an age dependency ratio of 83 (the second-highest in Weber County),
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget
Table 3.19 - Pleasant View: Other Key Population Characteristics
Figure 3.36 -Pleasant View percent – the third-highest growth rate in
Race (2019) the county. Currently, Pleasant view only Characteristic Pleasant View Weber County
accounts for 4.7 percent of the county
population, but it is anticipated to account Median Household Income $98,765 $67,244
for 6 percent of the county’s growth in % Cost Burdened Households 18% 24%
the next three decades. The community
is projected to grow by 102 percent from % Cost Burdened Renter Households 42% 39%
2020 to 2060, reaching a population of Median Age 35.2 32.7
22,327. Though this may be a significant
Average Household Size 3.62 2.97
underestimation as growth in Pleasant View
is already occurring faster than projected. % Single-Parent Households 3.7% 6.9%

As illustrated in Figure 3.36, over 94 percent % 65+ Living Alone Households 4.2% 8.4%
of Pleasant View’s residents are white, % Households with Children Under 18 45.7% 39.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
with 3.7 percent Asian and 1.9 percent Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

50 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Figure
Figure3.X - Farr
3.37- West
Pleasant Figure 3.38 - Pleasant View A total of 897 units were permitted in Peasant View from 2010 to 2021.
Housing Unit Tenure
View Housing Unit Tenure Housing by Type (2019) Of those units, 479 (53 percent) detached single-family homes, 349 (39
percent) attached single-family, 35 (four percent) were multi-family, and
34 (four percent) mobile homes. Comparing these numbers to the overall
housing stock in Figure 3.40 indicates that Pleasant View is shifting more
towards townhomes and other forms of single-family attached housing and
is slightly away from single-family detached housing and mobile homes.
Despite only adding 35 multi-family units in over a decade, Pleasant View
ranked sixth of 13 for communities that permitted the most multi-family
units.
Housing Costs
The median owner housing cost was $1,896 in 2019, about $520 more
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
expensive than the Weber County median. Median rent in Pleasant View
Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
was $1,104 which is significantly higher than the county median at $891.
meaning that 83 percent of Pleasant View’s residents are likely financially Overall, Pleasant View has the third-highest owner costs and ninth-highest
dependent on someone else due to their age. The community has lower rent out of 18 Weber County communities. When accounting for inflation,
rates of single-parent households and households with seniors living alone from 2010 to 2019, rent increased by $57 while owner costs decreased by
than for the county overall. $30. It should be noted that housing costs have risen rapidly between 2019
and 2022, likely significantly increasing median housing costs.
Housing Characteristics Households with a regional moderate-income spent 67 percent on housing
Tenure and transportation costs, indicating that overall Pleasant View residents are
As illustrated in Figure 3.37, in 2019, 86.4 percent of housing units were significantly cost-burdened (households that spend more than 45 percent of
owner-occupied, 9.2 percent were renter-occupied, and 4.4 percent were their income on housing and transportation are considered cost-burdened).
vacant. Over 15 percent of Pleasant View’s owner-occupied units are Affordable Housing
owned by minorities, which is significant as only 14.9 percent of households
are minority-headed. In fact, Pleasant View has the third-highest rate of A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Pleasant View is shown in
minority homeownership, only behind Ogden at 24 percent and Roy at 19 Table 3.20. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
percent. Pleasant View’s homeownership rate fell by 0.2 percent between income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of
2010 and 2019 (despite the county’s rising by 0.8 percent), meaning that AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each income
slightly more residents are renting instead of owning their housing in 2019 bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within the income
than in 2010. bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of households
and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of
Housing Types housing units for each income range.
Figure 3.38 shows the distribution of housing types in Pleasant View. Pleasant View is short 60 units for households between 50 to 80 percent
Sixty-seven percent of the community’s units are single-family, 15 percent AMHI, meaning that many households in this bracket do not have enough
townhomes, 11 percent mobile homes, four percent duplexes, and three housing available within their affordability range and are being forced to pay
percent PUDs. more than they can afford. Otherwise, Pleasant View has a surplus of units
affordable to the zero to 50 percent and 80 to 125 percent income brackets.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 51

Table 3.20 - Pleasant View Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) Pleasant View’s zoning allows multi-family development in its R-5 zone.
Based on 2018 data, about 44 percent of Pleasant View’s land is potentially
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/ developable, which ranks third out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
available. That percentage equates to roughly 1,951.6 developable acres.
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects Pleasant View will
Less than 30 percent
$297 0 0 0 see strong population growth through 2060, potentially reaching almost
AMHI ($11,886)
30 to 50 percent 22,000 residents by that year.
AMHI ($11,886- $495 0 0 0
$19,810) Key Trends & Take-Aways
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 15 23 8 Large Dependent Households
$31,696)
Pleasant View had the second-highest age dependency ratio in Weber
80 to 100 percent County. Over 83 percent of residents are either under 15 or over 65
AMHI ($31,696- $991 8 0 -8
$39,620) years old and are likely dependent on others for care. Over 45 percent
of households have children under 18 and Pleasant View has the largest
100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 0 61 61 average household size (3.62) in the county, substantially larger than the
$49,525) county average (2.97).
> 125 percent AMHI
(> $49,525)
> $1,238 77 16 -61 Wealthy And Expensive
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data Pleasant View had the third-highest median household income in the
However, there is a deficit of 21 units in the highest income bracket (greater county in 2019, but it also had the third-highest median owner housing
than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 21 households must rent at a lower costs. Most Pleasant View homeowners can manage the higher housing
price despite being able to afford more. This results in the highest income costs as only 18 percent of households are cost-burdened. However,
bracket consuming some of the surplus units in the lower-income brackets. over 42 percent of renting households are cost-burdened, indicating that
Pleasant View’s high housing costs are taking a toll on a large portion of its
Pleasant View provided 0.8 percent of the county’s affordable units despite
renters.
comprising 4.2 percent of the county’s population, indicating that as of
2019, Pleasant View would need six times its current affordable units to Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
provide a share of affordable units proportionate to its population. Housing
Zoning & Land Use Pleasant View has a surplus of affordable units for its low and very low-
income households; however, the community accounts for 4.2 percent of
Pleasant View’s housing stock has a higher percentage of townhomes (15.2 the county’s population yet it only provides 0.8 percent of the county’s
percent), mobile homes (11 percent), and duplexes (four percent) than affordable housing. For Pleasant View to provide a share of affordable units
many other Weber County communities. Pleasant View permitted 897 proportional to its population, it would need six times more than its current
housing units between January 2010 and August 2021, the fourth-highest supply.
of Weber County jurisdictions. About 53 percent of those permits were
for single-family detached homes and 39 percent were for attached single-
family homes.

52 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

RIVERDALE percent. Fifteen percent of the population identified as Hispanic or Latino.
Altogether, 17 percent of households were headed by minorities in 2019,
making Riverdale the third most diverse community in Weber County.
Population Characteristics
Table 3.21, shows various population characteristics of Riverdale compared
As shown in Figure 3.39, Riverdale’s population has grown 11 percent over to Weber County. Riverdale had a substantially lower median household
the past decade, bringing its population to 9,365 in 2020. Riverdale is Weber income ($56,000) than Weber County ($67,244) in 2019. In fact, Riverdale
County’s fifth-most-populated municipality, accounting for 3.6 percent of has the second-lowest median household income after Ogden’s. Despite
lower income levels, a smaller portion of households are burdened by their
Figure 3.39 - Riverdale Past and Projected Population housing costs. Just 20 percent of households spend more than 30 percent of
their income on rent, compared to 39 percent countywide.

Table 3.21 - Riverdale: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Characteristic Riverdale Weber County

Median Household Income (2019 dollars) $56,000 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 20% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 26% 39%

Median Age 32.1 32.7

Average Household Size 2.64 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 5.7% 6.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s % 65+ Living Alone Households 12.5% 8.4%
Office of Planning & Budget
% Households with Children Under 18 31.1% 39.6%
Figure 3.40 - Riverdale Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
the county’s population. Its rate of growth
Race (2019)
has been comparable to the rest of the Riverdale has a smaller average household size, a smaller portion of
county that averaged 13 percent growth households with children, and a slightly younger population than Weber
from 2010 to 2020. As Riverdale approaches County as a whole. Riverdale has a large population of seniors living alone. In
build-out, however, population growth fact, one in eight households in Riverdale are seniors living alone.
is expected to stagnate with a projected
growth rate of one percent over the next Housing Characteristics
three decades. Riverdale’s population is
projected to be 9,409 in 2060. Tenure
As illustrated in Figure 3.40, over 86.9 As illustrated in Figure 3.41, in 2019, 70 percent of housing units were
percent of Riverdale’s residents were white owner-occupied, 25.4 percent were renter-occupied, and 4.6 percent were
with the next largest races being other at vacant. Riverdale’s homeownership rate fell by 1.9 percent between 2010
6.3 percent, Asian at 2.7 percent, black at and 2019 (despite the county’s rising by 0.8 percent), meaning that slightly
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS two percent, and two or more races at two more residents rentied instead of owned in 2019 than in 2010.
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 53

Figure 3.41
3.X - -Farr
Riverdale
West Housing Figure 3.42 - Riverdale Housing When accounting for inflation, from 2010 to 2019, rent increased by $13
Unit Tenure
Housing Unit (2019)
Tenure by Type (2019) (1.5 percent) while owner costs decreased by $172 (13 percent). Because
housing costs have risen rapidly across the Wasatch Front between 2019
and 2022, it is likely that median housing costs have risen in Riverdale too.
Households with a regional moderate-income spent 50 percent on housing
and transportation costs combined, indicating that overall Riverdale
residents are slightly cost-burdened (households that spend more than 45
percent of their income on housing and transportation are considered cost-
burdened) (H+T Index, 2017).
Affordable Housing
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Riverdale is shown in Table
3.22. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each
income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within
Housing Types the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of
Figure 3.42 shows the distribution of housing types in Riverdale. Fifty-five households and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or
percent of the community’s units are single-family, followed by 19 percent deficits of housing units for each income range.
apartments, 14 percent mobile homes, five percent townhomes, four Riverdale is short 85 units for households below 30 percent AMHI, meaning
percent duplexes, and three percent PUDs. Riverdale has the smallest share that households in this bracket do not have enough housing available within
of single-family homes in all of Weber County. their affordability range and are being forced to pay more than they can
A total of 119 units were permitted in Riverdale from 2010-2021. Of those afford. Otherwise, Roy has a surplus of units affordable to the 30 to 100
units, 108 (91 percent) detached single-family homes, four (three percent) percent income brackets. However, there is a deficit of 420 (118+302) units
were multi-family, and seven (six percent) were mobile homes. Compared for the highest income brackets (greater than 100 percent AMHI), meaning
to the overall housing type distribution, Riverdale’s housing stock appears that 420 households must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford
to be shifting towards more detached single-family homes and less multi- more. This results in the highest income bracket consuming most of the
family units. surplus units in the 30 to 100 percent AMHI brackets, potentially making
less affordable units available to moderate and low-income households.
Housing Costs Riverdale provides 4.2 percent of the county’s affordable units despite
The median owner housing cost was $1,291 in 2019, about $100 less than comprising 3.6 percent of the county’s population, indicating that currently,
the Weber County median. Median rent in Riverdale was $854 which is Riverdale is providing more than its proportionate share of affordable units
slightly lower than the county median at $891. Overall, Riverdale has the relative to its population. However, as stated above, Riverdale is still lacking
fourth-lowest owner costs and third-lowest rent out of the 18 Weber some affordable units for its very low-income households.
County communities.

54 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 3.22 - Riverdale Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) Key Trends & Take-Aways
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/ Riverdale’s Racial/Ethnic Diversity Is On The Rise
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units Riverdale is the third most diverse community in the county, with nearly one
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
in five households headed by minorities – a significant increase from 2010
Less than 30 percent
AMHI ($11,886)
$297 85 0 -85 when only one in nine households were headed by minorities.
30 to 50 percent Smallest Share Of Single-Family Homes
AMHI ($11,886- $495 34 66 32
$19,810) Only 55 percent of Riverdale Housing stock are single-family homes – a
50 to 80 percent smaller share than any other community in Weber County. The community
AMHI ($19,810- $792 89 444 355 is comprised of 19 percent apartment units and 14 percent mobiles
$31,696) homes, both relatively large shares compared to many other Weber County
80 to 100 percent municipalities. However, in the past decade, a shift has been made toward
AMHI ($31696- $991 121 238 118
$39620) a greater share of single-family homes with 91 percent of housing permits
100 to 125 percent
being for detached single-family units.
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 182 64 -118
$49,525) Riverdale Provides More Than Its Proportionate Share Of
> 125 percent AMHI Affordable Housing
> $1,238 372 70 -302
(> $49,525) Despite Riverdale having a small deficit of affordable units for its very low-
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data income households, the community provides 4.2 percent of the county’s
affordable units despite comprising 3.6 percent of the county’s population,
Zoning & Land Use indicating that currently, Riverdale is providing more than its proportionate
share of affordable units regionally relative to its population.
Riverdale’s housing stock has a higher percentage of apartments (19
percent) mobile homes (13.7 percent) than many other Weber County
Communities. Riverdale only permitted 119 housing units between January
2010 and August 2021, the tenth-highest number of any Weber County
jurisdiction. About 91 percent of those permits were for single-family
detached homes and four percent were for multi-family homes.
Riverdale’s zoning allows multi-family development in its R-3, R-4, and R-5
zones. It allows two-family homes in the R-3, R-4, and R-5 zones as well.
Condos and townhouses are allowed in the mixed-use zone. Based on
2018 data, about 15 percent of Riverdale’s land is potentially developable,
which ranks tenth out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available.
That percentage equates to roughly 446 developable acres. The Governor’s
Office of Management and Budget projects Riverdale’s population will
remain steady over the coming decades. However, if development occurs
on the potentially developable land, the community’s population may
increase over this projection.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 55

ROY As shown in Table 3.23, Roy shares similar population characteristics as
Weber County as a whole. Roy’s median household income was $70,032 in
2019 – about $3,000 higher than the county median. Roy is slightly younger
Population Characteristics and has a slightly larger average household size and share of households
As shown in Figure 3.43, Roy’s population has grown seven percent over with children than the county. Twenty percent of the community’s
the past decade, bringing its population to 39,306 in 2020. Roy is Weber households are cost-burdened by their housing, including 52 percent of
County’s second-most-populated municipality, accounting for 15 percent renters. In fact, this number is a significant decrease from 2010, with 28.3
of the county’s population. Its rate of growth has been considerably slower percent of households being cost-burdened.
than the rest of the county that averaged 13 percent growth from 2010
to 2020. Further, as Roy approaches build-out, its population growth is
Figure 3.44 -Roy Race (2019)
expected to slow further with a growth rate of 14 percent over the next
three decades. The community’s population is expected to reach 44,618 in
the year 2060.
Figure 3.43 - Roy Past and Projected Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS

5-Year Estimates, Table CP05

Table 3.23 - Roy: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Characteristic Roy Weber County

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $70,032 $67,244
Office of Planning & Budget
% Cost Burdened Households 20% 24%

As illustrated in Figure 3.44, over 85 percent of Roy’s residents were white % Cost Burdened Renter Households 36% 39%
with the next largest races being other at six percent and two or more races Median Age 31.4 32.7
at 5.5 percent. Eighteen percent of the population identified as Hispanic
or Latino. Altogether, 19.7 percent of Roy households were headed by Average Household Size 3.04 2.97
minorities in 2019, making Roy the second most diverse community in % Single-Parent Households 6.1% 6.9%
Weber County.
% 65+ Living Alone Households 8.3% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 41.9% 39.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007

56 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

 Housing Characteristics Housing Costs
Tenure The median owner housing cost was $1,317 in 2019, which was roughly the
same as the Weber County median. Median rent in Roy was $1,061 which
In 2019, 81.8 percent of housing units were owner-occupied, 15.8 percent was nearly $200 higher than the county median at $891. Overall, South
were renter-occupied, and 2.4 percent were vacant. Roy’s homeownership Ogden has the fifth-lowest owner costs and seventh-lowest rent out of 18
rose by 1.4 percent between 2010 and 2019 when the county’s rose by 0.8 Weber County communities. When accounting for inflation, from 2010 to
percent, meaning that slightly more residents are owning instead of renting 2019, rent increased by $81 (eight percent) while owner costs decreased by
their housing in 2019 than in 2010. $156 (12 percent). It should be noted that housing costs have risen rapidly
Housing Types between 2019 and 2022, likely significantly increasing median housing costs.

Figure 3.46 shows the distribution of housing types in Roy. Nearly 79 Households with a regional moderate-income spent 53 percent on housing
percent of the community’s units are single-family, followed by 7.6 percent and transportation costs combined, indicating that overall Roy residents
apartments, 6.2 percent mobile homes, 2.4 percent PUDs, 1.7 percent are cost-burdened (households that spend more than 45 percent of their
townhomes, 1.9 percent condos, and 1.5 percent duplexes. income on housing and transportation are considered cost-burdened).

A total of 735 units were permitted in Roy from 2010 to 2021. Of those Affordable Housing
units, 399 (54 percent) detached single-family homes, 245 (33 percent) A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Roy’s shown in Table 3.24.
were multi-family, 80 (11 percent) attached single-family, and 11 (one Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income
percent) were mobile homes. Compared to the overall housing type (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The
distribution illUstrate in Figure 3.48 Roy’s housing stock appears to third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket,
be shifting slightly away from detached single-family homes, toward a followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket.
greater share of multi-family and attached single-family housing (such as Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
townhomes). Roy contributed the fourth most multi-family units of the 18 number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing
Weber County communities from 2010 to 2021. units for each income range.
Roy is short 23 units for households below 30 percent AMHI, meaning that
Figure
Figure3.X - Farr
3.45- RoyWest
Housing Figure 3.46 - Roy Housing households in this bracket do not have enough housing available within
Housing Unit (2019)
Unit Tenure Tenure by Type (2019) their affordability range and are being forced to pay more than they can
afford. Otherwise, Roy has a surplus of units affordable to the 30 to 125
percent income brackets. However, there is a deficit of 674 units in the
highest income bracket (greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 674
households must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more.
This results in the highest income bracket consuming most of the surplus
units in the 30 to 125 percent AMHI brackets, potentially making less
affordable units available to moderate and low-income households.
Roy provided 6.5 percent of the county’s affordable units despite comprising
15 percent of the county’s population, indicating that as of 2019, Roy would
need to double its quantity of affordable units in order to provide a share
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
of affordable units proportional to its population. However, Roy may be
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 providing near enough affordable units for its residents.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 57

Table 3.24 - Roy Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) Key Trends & Take-Aways
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/ Roy Households Have Become Less Cost-Burdened
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Monthly Rent at that Price Available In 2010, 28 percent of households were spending more than 30 percent of
Less than 30 percent
their income on housing, including 42 percent of renters. In 2019, however,
$297 134 111 -23 only 20 percent of households (36 percent of renters) were cost-burdened
AMHI ($11,886)
30to 50 percent by housing. This may be due to increased household income, rising owner
AMHI ($11,886- $495 84 120 35 costs, and minimal rent hikes, among other factors.
$19,810)
Roy’s Racial/Ethnic Diversity Is On The Rise
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 336 572 236 Roy is the second most diverse community in the county, with nearly one
$31,696) in five households headed by minorities – a significant increase from 2010
80 to 100 percent when only one in seven households were headed by minorities.
AMHI ($31,696- $991 231 516 285
$39,620) Does Not Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable
100 to 25 percent Housing
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 266 406 140
$49,525) Roy has a very small deficit of affordable units relative to its population;
> 125 percent AMHI however, the community accounts for 15 percent of the county’s population
> $1,238 1,012 338 -674
(> $49,525) yet it only provides 6.5 percent of the county’s affordable housing. For
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data Roy to provide its proportionate share of affordable units relative to its
population, it would need to double its current supply.

Zoning & Land Use

Roy’s housing stock is largely detached single-family (78.6 percent of all
units), though 7.6 percent are apartments. Roy permitted 735 housing units
between January 2010 and August 2021, the seventh-highest number of
any Weber County jurisdiction. About 54 percent of those permits were for
single-family detached homes, 11 percent were for attached single-family,
and 33 percent were for multi-family homes.
Roy’s zoning allows multi-family (including two-family) development in
its R-3, R-4, and mixed-use zones. Based on 2018 data, about 6.1 percent
of Roy’s land is potentially developable, which ranks 14 out of the 15
jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage equates to
roughly 317 developable acres. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
Budget projects Roy’s population will remain steady over the coming
decades. However, if development occurs on the potentially developable
land, the community’s population may increase over this projection.

58 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

SOUTH OGDEN Ogden households were headed by minorities in 2019, making South Ogden
ranked seventh of 18 for the most diverse community in the county despite
its share of minority households being substantially lower than the county
Population Characteristics average of 18.9 percent.
As shown in Figure 3.47, South Ogden’s population in 2020 was 17,941, Table 3.25, shows various population characteristics of South Ogden
making up just 6.7 percent of the county’s population. South Ogden’s compared to Weber County. South Ogden had a comparable median
growth rate has slowed over the past decade, with a population increase of household income as Weber County at $68,585 in 2019. Despite this, South
15 percent from 2000 to 2010 then just six percent from 2010 to 2020. In Ogden had lower cost-burden rates (for both renter households and overall)
Figure 3.47 - South Ogden Past and Projected Population than the county, with just 28 percent of renters spending more than 30
percent of their income on rent, compared to 39 percent countywide.
South Ogden is slightly older and has a smaller average household size
than the county, despite it having a comparable share of households with
children. This is likely explained by a larger senior population as one in ten
households are seniors living alone.

Table 3.25 - South Ogden: Other Key Population Characteristics

(2019)
Characteristic South Ogden Weber County
Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $68,585 $67,244
% Cost Burdened Households 20% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 28% 39%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget Median Age 34.6 32.7
Figure 3.48 - South Ogden fact, South Ogden was the fourth-slowest Average Household Size 2.75 2.97
Race (2019) growing community in Weber County. % Single-Parent Households 6.6% 6.9%
This trend is expected to continue with a
projected growth rate of just 11 percent % 65+ Living Alone Households 10.9% 8.4%
over the next three decades, reaching an % Households with Children Under 18 39.7% 39.6%
expected population of 19,399 by 2060. Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
As illustrated in Figure 3.48, 92 percent of
South Ogden’s residents are white, with
2.9 percent a combination of two or more
races, 1.5 percent black, and less than one
percent American Indian, Pacific Islander,
and Asian. Fourteen percent of South
Ogden’s population identified as Hispanic
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
or Latino. Altogether, 13.9 percent of South

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 59

Housing Characteristics Housing Costs
Tenure The median owner housing cost was $1,270 in 2019, about $100 less than
the Weber County median. Median rent in South Ogden was $961 which is
As illustrated in Figure 3.49, in 2019, 65.7 percent of housing units were slightly higher than the county median at $891. Overall, South Ogden has
owner-occupied, 25.8 percent were renter-occupied, and 8.5 percent the third-lowest owner costs and sixth-lowest rent out of 18 Weber County
were vacant. The community has the third-highest share of renter- communities. When accounting for inflation, from 2010 to 2019, rent
occupied housing following Ogden and Washington Terrace. South Ogden’s increased by $127 (15 percent) while owner costs decreased by $173 (14
homeownership rate rose by 2.3 percent between 2010 and 2019, a percent). Because housing costs have risen rapidly between 2019 and 2022,
substantial increase considering the state of Utah is declining and the county median housing costs have likely risen more.
only increased by 0.8 percent, meaning that more residents were owning
instead of renting their housing from 2010 to 2019. Households with a regional moderate-income spent 51 percent on housing
and transportation costs, indicating that South Ogden residents are cost-
Housing Types burdened (households that spend more than 45 percent of their income on
Figure 3.50 shows the distribution of housing types in South Ogden. housing and transportation are considered cost-burdened).
Sixty-five percent of the community’s units are single-family, 16 percent Affordable Housing
townhomes, 12 percent apartments, four percent duplexes, two percent
PUDs, and less than one percent mixed PUD/townhome. A rental housing affordability gap analysis for South Ogden is shown in
Table 3.26. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
A total of 776 units were permitted in South Ogden from 2010 to 2021. Of income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent
those units, 556 (72 percent) were multi-family, 123 (16 percent) attached of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each
single-family, and 97 (13 percent) detached single-family homes. South income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within
Ogden contributed the third most multi-family units of the 18 Weber County the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of
communities from 2010 to 2021. households and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or
deficits of housing units for each income range.
Figure 3.49
3.X - -Farr
South Ogden
West Figure 3.50 - South Ogden South Ogden is short 37 (29+18) units below 50 percent AMHI, meaning
Housing Unit Tenure (2019) Housing by Type (2019) that households in this bracket do not have enough housing available within
their affordability range and are being forced to pay more than they can
afford. There is also a deficit of 729 units in the highest income bracket
(greater than 125 percent AMHI), meaning that 729 households must
rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more. This results in the
highest income bracket consuming most of the surplus units in the 50 to
125 percent AMHI income brackets, potentially making less affordable units
available to moderate and low-income households.
South Ogden provided 6.4 percent of the county’s affordable units despite
comprising 6.7 percent of the county’s population, indicating that as
of 2019, South Ogden was providing roughly its proportionate share of
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council affordable units relative to its population. However, as stated above, South
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
Ogden is still lacking many affordable units for its low and very low-income
households.

60 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

 developable, which ranks 11 out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are
Table 3.26 - South Ogden Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) available. That percentage equates to roughly 294 developable acres. The
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects South Ogden’s population
will see lower growth over the coming decades, potentially reaching about
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/ 19,000 residents by 2060, up from 17,488 in 2020.
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Less than 30 percent Key Trends & Take-Aways
$297 95 66 -29
AMHI ($11,886)
Population Growth Is Expected To Slow
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 120 102 -18 As the community nears build-out, South Ogden’s population growth is
$19,810) expected to slow, with only an 11 percent increase in population expected
50 to 80 percent
in the next 30 years, substantially lower than the countywide projected
AMHI ($19,810- $792 222 615 393 growth rate (73 percent).
$31,696)
80 to 100 percent
Predominately Single-Family But Building Mostly
AMHI ($31,696- $991 174 534 360 Multi-Family
$39,620)
Nearly 65 percent of housing units in South Ogden were single-family
100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 250 274 24 homes in 2019. However, only 13 percent of residential units permitted
$49,525) in South Ogden in the past decade were single-family homes. In fact, 72
> 125 percent AMHI percent of units permitted were multi-family, making South Ogden the
> $1,238 871 142 -729
(> $49,525) third-highest contributor of multi-family units of the 18 Weber County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data communities from 2010-2021.
South Ogden Provides Its Proportionate Share Of
Zoning & Land Use Affordable Housing
South Ogden’s housing stock has a relatively large proportion of townhomes Despite South Ogden having a deficit of affordable units for its low and
(15 percent of units) and apartments (12.2 percent), with 67.4 percent very low-income households, the community provides 6.4 percent of the
being detached single-family homes. South Ogden permitted 776 housing county’s affordable units while comprising 6.7 percent of the county’s
units between January 2010 and August 2021, the sixth-highest number population, indicating that as of 2019, South Ogden was roughly providing a
of any Weber County jurisdiction. Only about 13 percent of those permits proportionate share of affordable units relative to its population.
were for single-family detached homes, while 16 percent were for attached
single-family, and 72 percent were for multi-family homes. South Ogden had
the highest proportion of permitted multi-family homes out of any Weber
County community for 2010 to 2021.
South Ogden’s zoning allows two-family development in its R-2 and R-3
zones, and multi-family development in its R-3/R-3A and form-based zones.
The form-based zones cover substantial areas around 40th street. Based
on 2018 data, about 11.7 percent of South Ogden’s land is potentially

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 61

UINTAH households were headed by minorities in 2019, substantially lower than
the county average of 18.9 percent, making Uintah the fifth least diverse
community in Weber County.
Population Characteristics
Table 3.27, shows various population characteristics of Uintah relative
As shown in Figure 3.51, Uintah’s population has grown steadily over to Weber County. At $90,208, Uintah had a substantially higher median
the past two decades, with an increase of fewer than 200 people (ten household income than the Weber County median ($67,244) in 2019.
percent) from 2010 to 2020. In fact, Uintah was one of the slowest growing Only 11 percent of Uintah’s renter households were cost-burdened (spend
communities in Weber County (its growth rate ranked 12 out of 18). more than 30 percent of their household income on housing), a substantial
Figure 3.51 - Uintah Past and Projected Population decrease from 2010 (49.4 percent) and significantly lower than the county
as a whole (39.2 percent). However, 19 percent of all Uintah households
(renters and owners) were cost-burdened, indicating that the community’s
homeowners are generally more burdened than its renters. Uintah’s
median is slightly older than the county’s though it has a substantially lower
portion of seniors living alone (only 3.5 percent of households). Its average
household size is larger than the county average despite having a lower
share of households with children.

Table 3.27 - Uintah Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Characteristic Uintah Weber County

Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $90,208 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 19% 24%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 11% 39%

Median Age 39.6 32.7

Figure 3.52 -Uintah Race Uintah’s population in 2020 was 1,454,
(2019) making up just 0.6 percent of the county’s Average Household Size 3.17 2.97
population. However, the community is % Single-Parent Households 7.0% 6.9%
projected to grow by 66 percent from
% 65+ Living Alone Households 3.5% 8.4%
2020 to 2060, a substantially higher
growth rate than in recent decades, % Households with Children Under 18 34.6% 39.6%
reaching a population of 2,415 by the year Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
2060.
As illustrated in Figure 3.52, nearly 96
percent of Uintah’s residents are White,
with 3.4 percent a combination of two
or more races. Eleven percent of the
population identified as Hispanic or
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
Latino. Altogether, 7.3 percent of Uintah

62 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Housing Characteristics Housing Costs
Tenure The median owner housing cost was $1,602 in 2019, about $220 more
expensive than the Weber County median. Median rent in Uintah was
As illustrated in Figure 3.53, in 2019, over 85 percent of housing units were $1,125 which is significantly higher than the county median at $891. Overall,
owner-occupied, 12 percent were renter-occupied, and 2.4 percent were Uintah has the ninth-highest owner costs and eighth-highest rent out of
vacant. Uintah’s homeownership rate rose by 3.6 percent between 2010 18 Weber County communities. When accounting for inflation, from 2010
and 2019, which is a substantial increase considering the state of Utah is to 2019, rent increased by $87 while owner costs decreased by $286,
declining and the county only increased by 0.8 percent, meaning that more likely due to the increase of mobile homes in the community. It should be
residents were owning instead of renting their housing from 2010 to 2019. noted that housing costs have risen rapidly between 2019 and 2022, likely
Housing Types significantly increasing median housing costs.

Figure 3.54 shows the distribution of housing types in Uintah. Eighty-three Households with a regional moderate-income spent 56 percent on housing
percent of the community’s units are single-family, while the other 17 and transportation costs combined, indicating that overall Uintah residents
percent are mobile homes and one-percent are duplexes. are cost-burdened (households that spend more than 45 percent of their
income on housing and transportation are considered cost-burdened).
A total of 51 units were permitted in Uintah from 2010 to 2021. Twenty-
six (52 percent) of those units were detached single-family homes and the Affordable Housing
remaining 25 (48 percent) were mobile homes. Uintah and Farr West were A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Uintah is shown in Table 3.28.
the only municipalities to not provide any multi-family housing units from Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household income
2010 to 2021. (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The
third column indicates the number of households in each income bracket,
Figure
Figure3.X - Farr
3.53 West Housing
- Uintah Figure 3.54 - Uintah followed by the number of rental units available within the income bracket.
Housing Unit (2019)
Unit Tenure Tenure Housing by Type (2019) Column five is the difference between the number of households and the
number of units available, indicating the surpluses or deficits of housing
units for each income range.
There was a surplus of moderate, low, and very-low income units in Uintah
relative to its demographics. However, housing prices have increased rapidly
since 2019, meaning that the community’s surplus is likely smaller than this
analysis indicates. Also note that Uintah only provided 0.2 percent of the
county’s affordable units despite comprising 0.6 percent of the county’s
population. To provide sufficient affordable units relative to its population, it
needs three times more than its current supply.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 63

Table 3.28 - Uintah Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) Key Trends & Take-Aways
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Fewer Than 11 Percent Of Uintah’s Renters Are
Monthly Rent at that Price Available Cost-Burdened
Less than 30 percent In 2019, only 10.7 percent of Uintah’s renting households spent more than
$297 8 11 3
AMHI ($11,886)
30 percent of their income on rent , which is a substantial decrease from 49
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 2 3 1 percent in 2010, potentially be a result of an increased number of mobile
$19,810) homes in the community. However, the overall cost-burden (including
50 to 80 percent renters and owners) is a bit higher (19 percent) though still lower than the
AMHI ($19,810- $792 1 9 8 Weber County average of 24 percent.
$31696)
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 1 13 12
No Multi-Family Housing
$39,620) Uintah was one of two communities in Weber County that did not permit
100 to 125 percent any multi-family units from 2010 to 2021. Fifty-two percent of their permit-
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 0 9 9
$49,525)
ted units were single-family homes and 48 percent mobile homes.
> 125 percent AMHI
(> $49,525)
> $1,238 44 11 -33 Uintah Has A Surplus Of Affordable Units But Does Not
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data Provide Proportional Share Of Affordable Housing
Uintah has a surplus of affordable units relative to its household composi-
tion; however, the community accounts for 0.6 percent of the county’s pop-
Zoning & Land Use ulation yet it only provides 0.2 percent of the affordable housing. To provide
Uintah’s housing stock is roughly 50 percent detached-single-family and 50 its proportionate share of affordable units relative to its population, it would
percent mobile homes. Uintah permitted 51 housing units between January need three times more than its current supply.
2010 and August 2021, the 13th-highest number of any Weber County
jurisdiction. About 51 percent of those permits were for single-family
detached homes, while 49 percent were for mobile homes.
Uintah’s zoning allows duplexes as conditional uses, but otherwise multi-
family development is not permitted. Based on 2018 data, about 27.2
percent of Uintah’s land is potentially developable, which ranks seventh out
of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage equates
to roughly 218 developable acres. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
Budget projects Uintah’s population will continue growing over the coming
decades, potentially reaching about 2,400 residents by 2060, up from 1,454
in 2020.

64 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

WASHINGTON TERRACE Table 3.29, shows various community population characteristics relative
to Weber County. Washington Terrace’s median household income was
$63,503 in 2019, nearly $4,000 lower than the county median. In fact,
Population Characteristics Washington Terrace had the third-lowest household income in Weber
As shown in Figure 3.55, Washington Terrace’s population has remained County in 2019. Twenty-eight percent of the community’s households
relatively stagnant over the past two decades, with an increase of only 200 are cost-burdened by their housing costs, including 52 percent of renters.
people from 2010 to 2020. In fact, Washington Terrace was the second Households with a moderate regional income spent 43 percent on housing
and transportation combined, indicating that overall Washington Terrace
Figure 3.55 - Washington Terrace Past and Projected
residents are not cost-burdened by housing and transportation costs
combined (households must spend less than 45 percent of income on
housing and transportation to not be considered cost-burdened).
Washington Terrace also has higher shares of single-parent households and
65+ living alone households than the county average. In fact, 14.6 percent
of households in Washington Terrace are seniors living alone. Washington
Terrace has a similar median age, average household size, and percent of
households with children as the county.
Table 3.29 - Washington Terrace: Other Key Population
Characteristics (2019)
Characteristic Washington Terrace Weber County
Median Household Income $63,503 $67,244
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget % Cost Burdened Households 28% 24%

slowest growing community in Weber % Cost Burdened Renter Households 52% 39%
Figure 3.56 - Washington County (Huntsville being the slowest). Median Age 33.8 32.7
Terrace Race (2019) Washington Terrace is projected to grow
Average Household Size 2.85 2.97
by 44 percent from 2020 to 2060, a
substantially higher growth rate than in % Single-Parent Households 8.6% 6.9%
recent years. The community’s population is % 65+ Living Alone Households 14.6% 8.4%
expected to reach 13,358 in the year 2060.
% Households with Children Under 18 39.2% 39.6%
As illustrated in Figure 3.56, over 94 percent Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
of Washington Terrace’s residents were
white with the next largest race being two
or more races at 3.8 percent. Over ten
percent of the population identified as
Hispanic or Latino. Altogether, 14.8 percent
of Washington Terrace households were
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
headed by minorities in 2019.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 65

Housing Characteristics Housing Costs
Tenure The median owner housing cost was $1,215 in 2019, the fourth-lowest in
the county. Owner costs are approximately $160 cheaper in Washington
As illustrated in Figure 3.57, in 2019, 60.6 percent of housing units were Terrace than the Weber County median. Median rent was $820, which
owner-occupied, 29.5 percent were renter-occupied, and 9.9 percent is slightly lower than the county median at $891. When accounting for
were vacant. Washington Terraces has the second highest share of renter- inflation, rent has increased by two percent in the past decade.
occupied housing following Ogden. Washington Terrace’s homeownership
rate fell by 0.6 percent between 2010 and 2019 despite the county’s rising Affordable Housing
by 0.8 percent, meaning that slightly more residents are renting instead of A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Washington Terrace is
owning their housing in 2019 than in 2010. shown in Table 3.30. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median
Housing Types household income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30
percent of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households
Figure 3.58 shows the distribution of housing types in Washington Terrace. in each income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available
Nearly 67 percent of the community’s units are single-family, 15.6 percent within the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the
apartments, 7.3 percent townhomes, five percent duplexes, 3.8 percent number of households and the number of units available, indicating the
condos, and less than one percent PUDs and mixed townhome/PUDs. Of surpluses or deficits of housing units for each income range.
new units permitted from 2010 to 2021, 61 percent were detached single-
family homes, 19 percent were townhomes, and ten percent were multi- The lowest income brackets, 30 to 50 and less than 30 percent AMHI, have
family. The housing stock is shifting towards more townhomes. large deficits of 82 and 47 units, respectively; Washington Terrace is short
129 units below 50 percent AMHI. Households in this bracket lack housing
opportunities within their affordability range and are forced to pay more
Figure 3.57
3.X - -Farr
Washington
West Terrace Figure 3.58 - Washington than they can afford. There is also a deficit of 176 (119+57) units in the
Housing Unit Tenure (2019) Terrace Housing by Type (2019) highest income brackets (greater than 100 percent AMHI), meaning that 176
households must rent at a lower price despite being able to afford more.
This results in the higher income brackets consuming most of the surplus
units in the 50 to 100 percent AMHI income brackets, potentially making
less affordable units available to less affluent households.
Washington Terrace provides 5.2 percent of the county’s affordable units
despite comprising 3.5 percent of the county’s population. Washington
Terrace provides a disproportionately high share of affordable units relative
to its population. However, Washington Terrace still lacks affordable units for
low and very low-income households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS

5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council

66 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 3.30 - Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019) Key Trends & Take-Aways
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Stagnant Growth May Change
Monthly Rent at that Price Available Washington Terrace’s population has only grown by two percent in the past
Less than 30 percent
$297 231 184 -47
decade. However, the community is projected to increase its population by
AMHI ($11,886) 44 percent in the next thirty years.
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 153 71 -82 Most Renters Are Cost-Burdened
$19,810)
50 to 80 percent Despite having relatively low rents, fifty-two percent of Washington
AMHI ($19,810- $792 151 386 236 Terrace’s renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30
$31,696) percent of their income on rent. This is substantially higher than the county
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 129 199 70 as a whole, in which 39 percent of its renters are cost-burdened. This can
$39,620) largely be attributed to the community’s share of low-income households.
100 to 125 percent In fact, 22 percent of Washington Terrace renting households are very low
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 185 65 -119 income, making less than 30 percent of the county’s median income.
$49,525)
> 125 percent AMHI Washington Terrace provides more than its fair share of affordable housing
> $1,238 188 131 -57
(> $49,525) despite Washington Terrace having a substantial deficit of affordable units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data for its low and very low-income households, the community provides 5.2
percent of the county’s affordable units despite comprising 3.5 percent
of the county’s population, indicating that currently, Washington Terrace
Zoning & Land Use is providing more than its fair share of affordable units relative to its
Washington Terrace’s housing stock is largely detached single-family (66.8 population.
percent of all units), though 15.8 percent are apartments, 7.3 percent are
townhomes, and five percent are duplexes. Washington Terrace permitted Washington Terrace Has A Relatively Diverse Housing
99 housing units between January 2010 and August 2021, the 12th- Stock, But Does Not Allow Multi-family Units
highest number of any Weber County jurisdiction. About 61 percent of The community has a moderate amount of multi-family homes, but its
those permits were for single-family detached homes, 19 percent were for zoning code does not allow for future multi-family development. This
attached single-family, and ten percent were for multi-family homes. situation may constrain future provision of moderate-income housing.
Washington Terrace’s zoning does not include a specific multi-family
development zone. However, their code includes an in-fill residential
development zone; this allows multi-family development on a case-by-case
basis in in-fill parcels. Based on 2018 data, about 24 percent of Washington
Terrace’s land is potentially developable, which ranks eighth out of the
15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage equates to
roughly 309 developable acres. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
Budget projects Washington Terrace’s population will increase to about
13,000 by 2040 and then hold steady.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 67

WEST HAVEN
Population Characteristics Figure 3.60 -West Haven Race (2019)

West Haven had the fastest population growth rate for 2010 to 2020
(62.9 percent compared to 13 percent growth in the county) out of all the
communities in Weber County. The next-fastest growing community in the
county was Pleasant View at a rate of 43 percent for 2010 to 2020. The
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget predicts West Haven will continue
to grow at a strong pace, reaching nearly 60,000 residents by 2060.
Figure 3.59 - West Haven Past and Projected Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS

5-Year Estimates, Table CP05

Table 3.31 - West Haven Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)

Characteristic West Haven Weber County

Median Household Income $77,733 $67,244

% Cost Burdened Households 23% 24%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: DEC 2010, 2020 , Table P1; 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s
Office of Planning & Budget % Cost Burdened Renter Households 42% 39%

Median Age 29.3 32.7

The overwhelming majority (94.9 percent) of West Haven’s residents are
white, and 8.5 percent of the city’s residents are Hispanic or Latino (of Average Household Size 3.32 2.97
any race). As of 2019, 10.3 percent of West Haven’s households were % Single-Parent Households 9.5% 6.9%
composed of racial minorities, compared to 18.9 percent of Weber County
% 65+ Living Alone Households 1.7% 8.4%
households. This percentage decreased from 15.8 percent in 2010. West
Haven had the tenth-highest percentage of minority households of the % Households with Children Under 18 52.5% 39.6%
county communities in 2019. West Haven ranked seventh out of 18 for the Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
percentage of housing cost-burdened households in the county in 2019.
The cost-burdened percentage declined from 32.9 percent in 2010 to 22.8
percent in 2019.

68 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

 Housing Characteristics West Haven households with a median regional income (100 percent
AMHI), spend an average of 50 percent of their income on housing and
Tenure transportation costs. For households with a regional moderate income (80
West Haven had a higher percentage of owner-occupied housing units than percent AMHI), those expenses rise to 59 percent (H+T Index, 2017).
the overall County (71.8 percent versus 66.9 percent) in 2019 and a lower
vacancy rate (5.7 percent compared to 8.9 percent) in the same year. The
Affordable Housing
homeownership rate declined two percentage points between 2010 and A rental housing affordability gap analysis for West Haven is shown in
2019, while the county rate increased by 0.8 percent during that period. Table 3.32. The lowest income brackets, 30 to 50 percent and less than 30
percent AMHI, have deficits of 16 and 66 units, respectively, indicating that
Housing Types West Haven is short 82 units below 50 percent AMHI. These households
West Haven has a relatively diverse housing stock compared to other lack housing options within their affordability range and are forced to pay
Weber County communities, with about 60 percent of housing units being more than they can afford. West Haven has a surplus of units in the 50 to
detached single-family (SF) and 18.2 percent apartments and 15 percent 125 percent AMHI brackets, but a deficit of 337 units in the highest income
townhomes. This contrasts with the housing stock of Weber County bracket (greater than 120 percent AMHI). Those households must rent at
(excluding Ogden Valley) which is 68.8 percent detached SF, 13.6 percent a lower price despite being able to afford more. This results in the higher
apartments, and 6.7 percent townhomes. income brackets consuming some of the surplus units in the 50 to 100
percent AMHI income brackets, potentially making fewer affordable units
Housing Costs available to households who make 50 to 125 percent AMHI.
Based on 2015 to 2019 data, the median gross rent in West Haven was
$1,111 (sixth-highest out of the county communities), compared to $891 for
the entire county. The median owner cost was $1,567 for West Haven in the Table 3.32 - West Haven Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
same period (ranked tenth in the county) compared to $1,378 for the entire
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
county. The median gross rent in West Haven increased from $1,000 in 2010 Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
to $1,161 in 2019. Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Less than 30 percent
$297 33 17 -16
AMHI ($11,886)
Figure3.X
Figure 3.61 - West
- Farr WestHaven Figure 3.62 - West Haven Housing
30 to 50 percent
HousingUnit
Housing UnitTenure
Tenure (2019) by Type (2019) AMHI ($11,886- $495 81 15 -66
$19,810)
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 72 105 33
$31,696)
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 86 286 200
$39,620)
100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 133 320 187
$49,525)
> 125 percent AMHI
> $1,238 583 246 -337
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 69

West Haven supplies 1.1 percent of Weber County’s moderate income
housing despite having 6.4 percent of the county population. It ranks
WEST-CENTRAL WEBER COUNTY
seventh out of 18 communities for the percentage of county moderate Population, household, and housing unit data for West-central Weber
income housing provided. come from the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Real Estate Market
Model. This model combines data from the Weber County assessor, U.S.
Zoning & Land Use Census Bureau, and aerial imagery and provides estimates for the exact
West Haven has a more diverse housing stock than many other Weber geographies of West-central Weber. This unincorporated planning area is
County communities. West Haven permitted 2,953 housing units between not a Census-designated place, so the U.S. Census Bureau data presented
January 2010 and August 2021, the highest number of any Weber County here are for Census tracts 2104.03, 2104.04, and 2105.05 (2010 and 2020
community. About 25 percent of those permits were multi-family and 22 geography). These tracts overlap some with several municipalities. Some
percent were attached single-family. of the population in this section is double-counted. However, these data
provide useful estimates not available from the Real Estate Market Model.
West Haven allows multi-family housing in its R-3 and mixed use zones, with
This summary does not include the smaller areas of the West-central Weber
the latter occupying substantial areas of the city. Based on 2018 data, about
planning area that are interspersed among incorporated places.
36 percent of West Haven’s land is potentially developable, which ranks
fifth out of the 15 jurisdictions for which data are available. That percentage Population Characteristics
equates to roughly 2,483 developable acres. However, as noted above, the
The population in West-central Weber has grown over recent years (Figure
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects West Haven will continue
3.63). It grew about 39 percent between 2010 and 2020, compared to a
its trend of strong population growth through 2060, potentially reaching
13 percent increase in the countywide population. In 2019, 3,944 people
58,000 residents by that year.
lived in this area, and estimates put 2022’s population at 4,188. Growth is
predicted to continue, reaching 6,000 people by 2050. That would mark a
Key Trends & Take-Aways 54 percent increase in 2019’s population. However, the area accounts for
High Past And Projected Growth only 1.5 percent of Weber County’s total population.
West Haven is the fastest-growing community in Weber County, and with
roughly 2,483 remaining developable acres, it has a great deal of room to Figure 3.63- West-central Weber Past and Projected Population
grow. Demographically, West Haven is similar to other suburban Weber
County communities, though it does have a significantly higher median
household income compared to the county average.
Diverse Housing Stock But Does Not Provide
Proportionate Share Of MIH
West Haven stands out for having a relatively diverse housing stock, and the
city continues to permit large numbers of multi-family and attached
single-family homes. However, the city does not provide a proportional
share of affordable housing relative to its population.

Source: WFRC Real Estate Market Model

70 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Figure 3.64 - West-central As shown in Figure 3.64, estimates indicate Housing Characteristics
Weber Race (2019) that 96.8 percent of West-central Weber’s
residents are white, and 4.6 percent identify Tenure
as Hispanic or Latino of any race as of 2019. As shown in Figure 3.65, 78.2 percent of West-central Weber’s occupied
About 7.5 percent of West-central Weber housing units were owner-occupied as of 2019, with a vacancy rate of 6.5
households were racial minorities in 2019. percent. West-central Weber’s homeownership rate rose by 2.7 percent
Table 3.33 shows additional population between 2010 and 2019.
characteristics of West-central Weber
compared to Weber County. West-central
Housing Types
Weber had a median age of 34.8 years in In 2019, based on data from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (2019
2019, compared to the countywide figure REMM), 100 percent of the total residential units in West-central Weber
of 32.7. About 6.6 percent of West-central County were single-family homes. This contrasts with that of the entire
Weber households consisted of seniors county, which had 71.6 percent detached single-family homes and 19.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS living alone compared to 8.4 percent for the percent multi-family in 2019. In West-central Weber, there were 1,575
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05
entire county. Almost five percentt of West- single-family housing units in 2019. By 2050, this may increase to 2,086
central Weber households were headed by units.
single parents in 2019. Over 21 percent of West-central Weber households
Housing Costs
were cost-burdened in 2019, including 22.9 percent of renter households.
The percentage of cost-burdened households declined from 27.5 percent The median owner housing cost was $1,687 in 2019. This figure decreased
in 2010 to 21.1 percent in 2019. West-central Weber boasts a median from $1,745 in 2010 (after adjusting for inflation). The median gross rent
household income above that of Weber County as a whole. was $923 in 2019 and $789 in 2010 (after adjusting for inflation). Using the
same methodology used in Table 2.14, it can be estimated that in 2022 the
median owner housing cost increased to $2,922 and the median gross rent
Table 3.33 - Other Key Population Characteristics (2019) increased to $1,123.

Characteristic West-central Weber Weber County

Figure 3.65 - West-central Weber
Housing Unit Tenure (2019)
Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $77,463 $67,244
% Cost Burdened Households 21% 24%
% Cost Burdened Renter Households 23% 39%

Median Age 34.8 32.7

Average Household Size 2.84 2.97

% Single-Parent Households 4.8% 6.9%

% 65+ Living Alone Households 6.6% 8.4%

% Households with Children Under 18 47.3% 39.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S0101, DP02, except for Median Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year
Household Income and Average Household Size, which came from WFRC’s Real Estate Market Model. Estimates, Table S2502

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 71

Housing Affordability Zoning & Land Use
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for West-central Weber is shown West-central Weber’s zoning is codified in the Weber County zoning code.
in Table 3.34. Due to limited data availability, these data include parts of Much of the West-central area is zoned for AV-1, AV-2, and AV-3, zones that
West Haven, Hooper, Marriott-Slaterville, and Plain City. Income ranges are permit low-density single-family dwellings and cluster subdivisions. West-
based on Weber County’s median household income (AMHI). Maximum central Weber’s zoning does not allow for attached-single-family or multi-
affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent of AMHI. The third column family homes. About 30 percent of the planning area (not the area defined
indicates the number of households in each income bracket, followed by by the Census tracts used for data collection for this summary) is potentially
the number of rental units available within the income bracket. Column five developable, equating to approximately 21,000 acres. This large area
indicaties the surpluses or deficits of housing units for each income range. that could support development suggests that the vicinity may see large
According to this analysis, there was a surplus of moderate, low, and population increases in the future. No data are available on the number or
very-low-income rental units relative to West-central Weber’s household type of housing permits issued in these areas.
demographics. However, housing prices have increased rapidly since 2019,
meaning that now in 2022, the community’s affordable-housing surplus is Key Trends & Take-Aways
likely smaller than this analysis indicates. There is a deficit of 470 (51+419)
units in the highest income brackets (greater than 100 percent AMHI),
West-central Weber Is Racially Homogeneous With
meaning that 470 households must rent at a lower price despite being able Above-Average Income
to afford more, resulting in the highest income bracket consuming some of West-central Weber has a largely racially homogeneous population (97 per-
the surplus units in the lower-income brackets. cent white) that has above-average household income ($77,463).

Table 3.34 - West-central Weber Rental Affordable Housing Gap West-central Weber Has A Strong Potential For Growth
But Likely Unaffordable
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
The community provides a small amount of affordable housing but has the
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
potential for strong population growth due to its large area of developable
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
land. However, absent of zoning changes, it may see further development of
Less than 30 percent
$297 43 49 6 large-lot detached single-family homes that are likely unaffordable.
AMHI ($11,886)
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 71 78 7
$19,810)
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 93 275 182
$31,696)
80 to 100 percent
AMHI ($31,696- $991 114 389 275
$39,620)
100 to 125 percent
AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 158 107 -51
$49,525)
> 125 percent AMHI
> $1,238 634 214 -419
(> $49,525)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data

72 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

WOLF CREEK Creek has a lower percentage of single-parent households, 65+ living alone
households, and households with children under 18 than Weber County as
a whole. In fact, Wolf Creek has the lowest percentage of households with
Population Characteristics children than any other Weber County community with only 23 percent of
Wolf Creek’s population grew from 1,336 to 1,645 between 2010 and 2020, households having children in the home.
a 23 percent increase (compared to a 13 percent increase countywide).
This growth rate was the eighth-highest of the Weber County communities. Table 3.35 - Wolf Creek: Other Key Population Characteristics (2019)
Unfortunately, the Utah Governor’s Office does not have population
projections for Wolf Creek at this time. Characteristic Wolf Creek Weber County
As illustrated in Figure 3.67, over 92 percent Median Household Income (2019 $'s) $114,306 $67,244
Figure 3.67 - Wolf Creek
of Wolf Creek’s residents are white, four
Race (2019) % Cost Burdened Households 28% 24%
percent black, and three percent Asian.
In the 2020 Census, 3.5 percent of the % Cost Burdened Renter Households 70% 39%
population identified as Hispanic or Latino. Median Age 42.1 32.7
Altogether, 11.2 percent of Wolf Creek
Average Household Size 2.60 2.97
households were headed by minorities in
2019. % Single-Parent Households 4.7% 6.9%

In 2019, only 22 percent of households % 65+ Living Alone Households 5.8% 8.4%
spent more than 30 percent of their % Households with Children Under 18 23.2% 39.6%
income on housing – a comparable
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019 5-year data, Tables S1101, S2503, S0101, DP02, B11007
number to Weber County with 24 percent
of households cost-burdened. Despite
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS household income decreasing in the past Housing Characteristics
5-Year Estimates, Table CP05 decade, the share of household’s cost- Tenure
burdened has decreased slightly from 24
percent in 2010. Plain City has a small share of renting households (only five As illustrated in Figure 3.68, in 2019, 40.7 percent of housing units were
percent), however, none of them are cost-burdened, which is significant owner-occupied, 7.8 percent were renter-occupied, and 51.5 percent
considering nearly 40 percent of renter households are cost-burdened were vacant. This extremely high vacancy rate may be due in part to a
across the county. large amount of short-term rental properties and second homes in the
community. Wolf Creek’s homeownership rate fell by 3 percent between
Table 3.35, shows various population characteristics relative to Weber 2010 and 2019 despite the county’s rising by 0.8 percent.
County. Wolf Creek has the second-highest median household income in
the county at over $114,306 in 2019. However, Wolf Creek is the third most Housing Types
cost-burdened community with 28 percent of all households and 70 percent Figure 3.69 shows the distribution of housing types in Wolf Creek. Nearly
of renter-households spending more than 30 percent of their income on 60 percent of Wolf Creek’s units are single-family, and 40 percent multi-
housing. This is likely due to extremely high housing costs despite overall family. Wolf Creek has a relatively high share of multi-family housing units
high household income. Wolf Creek has the smallest household size in the compared to the rest of the communities in the county (the county share is
county with an average of 2.6 persons per household. Their population is 20 percent multi-family).
also among the oldest in the county with a median age of 42 years old. Wolf

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 73

Figure 3.68
3.X - -Farr
Wolf Creek Housing
West Figure 3.69 - Wolf Creek Table 3.36 - Wolf Creek Rental Affordable Housing Gap (2019)
Unit Tenure
Housing Unit (2019)
Tenure Housing by Type (2019)
Maximum # Rental Units Surplus/
Income Range Affordable # Households Available Deficit of Units
Monthly Rent at that Price Available
Less than 30 percent
$297 0 0 0
AMHI ($11,886)
30 to 50 percent
AMHI ($11,886- $495 0 0 0
$19,810)
50 to 80 percent
AMHI ($19,810- $792 11 11 0
$31,696)
80 to 100 percent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2019 ACS 5-Year AMHI ($31,696- $991 5 0 -5
5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 Estimates, Table DP04 $39,620)
100 to 125 percent
Housing Costs AMHI ($39,620- $1,238 0 14 14
The median owner housing cost was $2,542 in 2019, the highest in the $49,525)
county. Median rent was $2,642 ($100 more than median owner costs) > 125 percent AMHI
> $1,238 31 61 30
(> $49,525)
and is also the highest rent in the county. Wolf Creek’s median rent is over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Tables: B25118, B25119, B25056) ACS 2019 5-year data
$1700 more than the county median gross rent. The median rent in Wolf
Creek has more than doubled from 2010 to 2019, increasing from $1,121 to
$2,642 (adjusted for inflation). 2019, meaning the true affordable-housing deficit is likely larger than this
Households with a moderate regional income spent 67 percent on analysis indicates. It should also be noted that although Wolf Creek has
housing and transportation combined, indicating that overall Wolf Creek a small deficit of affordable units because little to no moderate and low-
residents are severely cost-burdened by housing and transportation costs income households live in Wolf Creek. In fact, Wolf Creek only provides 0.1
(households must spend less than 45 percent of income on housing and percent of the county’s affordable units despite comprising 0.6 percent of
transportation to not be considered cost-burdened). the county’s population. To provide a share of affordable units proportional
to its population, it would need six times more than its current supply.
Affordable Housing Additionally, Wolf Creek residents are still severely cost-burdened despite
A rental housing affordability gap analysis for Wolf Creek is shown in Table their high incomes, due to extremely high housing costs.
3.36. Income ranges are based on Weber County’s median household
income (AMHI). Maximum affordable rents are assumed at 30 percent Zoning & Land Use
of AMHI. The third column indicates the number of households in each Wolf Creek’s zoning is dictated by Weber County’s zoning code. The
income bracket, followed by the number of rental units available within community includes areas zoned FR-3, which allows single-, two-, three-,
the income bracket. Column five is the difference between the number of and fourplexes. Other zones include FV-3 and RE-15, which allows single-
households and the number of units available, indicating the surpluses or family homes. No data are available on the number or type of housing
deficits of housing units for each income range. permits issued in Wolf Creek. Though the community has a large proportion
There is a deficit of five moderate-income units (between 50 to 80 percent of multi-family homes (39 percent), many of these may be used for nightly
AMHI) in Wolf Creek. However, housing prices have increased rapidly since rentals due to the area’s proximity to ski resorts.

74 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Key Trends & Take-Aways
Highest Housing Costs In The County
Wolf Creek has the highest median owner costs and rent of all the
communities in Weber County. Despite having the second-highest median
income, Wolf Creek residents are severely cost-burdened, particularly its
renters. Nearly 70 percent of Wolf Creek renters are cost-burdened (spend
more than 30 percent of their household income on housing). Rents have
also more than doubled in the past decade in Wolf Creek.
Does Not Provide Proportionate Share Of Affordable
Housing
Wolf Creek has a very small deficit of affordable units relative to its
population; however, the community accounts for 0.6 percent of the
county’s population yet it only provides 0.1 percent of the county’s
affordable housing. For Wolf Creek to provide a share of affordable units
proportionate to its population, it would need six times more than its
current supply.
Few Low/Moderate Income Households Live In Wolf
Creek
In 2019, Wolf Creek only had 11 moderate-income households (50 to
80 percent of Weber County’s AMHI) and zero low and very low-income
households (more than 50 percent Weber County AMHI). This is almost
certainly due to the extremely high housing costs.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 75

 CHAPTER 4

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
This chapter includes reports on community feedback gathered throughout survey report, and best practices, and those present provided feedback.
this process. This effort focused on engagement from elected officials Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) Presentations
(city councilors, mayors, county commissioners), appointed officials
(planning commissioners), and city and county staff (planners, economic In April and September 2022, WACOG was updated on the progress of the
development, housing, eningeers, public works and utilities). study and invited to participate in the survey, access the resources via the
webpage, and provide feedback.
FEEDBACK EVENTS & METHODS Two Virtual Stakeholder Discussions
Community feedback was gathered via several methods, including in-person
This study kicked off with virtual stakeholder discussions to gain an
and virtual opportunities. In-person meetings occured at the Weber Area
understanding of housing issues and opportunities from a variety of
Council of Governments (WACOG) and the WACOG Affordable Housing
people living and/or working in Weber County. About 50 people attended.
Panel (WACOG AHP). Virtual opportunities included a survey, website,
Stakeholders identified NIMBYism (not in my backyard), communicating
management committee meetings, and virtual stakeholder discussions.
housing and growth issues, workforce housing, economic development,
46 Responses to Local Government Survey zoning, parking, and the mismatch between supply and demand as
A county-wide survey to planning commissioners, city councilors, important issues.
mayors, city staff, and county staff garnered 46 responses. Fourteen of Management Committee Meetings
Weber County’s 15 cities provided input, as well as representatives of
Starting in May 2021, the project management committee met about twice
unincorporated Weber County, MIDA, and statewide non-profit agencies.
per month. Two Weber County planners and one Weber County Prosperity
749 Visits to the Website Center for Excellence staff member participated in the committee and
The PlanWeberHousing.weebly.com website was created in April 2021 guided the scoping and direction of the study.
for this effort and generated 749 visits. The website hosted background
information, study information, feedback opportunities, and web-based FEEDBACK THEMES
mapping tools. During discussion-based feedback opportunities, certain themes arose. Key
Weber Area Council of Government Affordable Housing Panel Discussions themes that participants focused on included the following:
From April through August 2022, discussions at the WACOG Affordable Approaches to Housing:
Housing Panel centered on this Weber County Housing Affordability and • Many communities in Weber County expressed interest in determining
Access Study. The panel engaged in dialogue surrounding affordability a fair-share approach to housing options.
and access. The panel was presented with the existing conditions analysis, • Communities are willing to work together to alleviate the housing

76 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

 affordability crisis. Some communities are interested in pursuing a
regional housing plan.
Perceptions of Housing:
• There is a lack of affordable housing throughout Weber County,
especially high quality, safe, and secure affordable housing.
• Most of the recent growth in the housing supply has been market-rate
apartment complexes and single-family homes. New apartments are not
always affordable, especially in high cost markets.
• Ogden provides most of the non single-family housing options in the
county.
Concerns Regarding Housing:
• If communities do not address housing affordability and access
adequately, there is a risk that the legislature imposes housing solutions
on communities.
• Environmental factors, especially water, are a pressing concern for
communities as they plan for growth.
• The public continues to not receive the message that residents’ children
and grandchildren are struggling to find places to live in the area.
• Poor planning for the coming growth will worsen traffic conditions and
result in a less cost effective development pattern.
• There is a need for more robust data to support community leaders and
decision-makers.
• Many of Weber County’s smaller cities need extra support due to
smaller staff (or perhaps no planning staff) and fewer funding options.
Takeaways from Planning Efforts:
• Progress has occurred once naysayers or “NIMBYs” were invited to be
involved.
• Communities feel pressure to balance commercial and residential
development, since commercial development generates sales tax
revenue while residential development requires the provision of
services.
• Housing options are best located where there is access to opportunities
such as jobs, education, healthcare, grocery stores, parks, and childcare.
• Owner-occupied housing tends to be more palatable than renter-
occupied housing to some members of the public.
• Lag in data availability makes it difficult to get an accurate
understanding of what is happening today.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 77

SURVEY What words would you use to describe growth in your community?
The management committee created a survey about housing and growth Several themes emerged from the responses to this question: growth is fast;
perceptions, public opinions, the respondent’s opinions, housing barriers, growth is steady or slow; growth is chaotic; growth is manageable; growth
housing opportunities, and housing strategies based on input from the is happening through redevelopment; growth is happening via construction;
initial stakeholder discussions. This survey was launched and participation growth isn’t affordable; and growth is controversial. These themes and the
was generated via a series of four emails to elected and appointed officials responses (key words) that correspond to them are shown below.
and staff for each city as well as Weber County. Additionally, the survey
was announced at WACOG and the WACOG Affordable Housing Panel. The Table 4.2 - Words Respondents Use to Describe Growth
survey results are summarized below and on the next pages.
Major Themes Key Words & Phrases in Responses

Fast, rapid, accelerated, frequent

Table 4.1 - Survey Response Characteristics (2022) Explosive, exponential, unprecendented
Growth is fast.
In what community Number of What is your role within Number of Significant, substantial, intense
do you work? responses the community? responses Moderate to high, active, increasing

Farr West City 1 Mayor 8 Stabilized, limited, slow, on-going, steady

Growth is steady Stagnant, on hold
Harrisville City 1 City Councilor 3 or slow.
Built out
Hooper City 1 Planning Commissioner 16
Growth is chaotic. Feeding frenzy, out of control, unmanaged, uncontrolled
Marriott-Slaterville 1 Non-profit 5
Growth is
North Ogden City 3 Staff 14 Managed, planned, responsible, controlled
manageable.
Ogden City 4 Growth is
Community population Communities happening Redevelopment, reuse, infill
Plain City 2 category who responded through Upward, urban
redevelopment.
Pleasant View City 3 Large 30,000+ 2 of 2 Multi-family, mixed-use
Growth is
Riverdale City 2 Medium 15,000-30,000 2 of 3 happening via Single-family, lots of homes, suburban development
Roy City 10 Small 5,000-15,000 7 of 7 multi-family and Townhomes
single-family High density
South Ogden 3 Very Small Under 5,000 2 of 3 construction.
Rentals
Uintah City 1
Expensive, higher end, old guard
Washington Terrace 2 Growth isn’t Market rate
affordable.
Weber County 7 Lacking for low-income
Statewide 2 Controversial
Growth is
MIDA 1 Positive: hopeful, needed, potential, welcome
controversial.
Negative: crowded, angry, disliked by some

78 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Interestingly, these responses differ from how survey respondents describe What words would you use to describe the housing stock in your
the public perception of growth in their communities in the next question: community?
How would you describe the public perception of growth in your Most survey respondents described the housing stock in their community
community? in one of three ways: that the housing stock is extremely limited, mostly
The way that survey respondents talked about the public’s perception less-affordable single-family homes, or diversifying. These different types of
of growth can be grouped into four major themes: growth is too fast housing stocks present different challenges to communities.
and unwelcome for many; growth is welcome; single-family growth is
fine, but there is too much multi-family growth; and growth may impact
Table 4.4 - Words Respondents Use to Describe the Housing Stock
the traditional community feel. However, major themes arising in both
Major Themes Key Words & Phrases in Responses
the respondents’ personal opinions and their thoughts on the public’s
perception were the rate of growth, specifically that growth is quite rapid. Dismal, slim, limited, almost nonexisting, depressed,
Housing stock is below-average, not enough, low
Table 4.3 - Public Perception of Growth, according to Respondents extremely limited. Low supply of lower income, sub-par for lower income,
miss-matched with income levels
Major Themes Key Words & Phrases in Responses
Housing stock Newer homes, farm homes, single-family, homeowners,
Unwanted, not in favor, against, oppose, negative is mostly less- spread out, subdivisions
affordable single-
Growth is too fast and Too fast, more than preferred, excessive, lots family homes in Expensive, higher end single-family, over priced, high
unwelcome for many. Intimidating, scary, fearful, frustrated, overwhelmed many cities. quality, new
NIMBYs in wealthier single-family areas Higher density near major transportation corridors &
Desire for more Housing stock centers
is diversifying in Range, mix, varied, diversifying, every type
Necessary for community wellbeing, accepted some cities. Aging, older, smaller, low to moderate income, historic
Growth is welcome. Welcome if they’re not impacted, some welcome it
Improving, transitional, steadily building
Good with existing growth rate
Welcome if people aren’t priced out
How would you describe the public perception of housing in your
Single-family growth is Dislike non single-family housing, too much high community?
fine. There is too much density
multi-family growth. SFH accepted but pushback on MF in some areas The way that survey respondents described the public’s perception of
housing in their communities falls into five major themes. These themes
are: housing stock should be single-family and low density, housing stock is
Traffic, public safety
Growth may impact changing too quickly, new housing stock is needed “but” there are concerns
Quality of life, community character, ruralness
the traditional or conditions, the public perception of housing differs, and housing stock
community feel. Impact on natural resources is unaffordable and unattainable. A few respondents commented on the
Devaluing properties public’s perception of the quality of the housing stock; these respondents
mentioned that the public sees their housing stock as either good, diverse,
high-end, old, or deterioated.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 79

Table 4.5 - Public Perception of Housing, according to Respondents availability, affordability, and diversity. These were: availability is limited,
diversity in housing is great or growing, affordability is decreasing or already
absent, and in some communities, some housing options are affordable.
Major Themes Key Words & Phrases in Responses
The survey also asked respondents to think about local strategies, local
No multi-family allowed, too much higher density, loud anti- policies, and state policies regarding housing. Respondents mentioned
multi-family voices, dislike high density, associate high density thirteen local strategies and six local policies. Respondents had both
Housing stock
should be single- with crime favorable and critical responses toward the impact of state policies on
Spread housing out, low density, prefer single-family, prefer
family and low larger lots, opposition under .5 acre single-family, prefer housing access and affordability.
density. detached single-family
Stay the same, slow demand for more Table 4.6 - Respondents Describe Housing Availability, Affordability,
& Diversity
Stock is changing Fearful of growth and change,
too quickly. Changed from rural to high density, affecting rural character
Major Themes Key Words & Phrases in Responses

Need for options for upcoming generations but leery of Very low-income housing supply is very limited, thousands of
high volumes of high density, concerns about housing but units short for section 8, low, & low-moderate income units
New stock is competing ideas about solutions
Housing is only available if you can afford it
needed, “but.” Concerns about impacts of high density growth, traffic Availability is
limited. Generally inadequate, not a lot available, poor, limited
New stock great if it’s away from me, high density needed but everywhere
not in the neighborhood
Listed properties become occupied quickly, regional demand
contributes to limited availability, high demand
Public perception Mixed, varies
differs. Mix of single-family and multi-family, renting and owning,
Older & younger generation differ multi-family housing from twin homes to apartments, single-
There is great or family housing from mobile home parks & townhomes to
Housing stock is Short supply, not available, lot of demand, not enough growing diversity detached single-family
unaffordable and in housing. Increasing with new townhomes & multi-family options,
unattainable. Overpriced, expensive, unaffordable
recently increasing
Variety of ages, sizes, & prices, entire spectrum of housing
How would you describe housing availability, affordability, and diversity Nothing is affordable, non-existent, too expensive
in your community? Affordability is No affordability in single-family homes
decreasing or
Survey respondents offered a broad spectrum of answers to this question. already absent. Multi-family rents not affordable
Most respondents identified availability, affordability, diversity, or some Short-term market pressures limit affordability
combination of those three factors as a significant problem in their
community. However, there were many different combinations present in In some
communities, Good supply of older units/residences that are affordable
respondents’ answers; for example, available but not affordable, diverse but some housing
not available or affordable, affordable but not available, etc. options are More affordable than other communities
affordable.
Despite a broader range of responses to this question, some themes did
emerge, as several respondents identified the same patterns of housing

80 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

What strategies have you explored, or are willing to explore, to increase or
preserve affordable housing in your community?
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance
• Deed restrictions
• Upzoning
• Establishing Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA)
• Mixed-use development
• Inclusionary zoning
• Trailer ordinance (allows trailers on property for eight months so people
can look for permanent housing options)
• Missing middle housing
• Reduce demand on utilities through sustainable building design
• Increase travel mode options
• Subsidize developer costs
• Public education
• Housing programs, rehab, first time home buyer assistance, etc.
Are there state policies that have had a positive impact on housing access
and affordability?
Favorable responses toward state policies:
• Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit (IADU) ordinance requirement
• Moderate Income Housing Plan (MIHP) requirement
Critical responses toward state policies:
• State needs to take stronger action
• State focuses too much on zoning changes rather than reducing
developer costs
• State is overstepping and forcing city councils into decisions
• State policies need to assist with enforcing quality standards
Are there local policies that have had/will have a positive impact on
housing access and affordability?
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance
• Zoning changes
• General Plans
• Impact fees
• Lot size constraints
• Updating sub-division policy

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 81

What are the biggest barriers to increasing or preserving accessible, to the city and more able to be influenced by local decisions, to external -
affordable housing in your community? meaning regional, state, or national reasons and less able to be influenced
Respondents identified many barriers to housing accessibility and by local decisions. Figure 4.2 on the next page shows the number of
affordability. Responses can be grouped into four major themes: city culture responses for each of the 14 sub-themes. The most common barriers were:
and political climate, city socioeconomic conditions and resources, factors market rates and inflation (13 responses), public desire (12 responses),
related to the broader economy, and other external factors. Respondents political will (seven responses), lacking housing stock (six responses), built
most often commented on city culture/political climate (24 responses) and out (six responses), and supply & demand (six responses).
the broader economy (24 responses) as barriers. Another theme that came Because the amount of control a city has over these barriers differs, it is
up often was city socioeconomic conditions and resources (18 responses useful to analyze which types of cities and respondents face which barriers.
mentioned this). Five respondents mentioned other external factors. Do large cities face different challenges than very small ciites? Do elected
These four major themes are divided into 14 sub-themes (Figure 4.1). The officials and staff come up against different challenges in their respective
themes are ogranized across a spectrum: internal - meaning reasons specific roles?

Figure 4.1 - Identified Barriers to Accessible, Affordable Housing, Grouped by Theme

82 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Figure 4.2 - Identified Barriers to Accessible, Affordable Housing by Number of Responses

To answer these and similar questions, barriers are analyzed by both city
population and type of respondent. Understanding how city size and
respondent role play into housing perceptions can help guide dialogue
across Weber County communities and across types of people involved in
housing planning and decision-making.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 83

Below and in the following pages, barriers identified in the survey are
broken down by the population size of the city represented by the
respondent. Population groupings include:
• Large: over 30,000 people in the respondent’s city
• Medium: 15,000 to 30,000 people in the respondent’s city
• Small: 5,000 to 15,000 people in the respondent’s city
• Very small: under 5,000 people in the respondent’s city
• Multijurisdictional: any size not belonging to a particular city
Using color coding, each graphic shows the barriers identified by cities of a
particular size.

84 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

By analyzing barriers by city size, we see that there are patterns:
• Respondents representing multijurisdictional and large cities tended
to identify more internal barriers. Small and very small cities tended to
identify more external barriers.
• Large and very small cities did not identify any of the same barriers.
• All but very small cities identified both public desire and market rates
and inflation as barriers.
• Very small, small, and medium citeis all identified material costs as a
barrier.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 85

Barriers identified in the survey are also broken down by the respondent’s
role within the community. Roles are grouped into the following:
• Non-profit
• Planners and other staff
• Planning commissioners
• City manager or administrator
• City councilors
• Mayors
Using color coding, each graphic shows the barriers identified by
respondent roles.

86 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Analyzing barriers by respondent’s role also reveals patterns:
• Non-profits, planners and other staff, and planning commissioners
identified more internal barriers.
• Mayors and city managers or administrators tended to identify more
external barriers.
• All but city councilors and mayors identified market rates and inflation
as a barrier.
• Planners and other staff, planning commissioners, and city councilors all
identified public desire as a barrier.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 87

 CHAPTER 5

BEST PRACTICES
This chapter includes a discussion of nine practices that could improve
housing affordability in Weber County. Each description includes local and
national examples, pros and cons, and additional resources for reference.
Table 5.1 summarizes key points for each best practice.
Each practice can be adapted to the size of the community. For example,
zoning reform in larger cities with existing multi-family zones may look like
increasing apartment building height limits from four stories to six stories
in certain areas. On the other hand, in a small community with only single-
family zones, zoning reform could look like allowing townhomes, smaller
lot single-family, or duplexes in and around the community’s main street or
other commercial areas.

Source: Bing Creative Commons

88 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Table 5.1 - Affordable Housing Best Practices
Best Practice Examples Pros Cons
Community Land Trusts
• Dudley Neighbors Incorporated • Creates mixed-income communities in
A non-profit leases land to income-qualifying • Can reduce overall production of housing
high-opportunity areas
households who can purchase homes at a lower • Utah Community Land Trust by raising costs for developers
price. • Enables generation of equity

• Addresses the root of the problem in

Housing Trust Funds • Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund • Can be controversial
markets with housing shortages
Government/non-profit funds used to finance • Somerville Affordable Housing Trust • May not provide housing options for the
affordable housing. • Often requires minimal funding to
Fund lowest-income households
implement
• Salt Lake City/County Housing • Caps on resale prices mean homeowners
Preservation Authority • Provides households to earn equity at a may earn less equity
The use of deed restrictions and subsidies to keep lower price
• NeighborWorks Salt Lake • Hot real estate markets make expanding
existing affordable units available. • Maintains long-term affordability
• Vail InDEED Program these programs expensive

Redevelopment Agencies • Allows employees to live closer to work

Governmental agencies who leverage increased • Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency • Does not address regional housing short-
tax revenue to finance affordable housing • Helps retain service and government work- ages unless done on a large scale
• Ogden Redevelopment Agency
projects. ers in high-cost areas

Regional Housing Coordination • Massachusetts Chapter 40B

Inclusionary Zoning • Reduced transportation costs in TODs • TODs often do not include affordable units
State/regional governments develop policies
to encourage/require affordable housing • Portland Metro Rule • Higher densities allow for more homes to • Form-based codes and TODs may raise the
development across a region. be built risk of gentrification
• Oregon HB 2001

Regulatory Incentives • Santa Fe, NM Fee waivers and density • Can be 40 percent cheaper than building • Preservation does not expand the total
Encourage affordable housing through density bonuses new independent affordable housing housing stock
bonuses, reduced development requirements, or • South Salt Lake reduced parking • More politically palatable than building • May prevent the development of
streamlined approval processes. requirements new affordable housing independently properties with more total units

TOD/Form-Based Codes • Can leverage external funding to multiply

• Millcreek Form-Based Code • Requires ongoing funding commitments
Regulates building form instead of land use, their impact
promoting affordability through higher densities • South Salt Lake Streetcar Transit- • Their activities may not be sufficiently
• Can spur additional construction during
in areas with high accessibility. Oriented Development coordinated with local planning efforts
depressed market cycles
• Canyons Village Employee Housing • Does not rely on state or federal funding • TIF can be abused, as when property
Workforce Housing (Park City, Utah) • Allows for targeting investments in values would have risen without public
Low-cost housing provided by employers. • Park City Municipal Corporation high-opportunity or developing investments
Housing Assistance neighborhoods • Property values may not rise as expected
• Portland, Oregon 2021 Zoning • May be less effective because they are not
Zoning Reform Reforms • Relatively cheap to implement mandatory policies
Amendments to zoning ordinances to allow for • More politically acceptable than other
higher concentrations of housing development. • California 2016/2017 ADU Reforms • Poorly-designed incentives may add cost
related policies
• Salt Lake City Adaptive Reuse and complexity to development projects

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 89

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS once a CLT purchases it (Crabtree et al., 2012).
• CLTs provide low-income households the opportunity to build equity
In a community land trust (CLT), a nonprofit offers ground leases to income- when they otherwise would not have had the opportunity to do so.
eligible people who purchase homes. A ground lease entails a CLT leasing • CLTs maintain affordability over successive resales, thus providing an
land to homeowners, who own their homes, but not the underlying ongoing opportunity for affordable homeownership.
land; the CLT remains the owner of the land. When homeowners sell Drawbacks of community land trusts:
their homes, a portion of the sale goes back to the trust. Resale prices • Homeowners do not gain as much equity from their home upon sales
are capped using a formula codified in the ground lease to maintain as compared to a traditional mortgage, given the requirement to return
affordability for future homeowners. Units may be kept affordable using some of the resale value to the CLT.
deed restrictions rather than ground leases (Crabtree et al., 2012). Deed • CLTs also must raise funds to purchase additional land if they wish to
restrictions are legal requirements codified in a home’s deed that stipulate expand. This challenge is particularly difficult in hot real estate markets
certain conditions, such as resale price caps. Whether using ground leases and may limit the scale at which CLTs can operate.
or deed restrictions to maintain affordability, this system makes home
ownership more affordable (because mortgage amounts are smaller) by Additional Resources
separating ownership of land from ownership of homes. Coordination Community Wealth. (2020, October 26). Community Land Trusts (CLTs).
between local governments and community land trusts is important for Community-Wealth.Org. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://community-
ensuring success (Crabtree et al., 2012). Key examples of community land wealth.org/strategies/panel/clts/index.html
trusts include: Grounded Solutions Network. (n.d.). Community Land Trusts. Retrieved
Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI) is a CLT in Boston, MA that has March 4, 2022, from https://groundedsolutions.org/strengthening-
successfully used eminent domain authority granted by the city of Boston to neighborhoods/community-land-trusts
obtain vacant properties in a disinvested neighborhood for redevelopment.
DNI, which is a subsidiary of the grassroots Dudley Street Neighborhood References
Initiative, has developed 225 permanently affordable units as of 2012 Crabtree, L., Phibbs, P., Milligan, V., & Blunden, H. (2012). Principles and
(Crabtree et al., 2012). practices of an affordable housing community land trust model. https://
The Utah Community Land Trust provides below-market-rate researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:13747/
homeownership opportunities. The resale formula allows homeowners to datastream/PDF/view
“realize 1.5 percent per year up to 25 percent of the appreciated value of Dudley Neighbors Incorporated. (n.d.). Dudley Neighbors Incorporated.
the home,” when they sell their home. Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://www.dudleyneighbors.org/
The Mountainlands Community Housing Trust is a nonprofit organization Meehan, J. (2014). Reinventing real estate: The community land trust as a
founded in 1993 serving Summit and Wasatch counties. This organization social invention in affordable housing. Journal of Applied Social Science, 8(2),
has helped bring over 900 affordable housing units into the area, through 113-133.
both acquiring existing and building new units affordable to households Theodos, B., Stacy, C. P., Braga, B., & Daniels, R. (2019). Affordable
under 80 percent AMHI, as well as preserving these units as affordable homeownership: An evaluation of the near-term effects of shared equity
through resale appreciation caps. programs. Housing Policy Debate, 29(6), 865-879.
Advantages of community land trusts: Utah Community Land Trust. (n.d.). Utah Community Land Trust. Retrieved
• CLTs reduce the purchase price of homes by eliminating the land March 1, 2022, from https://www.utahclt.org/
component of the price.
• CLTs negate the effect of increasing land costs on housing affordability

90 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

HOUSING TRUST FUNDS • Activities of state-level funds may not be sufficiently coordinated
with local housing planning (Larsen, 2009). Such coordination is
These funds are operated by governments or non-profit organizations to critical for maximizing funds’ impact and ensuring they support other
spur the preservation or construction of affordable housing. They may be planning goals, such as those relating to transportation and economic
administered as grants, low-interest loans, or forgivable loans. Housing development.
trust funds require an initial investment, often from a government agency, • Other challenges include potential difficulties in meeting federal or
and a governing document that stipulates the fund’s scope and system other matching funding requirements.
of administration. Revolving loans can maintain ongoing funding, though Additional Resources
external funding sources can provide greater impact. Key examples of
housing trust funds include: Local Housing Solutions. (2022b, February 8). Housing trust funds. https://
localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-library/housing-trUst-funds/
The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund provides loans to affordable
housing projects in Utah. The fund provides funding for the preservation, References
construction, and acquisition of affordable multi-family rental housing units. City of Somerville. (n.d.). Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Retrieved March
It also supports homeowners who need support rehabilitating their homes. 1, 2022, from https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/affordable-
The fund leverages $14.78 in external funding per dollar it spends and has housing-trUst-fund
supported 22,690 housing units over its lifetime. The fund receives state,
federal (HUD HOME), and bond funding. Larsen, K. (2009). Reassessing state housing trust funds: Results of a Florida
survey. Housing Studies, 24(2), 173-201.
The Somerville Affordable Housing Trust Fund (SAHTF) is a municipal fund
established in 1999 in Somerville, MA. It uses fees levied on commercial Utah Department of Workforce Services. (2022). Olene Walker Housing Loan
development and in-lieu fees stemming from the town’s inclusionary zoning Fund. https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/affordable/owhlf/index.html
ordinance. Funded projects must benefit households earning up to 110 Scally, C. P. (2012). The past and future of housing policy innovation: The
percent of the area’s median income. The fund supports the creation and case of U.S. state housing trust funds. Housing Studies, 27(1), 127-150.
preservation of affordable housing units, direct assistance to renters (loans
for security deposits and rent subsidies), down payment assistance, and
seed money for new organizations or programs that support affordable PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE
housing.
HOUSING
Advantages of housing trust funds:
• Trust and loan funds can leverage external and private funding to Housing preservation strategies primarily target naturally affordable housing
increase their impact. units and units subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
• They can ensure funded projects meet predetermined affordability and Development (HUD). Subsidized units are often an important supply of low
size requirements. and very low-income housing units. However, the affordability of these units
• They can spur additional housing construction during depressed real is at risk once their subsidies or deed restrictions expire. Affordable housing
estate markets, and they often engender less political opposition than preservation techniques focus on rehabilitating old affordable housing
some other affordable housing policies and programs (Scally, 2012). units and renewing subsidies for existing subsidized units. Nonprofits are
• Funds can operate at local, regional, state, or national levels. also often involved in affordable housing preservation (HUD, n.d.) (Wood
et al., 2020). The following are two local examples of successful housing
Drawbacks of housing trust funds:
preservation:
• Trust funds require ongoing funding commitments, though loan
programs can be self-sustaining. Salt Lake City/County Housing Authority secured $21 million to rehabilitate

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 91

299 affordable units in the city plaza and Country High Rise apartment renewed, subsidized units will eventually expire again.
buildings located at approximately 1970 South 200 East, Salt Lake City. • Preserving existing structures may prevent redevelopment that includes
The properties were developed as public housing projects in the 1970s, additional affordable units.
providing 299 units collectively for very low and extremely low-income
households. Over time, the properties became significant cost burdens for Additional Resources
the housing authorities. Utilizing HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Multi-family Housing Preservation Overview, HUD Exchange, retreived
program, the housing authorities were able to obtain funding to preserve April 14, 2022 from https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/multi-family-
these properties. housing-preservation/
NeighborWorks Salt Lake uses various funding sources, including TIF, HUD Restore Utah, https://www.restore-utah.com/
HOME, and CDBG programs, to preserve and rehab homes. The organization
was established in 1974 as a response to neighborhood blight due to
References
redlining. They have focused their efforts on Salt Lake City’s westside and U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). (n.d.). Multi-
target neighborhoods in Murray. In 2021, the organization invested over family Housing Preservation Overview. Retrieved from HUD Exchange:
half a million dollars in real estate development, facilitated 69 mortgages https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/multi-family-housing-
for first-time home buyers, and supported other various affordable housing preservation/
initiatives. Wood, J., Dejan, E., Benway, D., & Macdonald-Poelman, K. (2020). Housing
The Vail InDEED Program uses the town’s general fund to purchase deed Affordability: What are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? Salt
restrictions on residential units in Vail. The deed restriction requires that Lake City: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The University of Utah.
an occupant of the property must work at least 30 hours per week in Eagle
County, Colorado. Essentially, this separates Vail’s housing market into two:
the local market and the vacation home market. By taking the units out
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND
of the aritifically high vacation home market, owner and renter costs are
tied to local wages and thus the units become more affordable. Property
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
owners benefit by getting paid by the city, and there is no resale cap on the Redevelopment agencies (RDAs) seek to spur economic development,
properties. housing construction, and infrastructure improvements, especially in areas
Advantages of preserving affordable housing: seeing property-value declines or disinvestment. RDAs often receive tax-
• It is often the most cost-effective way to provide affordable housing increment financing (TIF) revenue. TIF stems from an increase in tax revenue
(usually costs 40 percent less than new construction). above that which is assessed on an initial property valuation in a predefined
• It maintains assets from previous investments, which is often more area. As the local government or RDA makes improvements, property
politically palatable than the construction of new units. values rise, and the increased tax revenue constitutes TIF (Weber, 2014). TIF
• There are many existing funding sources available, including the Low- funding can go toward affordable housing preservation and construction,
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Project-Based Rental Assistance including in the form of bonds. Agencies may set a minimum percentage
Program (PBRA), HUD HOME, Community Development Block Grant, of TIF revenue that must support affordable housing when establishing TIF
Restore Utah, etc. (Wood et al., 2020). districts to ensure a steady funding stream for that purpose (Local Housing
• Preserving units can prevent the displacement of existing low-income Solutions, 2022c). Local examples where redevelopment agencies used tax
households in expiring subsidized housing. increment financing to support affordable housing include:
Drawbacks of preserving affordable housing: Salt Lake City’s RDA engages in a number of economic development
• The preservation of subsidized units is not self-sustaining. Once activities throughout the city, including affordable housing projects. The

92 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

members of the city council serve as its Board of Directors, while the com/733/Redevelopment-Agency
mayor acts as its executive director. The RDA has several project areas Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. (n.d.). About the RDA – SLCRDA.
where it focuses its work, though it undertakes affordable housing projects Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://slcrda.com/about-the-rda/
throughout the city. The agency has contributed over $70 million towards
affordable housing since 2010. This funding takes the form of construction Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. (n.d.). Affordable Housing. Retrieved
and acquisition loans, purchasing and assembling property for affordable March 1, 2022, from https://slcrda.com/about-the-rda/
housing projects, and reselling land at a discount for affordable housing. Weber, R. (2014). Tax increment financing in theory and practice. In
The Ogden City RDA engages in similar activities as Salt Lake City’s RDA and Financing economic development in the 21st century (pp. 297-315).
uses TIF as a revenue source. For example, it has supported the Golden Routledge.
Links housing project that provides housing for disabled and elderly clients.
The Ogden RDA is also supporting the East Washington project area, which
includes market-rate residential development.
REGIONAL HOUSING COORDINATION
Advantages of RDAs and TIFs: Housing markets are not siloed within municipal boundaries. Affordable
• RDAs allow for targeted investments, including the purchase and housing is a regional issue that can only be addressed by system-wide
rehabilitation of affordable properties. solutions implemented by all communities within the region. In the case
• TIF allows municipalities to take advantage of increased property values of Weber County, only a few municipalities provide the vast majority of
and target funds toward affordable housing. the county’s affordable units. Regional housing coordination policies are
• TIF negates the need to rely on state or federal funding sources. implemented by state and county governments to incentivize the provision
of affordable housing. The specifics of these policies can vary significantly,
Drawbacks of RDAs and TIFs: but they can include affordable housing provision requirements, zoning
• TIFs can be abused, as when property values would have risen without code overrides, court-mandated appeals of exclusionary zoning, and more.
public investments; in that scenario, the increment used as TIF could There have been several successful regional affordable housing coordination
have been used for other purposes (Weber, 2014). efforts across the country. Some of these include:
• Establishing a TIF can be risky: if property values do not rise after public
investments are made, the projected revenue will not materialize and Massachusetts Chapter 40B allows developers to override zoning
could place local governments in financial peril. restrictions in municipalities with less than 10 percent of their housing stock
affordable. Before the law, much of Massachusetts’s affordable housing
Additional Resources was concentrated in 15 older/poorer cities (Bratt and Vladeck, 2014) (Karki,
National Housing Conference. (2017, September 5). How TIFs Can Be Used 2015).
for Affordable Housing. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://nhc.org/ New Jersey’s Fair Housing Act (1985) is based on the Mount Laurel
policy-guide/tax-increment-financing-the-basics/how-tifs-can-be-Used-for- Doctrine, which declares that land-use regulations that prevent affordable
affordable-housing/ housing development are unconstitutional. The act requires municipalities
to provide a range of housing options. Developers can sue municipalities to
References override exclusionary zoning (Bratt and Vladeck, 2014).
Local Housing Solutions. (2022c, February 8). Tax increment financing. The Portland Metro Rule set minimums for the amount of land zoned
https://localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-library/tax-increment- for attached single-family and multi-family housing and other density
financing/ minimums within the Portland urban growth boundary. Oregon HB 2001
Ogden Redevelopment Agency. (n.d.). Redevelopment Agency | Ogden, banned exclusive single-family zoning in all Oregon cities with over 10,000
UT. Ogden, Utah. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://www.ogdencity. people (Andersen and Routh, 2021).

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 93

Advantages of regional housing coordination: affordable units. Regulatory incentives can make the construction of
• Affordable housing is a regional issue. Thus, regional approaches affordable housing more viable with minimal negative impact on the
are likely to be more effective than local ones, as they can ensure community. Popular incentives include density bonuses, decreased
coordinated policies that support affordable housing. restrictions (reduced setbacks, lower parking requirements, less stringent
Drawbacks of regional housing coordination: aesthetic requirements, etc.), streamlined approval processes, and fee
• Regional efforts are difficult to implement as they need to be state- waivers. Key examples of various regulatory incentives include:
implemented or approved, and such legislation is likely to be politically Montgomery County, Maryland has an inclusionary zoning ordinance
fraught. requiring all developers to have 12.5 percent of their units to be
• Some programs have experienced compliance issues, with disputes “moderately priced dwelling units.” Additionally, the county grants a density
often having to be settled in court. (Bratt and Vladeck, 2014). bonus if more than 12.5 percent of a development’s units are moderately
• Some regional efforts tend to overemphasize zoning for housing and not priced (The Office of Councilmember Nancy Floreen, 2018).
permitting or constructing it (Ramsey-MUsolf, 2016). Sante Fe, New Mexico waives development fees (including fees for
Additional Resources development review, construction permitting, and impact fees) and provides
density bonuses for developments that have 25 percent of their units
Addressing Restrictive Zoning for Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four affordable. The city also has an inclusionary zoning policy in place requiring
States, Bratt, Rachel G. & Vladeck, Abigail (2014), Housing Policy Debate, 20 percent of units built to be affordable (Kiani, 2020) (The City of Sante Fe,
https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10511 2016).
482.2014.886279
South Salt Lake allows for up to a 25 percent decrease in parking
References requirements in its Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District based
Andersen, M., & Routh, S. (2021). From Tiny Homes to Fourplexes and on viability for shared parking or increased transit ridership. Additionally,
Beyond: Major Portland Zoning Reforms Take Effect. Sightline Institute. the city has conducted a regulatory barrier analysis to help identify where
regulations hinder affordable housing development (Kiani, 2020).
Bratt, Rachel G. & Vladeck, Abigail (2014) Addressing Restrictive Zoning for
Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four States, Housing Policy Debate, 24:3, Advantages of regulatory incentives:
594-636, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2014.886279 • Regulatory incentives tend to be relatively easy for governments to
implement, as they require little public resources and are usually more
Karki, Tej Kumar (2015) Mandatory Versus Incentive-Based State
politically palatable than other, more aggressive affordable housing
Zoning Reform Policies for Affordable Housing in the United States:A
practices.
Comparative Assessment, Housing Policy Debate, 25:2, 234-262, DOI:
10.1080/10511482.2014.917691 Drawbacks of regulatory incentives:
• Incentives may be less effective than other affordable housing best
Ramsey-Musolf, Darrel (2016) Evaluating California’s Housing Element
practices, as they are just incentives and not requirements.
Law, Housing Equity, and Housing Production (1990–2007), Housing Policy
• Incentives can also over-complicate zoning ordinances and the
Debate, 26:3, 488-516, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2015.1128960
development process for developers, potentially leading to higher costs.

REGULATORY INCENTIVES Additional Resources

Affordable Housing Incentives, Inclusionary Housing, Grounded Solutions
Zoning regulations are in place to prevent individual developments from
Network, Retrieved April 13, 2022 from https://inclusionaryhousing.org/
adversely affecting the community as a whole. However, many regulations
designing-a-policy/land-dedication-incentives/
increase the cost of development and can hinder the production of

94 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Salt Lake City’s Proposed Summary for Affordable Housing Incentives, achievable through Euclidean zoning (Wood et al., 2020).
retrieved on April 14, 2022 from http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/ South Salt Lake Streetcar Transit-Oriented Development utilized form-
Projects/Affordable percent20Housing percent20Overlay/affordable_ based code to create over 800 units between 2012 and 2017 (many of
housing_summary_12_28_21.pdf which are affordable) along South Salt Lake’s S-Line streetcar route (Wood
Affordable Housing Strategies: State-of-the-Practice in Ten Utah Cities, Kiani, et al., 2020). South Salt Lake was a recipient of funding through the
F., A. Dillon., Choi, D., J. Kim, and F. Siddiq. 2020, retrieved on April 14, 2022 Transportation and Land Use Connection (TLC) program through Wasatch
from https://www.utahhousing.org/uploads/2/6/4/4/26444747/affordable_ Front Regional Council, which helped fund a housing and market study that
housing_guide_20200720.ss.pdf was used as the basis for their form-based code. New development has also
included mixed-use and adaptive reuse projects, bringing new businesses
References and economic development to the area.
Kiani, F., A. Dillon, Choi, D., J. Kim, and F. Siddiq. 2020. “Affordable Housing Advantages of TODs and FBCs:
Strategies: State-of-the Practice in Ten Utah Cities” edited by R. Ewing and • One of the most significant advantages of form-based codes is that it
I. García. Salt Lake City, UT: Metropolitan Research Center at the University allows for various densities – often higher overall than traditional zoning
of Utah. (Wood et al., 2020).
The City of Sante Fe. (2016). City of Sante Fe Affordable Housing Plan. • They allow for market forces to drive land use.
The Office of Councilmember Nancy Floreen. (2018, October 9). Council • They allow for a mix of uses, promoting walkable communities.
approves Councilmember Nancy Floreen’s zoning measure to help increase • Residents often experience reduced transportation costs due to high
affordable housing. Retrieved from Montgomery County Council: https:// pedestrian and transit accessibility. In fact, transportation savings often
www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ offset any increases in housing costs experienced in TODs (Makarewicz
ID=22494 et al., 2020).
• These developments often result in infill/revitalization of existing
neighborhoods.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT & • Several already-established funding sources are available for transit-
oriented development (Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones
FORM-BASED CODE (HTRZ), Utah Equitable TOD Loan, federal grants, Federal Transit
Administration).
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) encourages higher density, pedestrian-
friendly, and mixed-use development near transit. This is often achieved Drawbacks of TODs and FBCs:
through form-based codes (FBC), which focus on building form and urban • Conversely, TODs do not always include affordable units, especially as
design instead of the density and land-use regulations found in traditional increased land values make providing affordable units more difficult.
zoning ordinances. These development patterns aid in housing affordability However, increased land values can be offset through reduced parking
by allowing for densities that would not otherwise be permissible requirements, higher densities, and lower impact fees. Still, additional
through conventional zoning. They also often lower transportation costs strategies may be necessary to secure affordable housing in TODs.
for residents, as transit-oriented development aims to decrease auto (Ewing et al., 2020).
dependency by creating dense centers where residents can live, work, and • FBCs and TODs may put the surrounding neighborhood at risk of
be connected to regional transit systems. Two local examples include: gentrification and rising rents as the area becomes more desirable.
(Dawkins and Moeckel, 2016).
The Millcreek Form-Based Code allowed for a 326-unit mixed-use building
(equating to 100 units per acre) to be constructed near 3000 South Additional Resources
Richmond Street. A project at this density would not otherwise be politically
Form-Based Codes Institute, https://formbasedcodes.org/

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 95

Transit-Oriented Development Institute, http://www.tod.org/ Applied Materials, a Silicon Valley technology company, has contributed
over $2 million to Housing Trust Silicon Valley, a non-profit that provides
References affordable housing. See the Housing Trust Funds section for more
Casey Dawkins & Rolf Moeckel (2016) Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who information on that strategy.
Will Stay, and Who Will Go?, Housing Policy Debate, 26:4-5, 801-818, DOI: Advantages of workforce/employer-assisted housing:
10.1080/10511482.2016.1138986 • Employees can live much closer to their workplaces than they otherwise
Ewing, R., Iroz-Elardo, N. I.-E., & Adkins, A. (2021). Is Transit-Oriented would, reducing their transportation costs and total household
Development Affordable for Low and Moderate Income Households? expenses.
Retrieved from https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/1328/Is_Transit- • Employers can attract and retain essential government or service
Oriented_Development_Affordable_for_Low_and_Moderate_Income_ workers in high-cost areas.
Households_(in_terms_of_H+T)? Drawbacks of workforce/employer-assisted housing:
Makarewicz, C., Dantzler, P., & Adkins, A. (2020). Another look at location • While workforce and employer-assisted housing programs can meet
affordability: Understanding the detailed effects of income and urban form on local needs, they do not address regional housing shortages that
housing and Transportation Expenditures. Housing Policy Debate, 30(6), 1033– necessitate them in the first place unless they are pursued on a very
1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1792528 large scale.
Wood, J., Dejan, E., Benway, D., & Macdonald-Poelman, K. (2020). Housing • Another issue may arise if workforce housing may not suit employees’
Affordability: What are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? Salt needs. For example, employer-provided housing tends to accommodate
Lake City: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The University of Utah. single people rather than employees with families.
Additional Resources
WORKFORCE/EMPLOYER-ASSISTED Local Housing Solutions. (2022a, February 8). Employer-assisted housing
programs. https://localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-library/
HOUSING employer-assisted-housing-programs/
Workforce housing usually refers to housing provided at low or no cost References
to employees by employers, often in resort settings. Employer-assisted
Canyons Village Employee Housing. (2022, February 10). Canyons Resort
housing refers to a range of programs that some employers offer, including
Village Management Association. https://cvma.com/employee-housing/
education on homeownership, down payment assistance, or funding to
support affordable housing construction for employees. Key examples of Lata, J. (2017, November 8). Coming Home. Applied Materials Blog.
workforce and employer-assisted housing includes: Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/
blog.html
The Canyons Village Employee Housing Project is an eight-acre public-
private partnership that will provide affordable housing to over 1,100 Park City Housing and Assessment and Plan (2017). Park City Municipal
employees at the Park City Mountain Resort in Park City, Utah. The project Corporation. https://www.parkcity.org/home/showdocument?id=55949
will include co-housing and two to four bedroom unit options. The project is
set to be completed by December 2023. ZONING REFORM
As of 2017, Park City Municipal Corporation offers housing assistance to Several types of zoning reforms can support affordable housing. The
Park City School District employees in the form of down payment assistance, ultimate culprit of rising housing costs is a result of supply and demand
low-cost rental properties, and a housing allowance for employees living in – where supply does not keep pace with housing demand. Many Weber
the school district boundaries. County municipalities are primarily zoned low-density single-family, limiting

96 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

the supply of new housing units and limiting new units to larger homes that transit-oriented development, etc.).
many lower-income households cannot afford. The following zoning reforms • Since there are many different approaches to zoning reform, there
can help increase the housing supply: is likely a strategy that matches the political will of each community
Upzoning: changing zoning regulations to allow for increased densities. (ADUs, missing middle housing, high-density apartments), as well as
These increases can be substantial (allowing multi-story apartment the size and type of a community (urban core, urban periphery, suburb,
buildings) or can be more subtle (allowing small-lot single-family homes, small suburb, rural town, etc.).
townhomes, duplexes, or small apartment buildings). Allowing residential • By influencing what the market can supply, zoning reform can be
or mixed-use development in previously commercial or industrial areas is effective while requiring minimal public resources or funds.
another way to zone for an increased housing supply. • Zoning reform is entirely within the control of local government.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): additional housing units within the Drawbacks of zoning reform:
same lot of existing structures (often single-family detached). These units • Upzoned units are not guaranteed to be affordable (in fact, they likely
can be within an existing structure (basement/mother-in-law apartment), won’t be at first until supply matches demand).
attached to the structure (an addition to the home), or detached (a garage • Significant zoning reform often receives strong political pushback due to
or guest house addition). Even once permitted, several hurdles prevent resident concerns, preventing substantial increases in housing supply.
ADUs from being built, including difficulty financing, other restrictive • Upzoning may be less effective for already built-out communities, unless
zoning and building code requirements, large fees, etc. Creating ordinances there are significant infill opportunities. In this case, other approaches
and resources that help reduce these obstacles may help boost ADU such as ADUs and adaptive reuse may be effective.
development. (Schuetz et al., 2011). Additional Resources
Adaptive Reuse: converts abandoned or underutilized non-residential Housing Affordability: What are Best Practices and Why are They Important,
buildings into residential housing units. Old motels or commercial spaces Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The University of Utah, retrieved on April
are often targeted. 13, 2022 from https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Best-Practices-
Key examples of zoning reform include: Dec2020.pdf
Portland, OR 2021 Reforms allowed for missing middle housing (duplexes, Is the Middle Missing?, Utah Foundation, retrieved on April 13, 2022 from
fourplexes, cottage homes, etc.) in almost all residential zones (Andersen https://www.utahfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/rr792.pdf
and Routh, 2021) Accessory Dwelling Units - A Resource Guide for Municipal
State of California 2016/2017 ADU Reform required all cities to permit Officials and Staff, Utah League of Cities and Towns, retrieved
one ADU per single-family unit. It also reduced fees and requirements for on April 13, 2022 from https://www.ulct.org/home/
ADU development. The legislation increased ADU development by over showpublisheddocument/1753/637395634424170000
250 percent from 2018 to 2019 (Chapple et al., 2020). The Utah Legislature
passed a similar bill in 2021, but it is less comprehensive and does not
References
address reduced fees and requirements. Andersen, M., & Routh, S. (2021). From Tiny Homes to Fourplexes and
Beyond: Major Portland Zoning Reforms Take Effect. Sightline Institute.
Salt Lake City, Utah has successfully converted several motels and old
commercial spaces into affordable units in the past 20 years (Wood et al., Chapple, K., Lieberworth, A., Ganetsos, D., Valchuis, E., Kwang, A., & Schten,
2020). R. (n.d.). ADUs in California: A Revolution in Progress. Center for Community
Innovation.
Advantages of zoning reform:
Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2011). Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The
• Zoning reform is often necessary to make other affordable housing
Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets in the United States.
strategies effective (including inclusionary zoning, workforce housing,

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 97

 CHAPTER 6

TOOLS FOR PLANNING

Throughout this effort, communities mentioned a lack of data as a barrier as a conversation starter, helpful visualization, and data-informed guide
to decision-making and planning for housing affordability. Hearing that, in about access and planning for housing opportunities. A screenshot of the
addition to analyzing existing conditions, analyzing community feedback, tool is below.
and researching best practices, this effort also produced an interactive, web- This chapter provides background information on the tool and its
based mapping tool for communities to use. This tool, the Housing Location components, explains how to use the tool, and shares details on the
Explorer can assist housing and land use planning efforts throughout Weber background analyses that drive the mapping tool. This information can also
County. Users choose what factors are important to their community and be found online, accessed via the Weber County Housing Affordability and
prioritize them. The tool then produces a heat map of locations from most Access Initiative website.
to least suitable based on the user’s prioritization. It is intended to be used

Table 6.1 - Housing Location Explorer

98 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

Factors of Suitability centers designed to serve bigger regions. The four types of centers from
smallest to largest in scale and itensity of development are:
Several factors influence where increased housing options may be most • Neighborhood,
suitable in a community. These include place characteristics, access to • City,
employment, existing and planned transportation facilities, and proximity • Urban, and
to community necessities. When housing is located near these factors, • Metropolitan.
residents’ quality of life increases.
Centers and Housing Accessibility
Place Characteristics This tool enables communities to choose centers as one of their factors in
Some places within our communities are lively, walkable, central locations determing suitable locations for attainable housing opportunities.
in which people gather. We call these places “centers.” All centers
Why are centers relevant to housing?
share three fundamental concepts: a mix of residential, commercial,
office, recreation, and/or civic spaces, in a higher concentration than Centers typically offer a high concentration of community necessities,
surrounding neighborhoods; access to regional transportation via car, public from job opportunities, post offices, and doctor’s offices to schools, parks,
transportation, bike, and/or foot; and, a walkable design that encourages daycare, and city halls. Therefore, people who live in and near centers
visitors to explore and interact. can access daily needs without traveling far. Proximity reduces household
costs, reduces dependency on automobiles, and eases a household’s ability
While centers share certain traits, they take many different shapes and
to meet its needs. Additionally, centers usually have taller buildings than
forms, ranging from a place with many-story buildings like downtown Ogden
surrounding neighborhoods, which means that multi-story, multi-family
to a block with a school, park, or church at the center of a neighborhood.
housing types often fit right in with the existing character of the built
Along the Wasatch Front, centers are typically classified by size, with larger
environment.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 99

Access to Employment thus benefits individual households and the region.
Access to employment is a measure of how well people connect and reach Existing and Planned Transportation Facilities
jobs from their homes. This tool enables communities to choose access to
Communities can consider transportation in their suitability analysis in
employment by transit and by automobile as factors in assessing suitable
another way as well. They can select and prioritize the location of various
locations for housing opportunities.
transportation facilities, including:
Employment and Housing • transit stops,
Why is access to employment by transit and automobile relevant to housing? • freeway access, and
• active transportation facilities (specifically paved multi-use paths,
Access to our jobs by different transportation options is important because
protected bike lanes, and buffered bike lanes).
people spend most of their time at their home and their place of work, and
they need to travel between the two destinations. When jobs and housing Both existing and planned facilities are included. Planned facilities include
in a region are not near each other, people have to travel far between the those in the Regional Transportation Plan.
two. Transportation Facilities & Housing
The region then experiences more traffic congestion and worse air Why are existing and planned transportation facilities relevant to housing?
quality. Communities with housing but no jobs may have a hard time
After housing, transportation takes up the highest portion of a household’s
paying for services like snow removal, road maintenance, and community
budget . Transportation costs usually increase with distance. So, minimizing
beautification. Contrastingly, communities with jobs but no housing may
the commute distance between home and work can save costs for a
struggle to retain skilled workers.
household. Because vehicle ownership is expensive, the ability to access
At the same time, individual households have to sink more money into
transportation costs, and workers have to spend more time away from their
families. Locating housing and employment opportunities near each other

100 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study

jobs via transit or active transportation is especially important for identifying
locations for less expensive housing options.
Proximity to Community Necessities
This tool enables communities to consider community necessities in their
evaluation of potential locations for housing.
What are community necessities?
Community necessities are essential destinations and services. These
include:
• Child care and daycare;
• Health care (hospitals, urgent care);
• Schools (k-12, technical colleges, universities);
• Grocery stores;
• Community centers; and,
• Parks.
Community Necessities & Housing
Why is proximity to community necessities relevant to housing?
Every household needs access to health care, education, food, and other
essentials. When these services are spread out from each other and from
housing, accessing them becomes more costly and takes more time.
While this distance may be just an inconvenience to some, for others it is
a significant barrier. Single parents, individuals with mobility impairments,
individuals with frequent health care appointments, older adults, zero-car
households, and low income households are a few examples of people for
whom poor access to essentials may negatively impact quality of life.

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 101

Using the Housing Location Explorer Tool
Access the Housing Location Explorer online, and use the website or the
following pages to walk through how to use the tool.
Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 103
104 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study
Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 105
106 Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION
This study aims to provide extensive data, resources for best practices, and types in an area of their choosing. This tool can be helpful for communities
tools for implementation for Weber County communities, to support them to understand how diverse housing is in their community.
in their planningefforts. For communities who would like to increase the amount of affordable
As demonstrated through the findings of this document, Weber County housing, a Housing Location Explorer has been developed which can assist
is experiencing an affordable housing crisis that will likely get worse if no planners in determining the most suitable locations for affordable housing
action is taken. The county is expected to grow by over 70 percent over the options. Suitability is determined by proximity to transportation options,
next 40 years, substantially increasing the demand for housing in an already employment opportunities, and community necessities such as child care
stretched market. Additionally, the vast majority of growth is anticipated to and schools. Users can prioritize the factors most important to them to
occur in areas of the county with high median housing costs and little land create a data-based heat map showing areas to consider for affordable
zoned for multi-family or mixed-use development. housing.
As of 2019, the county was short over 1,300 units for its low and very low- All of these data sources and tools can be accessed on the Weber County
income households. This deficit has likely increased significantly since, as Housing Affordability and Access Initiative website along with more
home sale values have increased by over 80 percent over the past three information about the initiative and housing data.
years. Without substantial construction and preservation of affordable units, The affordable housing Best Practices in this document can be used as
Weber County can expect dire outcomes, particularly for its low and very a starting point for exploring solutions that can be both effective and
low-income groups. politically palatable for Weber County and its communities. A mix of these
Tools for Implementation strategies will best help to moderate housing prices and ensure residents
have affordable places to live. Planning efforts around housing that consider
There is no “one size fits all” solution when it comes to communities transportation and access to opportunities will not only support housing
increasing and preserving affordable housing, as evidenced by input affordability, but also help communities continue to provide a high quality of
collected from all Weber County communities in the Local Government life.
Survey. A number of tools have been developed, in addition to the best
practices, to help communities determine what the best solutions are for
them.
To visualize what the housing stock is currently made up of, communities
can utilize the Housing Inventory Explorer, which will show users the
percentage of single-family detached homes compared to other housing

Weber County Housing Affordability & Access Study 107