Oquirrh view existing conditions report Salt Lake County, Utah 2019

The Salt Lake Valley provides a beautiful and welcoming home for 1.2 million people. By 2065, an estimated 600,000 additional residents will call Salt Lake County home; many will settle in currently undeveloped areas west of Bangerter Highway.

EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH 2019 OQUIRRH VIEW Acknowledgments The Oquirrh View Existing Conditions Report was prepared by the Salt Lake County Office of Regional Development and completed May, 2019. Salt Lake County: Mayor Jennifer Wilson, Deputy Mayor of Regional Operations Catherine Kanter, Associate Deputy Mayor of Regional Operations MIke Reberg Council Members: Jim Bradley, Arlyn Bradshaw, Max Burdick, Steve DeBry, Shireen Ghorbani, Ann Granato, Michael Jensen, Aimee Winder Newton, Richard Snelgrove. The following Salt Lake County staff contributed to the project: Wilf Sommerkorn (Planning and Transportation Division Director), Jake Young (Project Manager), Helen Peters (Transportation), Samantha Sedivec, Jared Stewart, Stewart Gubler, Carlton Christensen (former Department Director), Blake Thomas (Economic), Ruedigar Matthes (Economic), Angelo Calacino (Parks and Recreation). The following consultants contributed to the project: Demographics - Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute | David Eccles School of Business: Pam Perlich, Mallory Bateman, and Natalie Young Transportation - Monument Engineers: Diego Carroll Housing - Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute | David Eccles School of Business: Jim Wood, Dejan Eskic, DJ Benway Utilities - Ensign Engineering and Land Surveying: Derek Nelson, Fred Duberow, David Jenkins The following agencies provided input through the process: Cities: Bluffdale, Herriman, Riverton, Salt Lake City, South Jordan, Taylorsville, West Jordan, West Valley City Metro Townships: Greater Salt Lake Municipal Services District, Copperton, Kearns, Magna Public Agencies and Utilities: Camp Williams/Utah National Guard, Dominion Energy, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, Kem. C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah, Magna Water District, Rocky Mountain Power, South Valley Sewer District, South Valley Water Reclamation District, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, Wasatch Front Regional Council Major Property Owners: Rio Tinto Kennecott Communications Consultant: Wilkinson Ferrari & Co. 2 OQUIRRH VIEW Table of Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Chapter 2: Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chapter 3: Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Chapter 4: Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Chapter 5: Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Chapter 6: Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Chapter 7: Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Chapter 8: Parks and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Chapter 9: Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1: Executive Summary Introduction The Salt Lake Valley provides a beautiful and welcoming home for 1.2 million people. By 2065, an estimated 600,000 additional residents will call Salt Lake County home; many will settle in currently undeveloped areas west of Bangerter Highway. Preparing for this growth requires thoughtful planning. Where will these new residents live, work, shop, learn and play? Will there be enough water to accommodate this growth? How will people get from place to place? Will affordable housing be available for people of all income levels? Salt Lake County’s Office of Regional Development is leading an effort to develop a broad vision and plan for the Valley’s west bench for the next 20+ years. As part of this process, detailed research was conducted to understand how growth Figure 1.1: View of the Oquirrh Mountains 4 has occurred to date. Along with efforts such as the County Council’s Growth Summit Series, this existing conditions report paints a picture so local officials and communities can understand what’s needed to accommodate future demands. The Oquirrh View Existing Conditions Report will provide detailed background information to all cities, townships, transportation agencies, utility agencies, landowners, residents, developers and others who will be involved in shaping our future. Salt Lake County will use the report when developing the General Plan for the unincorporated areas (not within city boundaries) of the west bench. Why the name "Oquirrh View"? With the Oquirrh Mountains being a significant portion of the study area and focal point of the planning the name Oquirrh was included in the project. The second word View is from the view of the Oquirrhs provide throughout the Salt Lake County and the new Mountain View Corridor, a crucial transportation link in the Salt Lake Valley. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY About the Oquirrh Mountains The Oquirrh Mountains are an essential and often overlooked geographical element of the Salt Lake Valley. The Oquirrh Mountains are approximately 30 miles long, starting from the Great Salt Lake in the north and heading south to the middle of Utah County. The Salt Lake portion of the Oquirrh Mountains is approximately 18 miles or a little more than half the full length. The highest elevation point in the Oquirrh Mountains is Flat Top Peak at 10,628 feet (in Utah County); the highest point on the Salt Lake side is Nelson Peak at 9,359 feet. The name Oquirrh comes from the Goshute Tribe and means "wood sitting" or "wooded mountain", depending on the source. Demographics Significant growth is happening along the west bench. Since 2000, nearly 57% of County population growth has occurred here; 135,546 new residents total, or about 8,000 people a year. Minority populations are growing throughout the area. The number of children is growing quickly as well, particularly in southwest communities, creating significant challenges for school districts. Implications include: • Community leaders, schools, and businesses must consider needs of growing populations and changing demographics. • Residents may expect their community will remain the same, not recognizing that growth and change are constant. Land Use With 32,182 developable acres west of Bangerter, the study area contains the last significant developable parcels in Salt Lake County – about equal to the size of five Taylorsville cities. One landowner, Rio Tinto Kennecott, owns 72% of all remaining unincorporated County land, including much of the Oquirrh Mountains. As a result, west bench foothills have not been developed as they have on the County’s east side. Implications include: • Developable areas offer significant opportunities to maximize public resources to meet future needs. • Now-off-limits mountain areas may provide future recreation opportunities. Figure 1.2: View of Bingham Copper Mine in the Oquirrh Mountains. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transportation North-south routes are wellserved and improving, with major investments to Mountain View Corridor and Bangerter Highway. East-west mobility is limited and constrained. Transit service is relatively better in northern communities, but lacking overall in coverage and frequency. Active transportation options for bicycles and pedestrians are limited. Most local street networks lack connectivity and roads are undersized to meet current and future demand. Implications include: • Commuters will continue to travel out of their way on north-south routes to avoid east-west congestion. • Lack of street connectivity inhibits transit service and requires motorists to use main roads and highways for local trips, as well as regional commutes. • Transportation improvements can help reduce congestion, but benefits will be short-lived without comprehensive community planning to handle growth in a sustainable manner. critical to manage demand and reduce infrastructure costs. • Failure to appropriately size utilities could delay or hinder development. Housing Housing costs are skyrocketing and out pacing incomes. Rental vacancy rates are at historic lows, pushing rents to historic highs. An extreme gap in housing exists for people living at or below the poverty level. Housing trends are changing, with more townhomes and apartments than seen before. Communities are wary of growth impacts. Implications include: • Options beyond single-family housing will be in greater demand. • More jobs closer to housing can lower commuting costs, increasing affordability for some. • Education and outreach are needed to address community concerns about growth and development issues. Economy and Jobs Utilities Demands on infrastructure are increasing and meeting needs is difficult. While additional water is available, water districts will need to annex the land into their service and area and make plans. Implications include: • Extending water and sewer utilities to future residents and businesses will be more expensive and increasingly difficult to provide over time. •Water conservation through water efficient landscaping and plumbing fixtures will be 6 Job availability is low throughout the Oquirrh View area; most jobs are in the northern half. Lack of jobs in the south end reduces economic opportunities and increases transportation time and costs for residents. Local economic development efforts have often favored recruiting light-industrial businesses with relatively few jobs per acre. Retail and food-service jobs in the area generally offer lower wages. Implications include: • Most working adults leave the area each day to work, creating significant commutes and EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GREAT SALT LAKE 2000-2017 INCOMES INCREASED 39%, SF HOMES PRICES ROSE 38% AND RENTS AN ASTOUNDING 87% 57% OF COUNTY GROWTH OCCURRED IN STUDY AREA OVER LAST DECADE Approximately 135,000 new residents between 2000 and 2017 6 ACRES OF DEVELOPED PARK LAND PER 1,000 ACRES LESS THAN NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 10 ACRES PER 1,000 80 SALT LAKE CITY 201 WEST VALLEY CITY 215 SOUTH SALT LAKE 80 MILLCREEK CITY TAYLORSVILLE MURRAY KEARNS WEST JORDAN SOUTH JORDAN BINGHAM COPPER MINE BANGERTER HIGHWAY OQUIRRH MOUNTAINS TOOELE COUNTY 111 MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR MAGNA RIVERTON 85 BLUFFDALE HERRIMAN MIDVALE HOLLADAY COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS 15 SANDY DRAPER AREAS WITH SHORT TO MID-TERM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OOUIRRH VIEW STUDY AREA BOUNDARY UNINCORPORATED AREAS (UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION) TRAX/FRONTRUNNER 81% OF WORKERS COMMUTE DAILY TO JOBS EAST OF BANGERTER HIGHWAY MAJOR HIGHWAYS UTAH COUNTY Map for illustrative purposes; not to scale. N Figure 1.3. Overview map of Oquirrh View Study Area. 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY impacting traffic, air quality, and quality of life. • Income and education disparities will increase without more job opportunities for people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Parks and Trails Existing parks aren’t able to accommodate future community needs. The Oquirrh Mountains and foothills offer recreation possibilities that are currently off-limits to public use. Support exists to create a west bench Bonneville Shoreline Trail, but easements and rights-of-way are not in place. Implications include: • Many residents of western Salt Lake County drive significant distances for parks and outdoor activities. • County and local governments must invest now in developing parks and recreation opportunities to meet future demand; west bench communities may become less attractive without them. Environment Mining activities are expected to continue for the foreseeable future, although mine closure planning and reclamation efforts are ongoing. Former industrial uses exist throughout the study area. The Great Salt Lake continues to have lowerthan-average water levels, in part because of growing human consumption, exposing lake bed, increasing dust pollution and affecting the regional climate. Wasatch Front air quality is worsened by more frequent and longer commutes and by dust from construction and mining activities. 8 Implications include: • Mining reclamation and operational changes may open recreation and development opportunities in Oquirrh foothills; careful planning is needed to protect natural resources. • Public concerns about mining and its effects may increase as development moves closer to west bench foothills. The diminishing Great Salt Lake affects snowpack, air pollution, wildlife habitat, bird migration and Utah’s economy. About the Oquirrh View Process Salt Lake County’s Office of Regional Development is leading an effort to develop an overarching regional vision and longrange plan to help manage growth and guide development on the west bench of the Salt Lake Valley for the next 20+ years. Outcomes will include a County General Plan for unincorporated areas, as required by state law, as well as planning recommendations for the broader Oquirrh View area. The Oquirrh View process brings together local governments, other public agencies, community residents, businesses and property owners to outline a consensus strategy that incorporates community values, broad planning principles, development preferences, infrastructure needs and socioeconomic requirements. The process will be coordinated with other visioning and planning efforts taking place in western Salt Lake County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The study is divided into three phases. These phases are: Phase 1- Existing Conditions Inventory & Analysis Phase 2 Community Outreach & Scenario Planning Phase 3 - General Plan Adoption & Planning Recommendations GREAT SALT LAKE 80 SALT LAKE CITY 201 111 WEST VALLEY CITY 215 SOUTH SALT LAKE 80 MILLCREEK CITY TAYLORSVILLE MURRAY KEARNS WEST JORDAN BANGERTER HIGHWAY MAGNA MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR Phase 1 involves: inventory of existing land use patterns and infrastructure conditions in areas west of Bangerter Highway to establish a baseline for planning efforts; analyze data to identify needs, opportunities, and challenges to accommodate future growth. UNINCORPORATED AREAS Lands under Salt Lake County jurisdiction and not located within a city or metro township. MIDVALE HOLLADAY COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS 15 SANDY TOOELE COUNTY SOUTH Phase 2 involves: engage JORDAN local officials and community DRAPER members to identify preferences, RIVERTON possibilities, and tradeoffs BLUFFDALE UNINCORPORATED AREAS (UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION) affecting future growth along the HERRIMAN west bench; prepare scenarios TRAX/FRONTRUNNER outlining possible futures for the MAJOR HIGHWAYS N west bench and seek feedback UTAH COUNTY Map for illustrative purposes; from public and stakeholders; not to scale. consider how to coordinate Figure 1.4. Unincorporated areas of Oquirrh View Study Area. cities' and metro townships' General Plans with each other and with Salt Lake County plans. 85 Phase 3 involves: create an Oquirrh View General Plan for unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County; seek review and approval of General Plan by County Planning Commission and County Council; develop a high-level, advisory document with recommendations to help guide growth. 9 DEMOGRAPHICS Chapter 2: Demographics Introduction Within Salt Lake County (SLCo), communities west of Bangerter Highway, the Oquirrh View Study Area have experienced significant growth and change, especially over the past two decades. In the year 2000, the study area was home to a mix of long-established communities with diverse populations in the northern portion and small, rural communities in the south. Over the next 17 years, several key factors combined to encourage rapid population and economic growth. The availability of developable land provided opportunity for immense residential and commercial growth, including Daybreak and Jordan Landing. Additionally, the construction of the Mountain View Corridor (MVC) increased connectivity to the rest of the valley and provided easier access to developments along the western boundary. Finally, established diverse communities provided a stable base for incoming new residents to start their lives in Utah. Trends over Time Between 2000 and 2017, population growth in the Oquirrh View Study Area represented 57 percent of the population growth in SLCo. Nearly 1 in 6 new Utahns (15.6 percent) in this period took residence west of Bangerter. This growth resulted in an estimated 135,546 new residents across the study area in 17 years. Three cities, West Jordan, South Jordan, and Herriman, each had population increases of over 35,000 people in this timeframe. Although smaller in overall growth, the population of Bluffdale almost tripled between 2000 and 2017. The southern portion of the study area had large swaths of developable land in 2000, while the northern portion was more developed. Oquirrh View Study Area 135,546 57.1% of Salt Lake County Growth 15.6% of Statewide Growth Salt Lake County 237,262 State of Utah 868,664 Figure 2.1: Population Growth, 2000 to 2017 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Kem C. Gardner Subcounty Estimates Program. 10 Figure 2.2: Construction in South Jordan 2017 DEMOGRAPHICS In addition to being home to a significant portion of the County’s growth, the study area cities are home to two types of ethnic or cultural enclaves. The northern portion of the study area includes many racially and ethnically diverse communities while the southern portion more closely resembles the signature demographics of Utah in the 1980s. West Jordan, West Valley, Magna, and Kearns also experienced population growth, though to a lesser extent than the southern end of the study area. Of the study area cities, these communities have the highest shares of nonfamily households, minority and Hispanic or Latino populations, and larger populations speaking languages other than English. Despite these cultural differences, there are similarities across the entire study area. These include shares of households with children under 18, shares of households with 5 or more people, and average household sizes that are higher than the county as a whole. Data Notes Community-Specific Trends Bluffdale, Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan share several attributes: high shares of married-couple households with children under 18, higher shares of population with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, low shares of households below the poverty line, and small minority populations. To discuss trends in social and economic characteristics of the population, this document uses data at the city level. This allows for an easy comparison over time. For a more detailed look at the data about these topics and more in each community, the full Oquirrh View Demography section utilizes census tract geography. Because of its small population, some of the data available for Copperton has high margins of error. Due to this, Copperton is only included in the discussion of total population estimates. A table including all demographic variables, margins of error, and coefficients of variation, can be found in the full Oquirrh View Demography section. Taylorsville and Salt Lake City, have small portions of the cities within the study area boundary. Due to small populations within study areas, they are not included in comparison or analysis. Figure 2.3: Fast growing communities attract young families. 11 DEMOGRAPHICS Population Since the 2000 Census, the Oquirrh View Study Area population grew from 178,178 to 313,724 in 2017. Five of the eight communities in the study area experienced growth of over 50 percent in that time-frame. Two of the five largest cities in the state (West Valley City and West Jordan) added a combined 72,263 people since 2000. In 2000, both Herriman and Bluffdale had populations of less than 5,000. Since then, the population of Bluffdale has more than doubled and Herriman’s growth has ballooned from a population of just over 1,500 residents in 2000 to nearly 40,000 in 2017 (over 26 times). Estimates indicate that between 2016 and 2017, Bluffdale and Herriman experienced the fastest population growth rate of study area cities. The other cities in the Oquirrh View Study Area have also experienced population growth, though to a lesser extent. Three cities, Riverton, West Jordan, and West Valley, experienced growth of at least 5 percent between 2010 and 2017. Magna experienced a 4.8 percent increase, while Kearns grew by 0.3 percent and the population of Copperton remained the same. 150,000 April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010 125,000 July 1, 2017 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 Figure 2.4: Population of Oquirrh View Study Area Cities Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census, 2010 Census, Population Division, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Subcounty Estimates. * The July 1, 2017 estimates for townships were produced by the Kem C. Gardner Subcounty Estimates Program. 12 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport Rate of Population Change 2010-2017 -0.4% to < 0% § ¦ ¨ I-80 0% 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 0.1% to 11.5% 11.6% to 21.3% 21.4% to 39.1% 39.2% to 100.5% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan B m ha in g y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.5: Rate of Population Change Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, Census 2010 to July 1, 2017 Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Census 2010 13 DEMOGRAPHICS Households 4.25 The southern end of the study area experienced the largest increase in households between 2010 and 2017. Since 2000, all of the study area cities had larger average household sizes than the state and SLCo as a whole. In 2000, Bluffdale had the largest average household size in the study area at 4.23 people. While most cities in the study area experienced decreases in average household size in the ensuing years, Herriman, Kearns, and West Valley City grew. By the 2012-2016 estimates, Herriman had the highest average household size, with 3.98 persons per household. Kearns increased from 3.65 to 3.73. During this period, the statewide average household size grew from 3.13 to 3.16. Households in SLCo overall also grew slightly, from 3.00 to 3.03. The large household sizes in the study reflect the fact that nearly 40 percent of households in the study area are married-couple families with children. In 2000, over 50 percent of households in the four southern cities were married-couple families with children. Herriman is now the only city with this distinction in the study area, resulting in the highest share at 55 percent. A decrease in average household size across the state results from an increasing number of older-couple families where children have left the house, new families have fewer children, and young adults put off marriage and children until older ages1. 1. U.S. Census Bureau, "The U.S. Joins Other Countries With Large Aging Populations," March 13, 2018. 14 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010 2012-2016 Figure 2.6: Average Household Size, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010 2012-2016 Figure 2.7: Married-Couple Households with Children Under 18, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ I-80 Total Households 2017 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 710 - 1,479 1,480 - 2,290 2,291 - 3,899 3,900 - 7,940 West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie Herriman 12600 S Riverton Hwy Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.8: Total Households Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, July 1, 2017 Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Census 2010. 15 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ I-80 Average Household Size 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 2.91 - 3.35 3.36 - 3.70 3.71 - 3.96 3.97 - 4.46 West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.9: Average Household Size Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 16 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City Percent of Households: Married Couple with Children Under 18 17.5% - 29.1% 29.2% - 36.6% 36.7% - 47.9% 48.0% - 58.0% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan B m ha in g y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.10: Percent of Households, Married Couple Families with Children Under 18 Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 17 DEMOGRAPHICS Socioeconomics Median Household Income Educational Attainment While household median incomes have changed since 2000, the ranking of the cities in the Oquirrh View Study Area from lowest to highest income have stayed relatively similar. Cities in the southern end of the study area (South Jordan, Bluffdale, Riverton, Herriman, and West Jordan) have had higher median household incomes than the cities in the northern end since 2000. In 2000, just over one in five people 25 and over in the study area had a bachelor’s degree or higher. By 2016 this share had increased to over one in four. Only three places – Herriman, Kearns, and Magna – had little change in their share of population with a bachelor’s or higher between 2000-2016. South Jordan was the only city to experience a statistically significant increase between the two estimate periods. Kearns, Magna, and West Valley City have had the lowest shares of population with a bachelor’s degree. $120,000 $110,000 $100,000 $90,000 45.0% $80,000 40.0% $70,000 35.0% $60,000 30.0% $50,000 25.0% 20.0% $40,000 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1999 2007-2011 2012-2016 Figure 2.12: Median Household Income, 2016 InflationAdjusted Dollars, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah April 1, 2000 2007-2011 2012-2016 Figure 2.11: Educational Attainment for Population Aged 25 and Over, Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 18 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Note: The 2000 Census asked respondents to report their income for 1999. The Census Bureau suggests comparing income from the 2000 Census with caution, because of this self-reporting. Inflation adjustments for 2000 Census data were made using the CPI-U-RS adjustment factors published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Inflation to 2016 dollars for the 2007-2011 estimates were provided by the Census Bureau in Table CP03. DEMOGRAPHICS Households Below Poverty Level All the cities in the study area experienced increases in the share of households below poverty level overall, between 2000 and 2012-2016. The 2007-2011 estimate period includes the Great Recession, which affected households across the nation. Bluffdale, Herriman, Riverton, West Jordan and South Jordan all showed a slight decrease in share of households below poverty level between 20072011 and 2012-2016 periods. 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% April 1, 2000 2007-2011 2012-2016 Figure 2.13: Share of Households with Income Below the Poverty Level, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 19 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City Percent of Pop. Age 25 and Over: Bachelor's Degree or Higher 4.9% - 12.4% 12.5% - 20.6% 20.7% - 31.3% 31.4% - 46.5% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.14: Percent of Population Aged 25 and Over, Bachelor's Degree or Higher Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 20 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ Percent of Households: Income Below Poverty Line I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 0.4% - 3.9% 4.0% - 7.8% 7.9% - 12.0% 12.1% - 19.8% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.15: Percent of Households, Income Below Poverty Line Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 21 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ I-80 Median Household Income 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City $37,885 - $55,132 $55,132 - $72,083 $72,083 - $91,052 $91,052 - $116,607 West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.16: Median Household Income Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 22 DEMOGRAPHICS 60.0% Race and Hispanic Origin In Census Bureau enumerations and surveys, race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) are selfidentified characteristics. In this analysis, minority refers to any race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white. 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Between 2000 and 2017, the minority share of the population has increased from one in seven Utahns (14.7 percent) to one in five (20.7 percent). SLCo has increased from almost one in five to over one in four. In Magna, the share of the minority population is nearly one in three, while Kearns is nearly two in five. In West Valley City, more than half of the population identifies as a minority race or Hispanic origin, making it the most diverse large city in Utah. The share of the population identifying as minority race or Hispanic origin has increased in every city in the study area since 2000. The minority share of population in Bluffdale and Herriman doubled between the 2000 Census and the 2012-2016 estimates. In the study area, 29.9 percent of the population identifies as a minority race or ethnicity. The Hispanic or Latino population is the largest minority group at 21.5 percent of the total population, followed by the Asian population at 2.7 percent. The Hispanic or Latino share of population in Herriman, Riverton, and West Valley City more than doubled between the 2000 Census and 2012-2016 estimates. Kearns and South Jordan had decreases in their shares of Hispanic or Latino population between the 2010 Census and 2012-2016 estimates. 0.0% April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010 2012-2016 Figure 2.17: Minority Population, Share of Total Population, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010 2012-2016 Figure 2.18: Hispanic or Latino Population, Share of Total Population, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 23 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ Percent of Population: Minority I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 8.9% - 15.4% 15.5% - 30.9% 31.0% - 46.5% 46.6% - 66.6% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.19: Percent of Population, Minority Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 24 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ Percent of Population: Hispanic I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 3.6% - 12.8% 12.9% - 23.8% 23.9% - 37.9% 38.0% - 55.8% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.20: Percent of Population, Hispanic or Latino Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 25 DEMOGRAPHICS 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% April 1, 2000 2007-2011 2012-2016 Figure 2.21: Foreign-Born Population, Share of Total Population, Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% April 1, 2000 2007-2011 2012-2016 Figure 2.22: Share of Population Age 5 and Over, Speak English Less Than "Very Well", Oquirrh View Study Area Cities, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2007-2011 and 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 26 DEMOGRAPHICS Foreign-Born and Language The predominant origin of foreign-born residents in the study area throughout the study period has been Latin America. However, people of Asian origin have become an increasing share of foreign-born residents both statewide and in SLCo. Data on origin is available only for West Jordan and West Valley City, but other cities reflect the same pattern. The data indicates increasing shares of population coming from Asia since 2000, although Latin America is still the largest source of foreign-born residents of West Jordan and West Valley City. West Valley City has had the highest share of foreign-born residents of the study area cities since 2000, increasing from 14.4 percent to 22.6 percent in 2012-2016. Kearns has maintained the second-place ranking across the time period, increasing from 13.4 percent 85 85 and and over over 80 84 80 to 84 75 to 79 75 79 70 to 74 70 74 65 65 to to69 69 60 60 to to64 64 55 to 59 55 59 50 to 54 50 54 45 to 49 45 49 40 to 44 40 44 35 to 39 35 39 30 to 34 30 34 25 to 29 25 29 20 20 to to24 24 15 15 to to19 19 10 to 14 10 14 55 to 9 Under 55 under 50,000 40,000 30,000 Oquirrh View Male 20,000 10,000 0 Salt Lake County Male 10,000 20,000 30,000 Oquirrh View Female 40,000 50,000 Salt Lake County Female Figure 2.23: Population Pyramid, 2012-2016, Oquirrh View Study Area and Salt Lake County Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 27 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ Percent of Households with Persons Under Age 18 I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 36.5% - 45.6% 45.7% - 52.1% 52.2% - 58.2% 58.3% - 69.6% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan m ha y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne g B in Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.24: Percent of Households with Persons Under Age 18 Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 28 DEMOGRAPHICS ¯ OQUIRRH VIEW SALT LAKE COUNTY Salt Lake City Int'l Airport § ¦ ¨ Percent of Households with Persons Age 60 and Over I-80 201 Magna 8400 W 3500 S 5600 W ¬ « Bangerter Hwy Salt Lake City 9.5% - 18.3% 18.4% - 26.4% 26.5% - 35.6% 35.7% - 49.7% West Valley City Oquirrh View Study Area City / Metro Township ¬ « 111 5400 S s Hwy Kearns West Jordan B m ha in g y Hw 9400 S ¬ « ¬ « 85 154 nt ou M Copperton South Jordan 11400 S ai n 11800 S 7800 S 2700 W Bacchu w Ne Taylorsville 6400 W Corridor Bangerter w Vie 12600 S Riverton Hwy Herriman Bluffdale 1:210,475 0 1.5 3 Miles Figure 2.25: Percent of Households with Persons Over Age 60 Oquirrh View Study Area Tracts, 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates Notes: Some tracts extend beyond the study area boundary. Data values shown represent the full tract area. World Light Gray Base Map Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia © Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016. 29 LAND USE Oquirrh View Land Uses Chapter 3: Land Use Introduction The land uses in the western part of SLCo are as diverse as any in the State of Utah. Industrial, residential, and commercial uses are found along Bangerter Highway and Mountain View Corridor. The northern part of the corridors contain significant manufacturing and industrial uses. The Oquirrh Mountains rise in the west, first with foothills and then mountains, with the highest point at Nelson Peak at 9,359 elevation. The land use data included in the planning process came from the SLCo Assessor Office and corrections were done by comparing designated current usage using aerial photos and feedback from participating public agencies. The land use charts and map represent current land usage, not zoning or proposed land use. Land Use Type Mountains/Foothills Acres 59,571 Percentage 30% Wetland/Water 30,189 15% Mining 23,780 12% Oquirrh View Land Uses Single Family Land Use Type Vacant Mountains/Foothills Industrial Wetland/Water Roads/Utilities Mining Single Agriculture Family Vacant Gov/Institutions Acres 59,571 30,189 12,065 8,835 16,034 Agriculture 8,835 Attached Housing Roads/Utilities Park/Open Space Mixed/Use 5,678 5,678 2,610 2,364 12,065 1,422 2,610 10 Commercial 2,364 Attached Housing 1,422 Mixed/Use 10 Total Acres 196,169 Total Acres 14,863 18,748 14,863 Commercial Gov/Institutions 16,034 23,780 Industrial Park/Open Space 18,748 Table 3.1: Land Uses Percentage 30% 15% 10% 8% 8% 12% 6% 10% 5% 8% 8% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% 196,169 1% 0% Land Uses The mountains and foothills are the single largest land use at 32 percent, or nearly 1/3 of the entire area. Wetlands and the Great Salt Lake make up the second largest land use at 16%, with mining coming in slightly less than wetlands at 13%. Single family (residential homes) is the fourth largest land use at 10% and is approximately 10 times more land use than attached housing (all others including condominiums, apartments, and townhouses). Vacant land is the fifth largest land use at 9% and Industrial at 8%. Areas that could be 30 Figure 3.1: Land Uses developed include Vacant, but also include Agriculture and smaller parcels of some of the other categories. A good portion of land is used for industrial and this is expected to rise with more zoning dedicated to manufacturing and other types of industrial. Agriculture is still present at 5%, but diminishing as land is developed and turned into other uses. 0 LAND USE Figure 3.2: Land Use Map 31 LAND USE 50-98 Units 3-4 Units 10-19 Units 20-49 Units 5-9 Units 0.18% 0.17% 0.12% 0.04% 0.02% 36 33 24 9 4 Total acres 19866 Residential Building Type Land Use Housing Land Use 100.00% Housing is the fastest growing land use in the study area and has come to dominate the character of many significant portions of western SLCo. The Residential Housing Type Map has a breakdown of different building types (not ownership), starting with single family homes and going up to 99+ unit complexes (mostly apartments). The data shows that the residential housing land usage has largely been single-family homes. Single-Family homes account for 92% of residential/housing land use in the Oquirrh View Study Area. This information is based on existing land use and should not be confused with units per acre or total units. Other residential building types combined amount to just less than 8% of residential/housing land use. 50.00% Percentage 5-9 Units 20-49 Units 10-19 Units 3-4 Units 50-98 Units Group home Twinhomes/dupl… Condos Townhomes 99 plus units 0.00% Single Family Manufactured Housing or residential land use is housing of all types including: single-family homes or "residences" and attached housing (condominiums, apartments, and townhouses). Next to mining, housing takes up the largest land use that has been built or significantly altered by people. Single Family Manufactured 99 plus units Condos Townhomes Twinhomes/duplex Group home 50-98 Units 1 10-193.3: Units Residential 20-49 Building Units Figure 3-4 Units 5-9 Units Types Oquirrh View Residential Land Use Building Type Percentage ACRES Single Family 92.20% 18317 Manufactured 1.85% 368 99 plus units 1.65% 328 Condos 1.59% 316 Townhomes 1.43% 285 Twinhomes/duplex 0.43% 85 Group home 0.31% 61 50-98 Units 0.18% 36 3-4 Units 0.17% 33 10-19 Units 0.12% 24 20-49 Units 0.04% 9 5-9 Units 0.02% 4 Total acres 19866 Table 3.2: Residential Types Land Use Oquirrh ViewBuilding Residential Land& Use Table Residential Building Type Land Use 100.00% 50.00% Figure 3.4: Single Family at Daybreak, South Jordan 32 Percentage 5-9 Units 20-49 Units 10-19 Units 3-4 Units 50-98 Units Group home Twinhomes/dupl… Townhomes Condos 99 plus units Single Family Manufactured 0.00% Single Family Manufactured 99 plus units Condos Townhomes Twinhomes/duplex Group home 50-98 Units 3-4 Units 10-19 Units 20-49 Units 5-9 Units LAND USE Figure 3.5: Residential/Housing Land Use Types Map 33 LAND USE Developable Areas Understanding the area and acreage available for future development is incredibly important in planning the future of Salt Lake Valley’s western bench. Land that is considered available for development for the purpose of this study meets the following requirements: • NOT already developed with buildings, parking lots, etc. • NOT wetlands • Slopes less than 30% • NOT lakes or water bodies • NOT mining or operations used for mining • NO public lands (BLM, Forest Service) • NO military bases • Infrastructure within reasonable distance In the study area, approximately 32,000 acres, or 50 square miles, are developable land in a short- to mid-term period. It is reasonable that this could be developed in approximately 20-30 years or less. As is shown in the Housing chapter the size of new single-family lots has decreased in many cities over the last 17 years. Also, the mixture of single-family homes and apartments has also changed, making new development more balanced between attached and detached housing, compared to the past. 34 How much land is developable? Approximately 32,000 acres, which equals: 5 Taylorsville cities or 1.8 - West Jordans or 1.5 - West Valleys or 2.45 - South Jordans Figure 3.6: Developable Land Graphic LAND USE Figure 3.7: Developable Land 35 LAND USE Figure 3.8: Developable Land Owned by Kennecott 36 LAND USE Economic Centers Centers, such as downtowns, main streets, city centers, job districts, industrial districts, and others, are essential to planning. The adjacent map represents various types of centers in the Oquirrh View Study Area. International Center (Salt Lake City (SLC)) - is classified as an Employment District with a mixture of businesses including: hotels, service centers, packaging, warehousing, manufacturing, and shipping. Magna Main Street (Magna) - is classified as a Neighborhood Center with a variety of small town businesses such as diners, banks, healthcare, salons, bars, and single family homes. Salt Lake City Industrial Center (SLC) - a large Industrial District area with a mixture of warehouses, manufacturing, distribution, trucking, towing, diesel repair, junkyards, and other industrial uses. Hunter Town Center (West Valley City) - is a Neighborhood Center with a mixture of fast food restaurants, satellite community college, gym, big and mid-box retail, car dealers, and miscellaneous commercial. Lake Park Center (West Valley City)- is an Employment District with a golf course and office headquarters with businesses in the following sectors: finance, healthcare, housing, and technology. Figure 3.9: 2050 Centers 37 LAND USE Kearns Town Center is a small commercial center with a variety of small town businesses such as retail, auto, banks and grocery stores. Hexcel Corporation (West Valley City) - this Industrial District includes a manufacturing plant. Jordan Landing (West Jordan) - is a large Town Center with a mixture: restaurants, retail, movie theaters, and big box commercial. West Jordan Industrial Center (West Jordan) - is an Industrial Center with large manufacturing facilities, warehousing, aerospace, construction supplies, and general commercial. Daybreak Town Center (South Jordan) - is a Town Center with a grocery store, restaurants, office, and retail. Rio Tinto - is an Employment Area for mining jobs. Herriman Towne Center - is a Town Center with big box retail, fast food, city offices, residential, and retail. Mountain View Village (Riverton) - is a Town Center with a mixture of restaurants, retail, grocery store, and residential. Herriman Real Salt Lake - is a Special District with a training academy, housing, and more. Figure 3.10: WFRC 2050 Centers 38 LAND USE Centers and Real Estate Value Many methods exist to evaluate the success of centers, including job density, commercial or retail sales, mixture of land uses, transit, and real estate value. When comparing the Wasatch Choice 2050 Centers and Land Value (Figure 3.12), it's clear that the centers with the highest values are those with high job densities, adjacency to transportation corridors, intense urban fabric, taller buildings, and a mixture of land uses. Magna Main Street is the only traditional Main Street center in the study area. The real estate values per acre have good values due to main street design (smaller footprints, multi-story and minimal parking) and nearby smaller lot residential. The Daybreak Town Center has one of the highest real estate values per acre due to its small footprint and higher intensity uses (multi-family housing, retail, and commercial uses/buildings). The Daybreak Town Center is mostly undeveloped, but that is expected to change over the next decade. The Herriman Towne Center (Herriman City) ranks high in Oqurrih View centers, mostly due to its higher residential density and some commercial. The Mountain View Village in Riverton has a few retail and restaurant buildings finished and is making progress to build out, which will add land value over the next few years. The International Center (Salt Lake City) has one of the higher land values within the study area. This is partially due to its numerous jobs, access to I-80, I-215 and nearby, I-15, and International Airport. According to the Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plan (Northwest Quadrant, 2016) there are approximately 60,000 jobs in both the International Center and Salt Lake International Airport. Jordan Landing (West Jordan City) has one of the higher real estate values per acre due to its many commercial stores and size. Jordan Landing has approximately 1,400,000 square feet (SF) of retail and 1,500,000 SF of office (Wikipedia, 2019). Recently, West Jordan adopted a new ordinance allowing for residential dwelling units of a minimum of 45 per acre and a maximum of 75 units per acre, which opens up the opportunity for Jordan Landing to become a more mixed-use Urban Center. Figure 3.11: Daybreak TRAX and Commercial Center 39 LAND USE Figure 3.12: WFRC 2050 Centers & Land Value 40 LAND USE Land Ownership for Unincorporated Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation owned by Rio Tinto, is the largest single landowner on the west side of Salt Lake Valley, including both public and private entities. Kennecott owns approximately 68,443 acres of the unincorporated SLCo west/south bench, which is 72% of the unincorporated land. Majority ownership of an entire valley bench and mountain is significant. Participation by Kennecott and Rio Tinto, along with other government and private entities, will be important to the planning process. The second largest land ownership group is all of the privateAcres landowners collectively (not Ownership Ownership Kennecott 68,443 Kennecott including Last Holdout (proposed Olympia Private 11,370 Private Hills) in one group,6,965 but they’re still 16% of Unnamed Unnamed County 2,503 Kennecott. Many parcels such as roadFederal rightsDepartment of State of-way do not show1,726 ownership and they’re County (Federal) included in the Unnamed category. Many of State 1,318 State Last Holdout theHoldout Federal or State925 lands, as part ofLast Camp Camp Williams 783 Salt Lake City Williams, are in the Unnamed category (per Salt Lake City 484 County records). 223 BLM Misc. Federal Forest Service Total 10 4 94,753 Ownership Kennecott Private Unnamed County Department of State (Federal) State Last Holdout Camp Williams Salt Lake City BLM Misc. Federal Forest Service Total Acres 68,443 11,370 6,965 2,503 1,726 1,318 925 783 484 223 10 4 94,753 Table 3.3: Land Ownership Acres 68443 SLCo owns approximately 2,503 acres 11370 adjacent to BLM and Federal Land in the Rose 6965 2745 Canyon and Yellow Fork areas. This land is intended 2503 to be preserved and used for outdoor recreation. The Last Holdout (proposed 1318 925Olympia Hills) is 925 acres, representing the 484 second largest private land holding. Camp Williams land is compromised of Federal, Unnamed, and State lands. Figure 3.13: Land Ownership 41 LAND USE Figure 3.14: Land Ownership Map 42 LAND USE Grouped Zoning for Oquirh View area Zoning is different from land use in that zoning represents what cities or counties desire for the land through legal ordinances if it is developed or redeveloped. Land use describes how the land is currently being used or proposed to be used. Zoning, by definition, is a planning tool for regulating the built environment or development into areas, permitting particular land uses on specific sites in order to shape the layout of towns and cities and enable various types of development. Figures 3.15 and 3.16 show combined zoning for the Oquirrh View Study Area; the diagram and map represent zoning from all the cities and county grouped into common categories. One caveat with the map and diagram is the amount of agriculture. The Oquirrh Mountains and wetlands are not used for agriculture, although they are zoned as such. Outside of agriculture, the largest zoning groups are: industrial/mining, manufacturing, and single family. Zone Acreage Percentage Agriculture 59,070 30.54% Industrial - Mining 44,032 22.76% Manufacturing 22,295 11.53% Single Family 21,455 11.09% Forestry 21,310 11.02% Commercial 6,989 3.61% PUD 5,480 2.83% Parks and Open Space 4,872 2.52% Multifamily 4,203 2.17% Mixed Use 855 0.44% Industrial 762 0.39% Airport 742 0.38% Public 582 0.30% Office 499 0.26% Mobile Home 196 0.10% Undesignated 39 0.02% Resort 34 0.02% Senior Multifamily 11 0.01% Utility 6 0.00% Table 3.4: Regional Grouped Zoning Possible Annexations Annexation usually happens when a willing landowner decides to become part of an incorporated city. Figure 3.17, Possible Future Annexations, includes maps provided by all cities identifying areas they have interest in annexing; however, it is not guaranteed that annexations will occur. The map shows that multiple cities have interest in the same property. Figure 3.15: Regional Grouped Zoning Diagram 43 LAND USE Figure 3.16: Regional Grouped Zoning Map 44 LAND USE Figure 3.17: Possible Future Annexations Map 45 TRANSPORTATION Chapter 4: Transportation Introduction Transportation infrastructure connects people to activities and destinations. Planning an efficient multi-modal transportation system is essential to accommodate growth, while providing a high quality of life and a thriving economy. Transportation planners along the Wasatch Front have an established process for assessing needed transportation infrastructure. This planning process involves multiple players, including state and regional transportation agencies, local governments, the public, and other key stakeholders. This chapter summarizes the planning processes and status of transportation infrastructure improvements within the Oquirrh View Study Area. It presents maps of existing and planned transportation projects for the study area, including roadway, transit, and active transportation infrastructure. This chapter also highlights major transportation corridors and presents several recently completed transportation studies that may inform changes to transportation infrastructure efforts in the study area. Planning Process Overview Future regional transportation improvement projects within the Oquirrh View Study Area are outlined in the 2019-2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and in local transportation planning documents, such as municipal transportation master plans and capital improvement plans. The following below illustrates how each of these transportation planning efforts addresses regional and local- 46 level transportation plans for the near-term and long-term. Each of these transportation planning efforts is described briefly below. Regional Transportation Transportation Master Plan (RTP) Plan (TMP) WFRC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) & State TIP Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)1 To prioritize future regional transportation projects, the RTP establishes goals, develops and evaluates scenarios, and then provides a preferred scenario for improvements to roadways, transit, and active transportation to meet projected travel demands for the next 31 years. The 2019-2050 RTP is coordinated and prepared by the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), in collaboration with regionwide planners, engineers, elected and appointed officials, various planning partners, state agencies and committees, stakeholder groups, special interest groups, and the general public. The 2019-2050 RTP is a fiscally constrained (limited by estimated revenue) plan which is developed in accordance with federal 1. http://wfrc.org/vision-plans/regional-transportation-plan/ TRANSPORTATION guidelines to best serve the needs of the Wasatch Front Region, including the Salt Lake County Urban area. Projects included in the RTP are prioritized for funding and implementation based on need and financial constraints. Projects prioritized for funding are phased into three categories. For the 2019 RTP, funded categories include Phase 1 (2019-2030), Phase 2 (2031-2040), and Phase 3 (2041-2050). Because there are more project costs than revenues, some future projects are placed into an “unfunded” category. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)2 The TIP is a six-year program for roadway, transit, bicycle, and active transportation projects funded by a combination of federal, state, and local funds. The TIP also considers operation and maintenance of the existing transportation system. The TIP is prepared annually by WFRC in collaboration with transportation partners Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Transit Authority (UTA), cities, and counties. Public input is solicited on projects proposed for inclusion in the TIP. The TIP is updated and approved every year. The current TIP considers projects for the years 2019 through 2024. Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) The STIP is a six-year plan of highway and transit projects for the State of Utah. The 2. TIP: http://wfrc.org/programs/transportation-improvement-program/ STIP is prepared by UDOT to document the allocation of funds for the development of all its projects, from conception through construction. UDOT-administered projects for the Oquirrh View Study Area are incorporated from the TIP into the STIP once specific project funding is identified. The STIP is updated every year and approved by the Utah Transportation Commission. The STIP also receives regular adjustments and amendments approved by the Utah Transportation Commission3. Local Transportation Plans Transportation plans define transportation policies, priorities, and investments for local communities. For jurisdictions located within the Oquirrh View Study Area, these plans include transportation master plans and/or capital improvement plans. Although these plans have historically focused on roadway projects, they increasingly address transit and active transportation infrastructure. Local transportation plans are independently developed by local governments and incorporate regional and state facilities included within their jurisdictional boundaries. As such, local transportation plans for the Oquirrh View Study Area are available through corresponding cities and townships. Magna Metro Township and Kearns Metro Township completed transportation master plans in 2019. Although regional roadways and freeways for the Oquirrh View Study Area are integrated through planning efforts coordinated by WFRC, UDOT, and UTA, local transportation plans do not always coordinate intercity connections for local streets. Salt Lake County does, however, coordinate intercity active transportation 3. UDOT STIP: https://www.udot.utah.gov/ main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:40 47 TRANSPORTATION facilities through the Active Transportation Improvement Plan (ATIP)4. UTA coordinates the intercity transit service network for the Oquirrh View Study Area. Roadways Figure 4.1 shows the existing and planned roadway for the projects in the Oquirrh View Study Area. Regional Transportation Overview To understand the context for existing and planned transportation infrastructure in the Oquirrh View Study Area, Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation, with consultant support obtained Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and planning documents from WFRC, UDOT, and UTA. Cities and townships contacted include: • Bluffdale • Herriman • Kearns Metro Township • Magna Metro Township • Riverton • Salt Lake City • South Jordan • Taylorsville • West Jordan • West Valley City Figures 4.1 through 4.3 present static maps of the transportation improvement projects identified for the Oquirrh View Study Area. For more detailed project information refer to online Oquirrh View GIS files located at: https:// slco.org/planning-transportation/oquirrh-viewtransportation/. For the most up-to-date transportation plans that may include changes, refer to online materials. 4. Salt Lake County ATIP: https://slco.org/planning-transportation/active-transportation 48 Transit Figure 4.2 shows the regional public transit network for existing and planned service. This network includes bus, core bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail (TRAX), and commuter rail service (FrontRunner). Active Transportation Figure 4.3 shows major elements for the existing and planned active transportation network within the Oquirrh View Study Area. Active transportation facilities include trails, multi-use paths, and bicycle infrastructure. TRANSPORTATION 49 TRANSPORTATION 50 TRANSPORTATION 51 TRANSPORTATION Regional Corridors Overview Following is a summary of planned transportation improvements for select regional corridors in the Oquirrh View Study Area. Additional details for these and other transportation facilities, including changes to future plans, are available through the planning tools and documents described and cited earlier in this chapter. Bangerter Highway (State Route 154) Bangerter Highway (S.R. 154) is a major north-south corridor constructed between 1988 and 1998, after two decades of planning (see Figure 4.4). Bangerter operates using a series of traffic signals at most of its intersections. To address anticipated doubling of traffic volumes and increasing delays by the year 2040, UDOT is in the process of converting signalized Bangerter intersections to freeway-style gradeseparated interchanges. UDOT has completed construction of freeway-style interchanges on Bangerter at 600 West, Redwood Road, 11400 South, 9000 South, 7800 South, 7000 South, and 5400 South. Conversion of intersections at 6200 South, 10400 South, and 12600 South will begin in 2020. Future conversion of the remaining eight intersection locations is currently unfunded5. 5. Visit http://www.udot.utah.gov/bangerter/ for additional information about Bangerter Highway Improvements. 52 TRANSPORTATION Mountain View Corridor (State Route 85) Mountain View Corridor (MVC) (S.R. 85) is a planned north/south freeway that will extend through Salt Lake County from I-80 to Lehi City in Utah County. The Salt Lake County portion of MVC is highlighted in Figure 4.5. MVC is using a phased construction approach to balance transportation needs with available funds. The current phase includes two lanes in each direction, with signalized intersections and adjacent paved multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. Construction has been completed with two travel lanes in each direction and trails completed from Porter Rockwell Blvd in the south to 4100 South (West Valley City). Construction from 4100 South to California Avenue is scheduled to start in 2019 and be completed by 2021. Future construction phases will build out the corridor by converting intersections to interchanges and adding inside lanes to achieve a fully functional freeway. Plans for MVC are based on forecasts for the year 2030 as documented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in 2008. When construction is complete, MVC is planned to provide three travel lanes in each direction south of 12600 South and four travel lanes in each direction north of 12600 South. New growth forecasts are being considered for the year 2050. An initial year 2050 forecast completed in 2018 for the Point of the Mountain Development Commission suggests additional lanes may be required for MVC in southern Salt Lake County based on travel demand modeling. 53 TRANSPORTATION 5600 West (State Route 172) 5600 West (S.R. 172) is a north/south arterial roadway extending from Old Bingham Highway to I-80 (see Figure 4.6). Reconstruction and widening of 5600 West from New Bingham Highway to 7800 South was recently completed to add one lane in each direction. Plans to add one lane in each direction to 5600 West from 2100 South to I-80 are currently under development and anticipated to be constructed in 2023. Phase 2 of the 2019 RTP includes operational improvements from 4700 South to 3500 South. 5600 West will be the location for an Express Bus service connecting downtown Salt Lake City, the International Airport, and the west side of Salt Lake County south to Old Bingham Highway. This transit project is Phase 1 on the 2019 RTP. 7200 West 7200 West currently terminates at S.R. 201 and does not connect between S.R. 201 and I-80. Extending 7200 West to the north (see Figure 4.7) would provide a north/south connection between S.R. 201, I-80, and 700 North in Salt Lake City. Salt Lake County recently completed a study of 7200 West from S.R. 201 to 700 North in Salt Lake City. The purpose of the study was to provide a thorough, objective, and technically sounds assessment of existing and future needs; an assessment of wetlands and preliminary coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); and, preliminary engineering and analysis to develop conceptual level designs and preliminary construction cost estimates6. This northern 6. Visit https://slco.org/planning-transportation/7200-w-study/ for additional information about the 7200 West Connection. 54 TRANSPORTATION extension of 7200 West is included in Phase 2 of the 2019 RTP. The 7200 West project would initially construct a new three-lane roadway from S.R. 201 to 700 North and later widen the roadway to five lanes. The project would also include a multi-use trail and grade separation at S.R. 201 and railway crossings. Phase 2 of the 2019 RTP also includes construction of a 3 lane roadway on 7200 West from 4100 South to S.R. 111. U-111 / Bacchus Highway U-111 is the westernmost north/south arterial roadway in Salt Lake County (see Figure 4.7). North of Old Bingham Highway the road is owned and maintained by UDOT. The remaining sections are owned and maintained by both Salt Lake County and municipalities and is known as Bacchus Highway. See figure 4.8 for road ownership details. U-111 will be widened from one to two lanes in each direction from 11000 South to 5400 South during Phase 1. In addition, Phase 2 of the 2019 RTP plans for a truck bypass, known as the Oquirrh Boulevard, which would provide a new five-lane roadway running along the western edge of Magna from U-111 to S.R. 201. The 2019 RTP also plans for a future shared-use path along U-111 from 4100 South to New Bingham Highway. I-80 Freeway Interstate-80 passes through Salt Lake County and is the northernmost east/west major roadway in the study area (see Figure 4.9). The 2019 RTP calls for widening I-80 in phase 3 to add one lane in each direction from I-15 to Tooele County. Phase 3 of the 2019 RTP also plans increased express bus service along I-80 between Tooele and Salt Lake City. 55 TRANSPORTATION 56 TRANSPORTATION State Route 201 Freeway S.R. 201 (see Figure 4.9) is an east-west freeway that starts as a principal arterial at I-80 at the Lake Point Junction on the west side. S.R. 201 has many commercial and residential accesses and has at-grade crossings at most major intersections. In the 2019 RTP, there are plans for widening and operational upgrades from the Tooele County line to I-15 including bike lanes on a south frontage road and interchanges at Oquirrh Boulevard, 8400 West, 7200 West, Bangerter Highway, and I-215. Transit improvements include an express bus from Tooele Valley to the 200 South Transit Hub in the 2019 RTP in Phase 3. 3500 South (State Route 171) 3500 South (S.R. 171) (see Figure 4.9) will be widened by one lane in each direction from MVC to the 7200 West in Phase 3 of the 2019 RTP. Core bus service is included in Phase 1 and Bus Rapid Transit included in the unfunded phase. 5400 South (State Route 173) 5400 South (S.R. 173) will be widened (see Figure 4.9) by one lane in each direction from 6400 West to U-111 in Phase 3 of the 2019 RTP. Phase 1 of the 2019 RTP includes enhanced/core bus service along 5400 South east of 5600 West. East of Bangerter Highway, 5400 South uses Flex (reversible) Lanes to add capacity for peak directional travel during peak travel times. 6200 South Figure 4.9 6200 South will be widened to 7 lanes from MVC to Redwood Road in Phase 3 of the 2019 57 TRANSPORTATION RTP. Core bus service is listed in the unfunded phase from 5600 West and 6200 South to Fashion Place West TRAX station. 11800 South In Phase 2 of the 2019 RTP 11800 South will be widened from 2 lanes to 4 from Bacchus Highway to 6000 West. Core bus service is planned from the anticipated Olympia Hills development to the Daybreak Parkway TRAX Station in the unfunded phase along with service from South Jordan Parkway / Daybreak TRAX Station from the Draper Front Runner Station in the Unfunded Phase as well. Herriman Parkway (12600 South) (State Route 71) New road construction is planned on Herriman Parkway (12600 South) (S.R. 71) from Bacchus Highway to 6800 West and widening is planned from MVC to Bangerter Highway in Phase 1 of the 2019 RTP. Operational improvements from MVC to Bangerter are planned for Phase 1 and Bangerter Highway to Redwood Road in Phase 2. Flex (reversible) lanes are an operational improvement planned between MVC and Bangerter Highway in Phase 1. In Phase 3, the transit option will be a Mid-Jordan Extension + Draper Town Center – Riverton Corridor that will provide core bus service between the Daybreak Parkway TRAX Station and 12600 South/Bangerter Highway. Transit is also planned in the Draper Town Center – Riverton Corridor from the PRI property to the Draper Town Center TRAX station. Corridor preservation (4.8 miles) is anticipated in Phase 1 for the Mid-Jordan extension in Phase 1 from Daybreak Parkway TRAX Station to 12600 South /Bangerter Highway. A new highway interchange at 12600 58 Figure 4.10 TRANSPORTATION South is in Phase 1 and will most likely be constructed in 2020. 13400 South 13400 South will change from 3 lanes each direction to 2 dedicated lanes each direction with 2 Flex lanes in Phase 1 of the 2019 RTP. The Flex (reversible) lanes will change direction based on peak travel and commute times. The 2019 RTP also includes a bike lane being added to 13400 South (Phase 1). Butterfield Canyon Road (Oquirrh Connection) The 2019 RTP includes Butterfield Canyon Road as a Phase 3 new road construction project. The project would connect Bacchus Highway to the Tooele County Line with a new 3-lane road. The 2019 RTP does not include new construction on the Tooele side— Middle Canyon Road—which is currently a soft surface road. The Oquirrh Connection Feasibility Study Report (September 2017) identified an alternate route between Tooele Valley and southern Salt Lake County and Utah County. The feasibility study looked at three potential roadway connections between the valleys, and narrowed the selection to one preferred feasible alignment. The termini for the alignments considered included S.R. 36 on the west end, S.R. 73 on the south and Bacchus Highway, MVC, and Bangerter Highway on the east end.7 Figure 4.11 7. http://wfrc.org/Studies/OquirrhConnectionFinalReportAppendices.pdf 59 TRANSPORTATION Oquirrh View Boulevard Oquirrh View Boulevard is a new roadway planned from Oquirrh Boulevard in Magna Metro Township to Butterfield Canyon Road for a length of 15.5 miles and will be west of U-111/Bacchus Highway. In the 2019 RTP, it is programmed for Phase 3 and will be a 3-lane local minor arterial roadway (66 feet right of way). The Oquirrh View Boulevard will make roadway connections to east/west streets along the entire length of the roadway including 4100 South, 4700 South, 6200 South, 7800 South, 8200 South, 9000 South, South Jordan Parkway (S.R. 151), 11800 South, Herriman Parkway (12600 South) S.R. 71, and Herriman Highway (13100 South). Other East/West Corridors The narrow geographic boundaries of the Oquirrh View Study Area, along with mountainous topography of the Oquirrh Mountains, tend to favor north/south corridors. However, east/west corridors are also critical to efficiently connect people, goods, and activities in the Oquirrh View Study Area and the rest of Salt Lake County. Additional project and corridor-specific information, including east/ west connection projects, are available through Oquirrh View GIS files accessible online at: https://slco.org/planning-transportation/oquirrhview-transportation/ Recent Studies Overview Part of the transportation planning process includes studies and analyses that consider changing growth patterns and exploration of new transportation solutions. Although these studies may not reflect regional planning efforts or involve collaboration between various 60 transportation stakeholders, they help inform changing context for transportation needs. As such, this section of the Transportation chapter presents a brief overview of recently completed transportation studies that are relevant to the Oquirrh View Study Area. Point of the Mountain Transportation Analysis, June 2018 Description: The Point of the Mountain Development Commission and a consultant led team developed scenarios and gathered public input that resulted in a preferred vision for the Point of the Mountain area going forward. The Regional Vision for the Point of the Mountain includes proposed projects that would impact traffic demand and travel patterns in the Oquirrh View Study Area. Recommendations: Projects include: (1) a new north-south boulevard from Bangerter Highway to Draper to 2100 North in Lehi (Utah County) that would serve as an alternative to I-15, MVC, and Redwood Road; (2) a connected street network that includes additional crossings of the Jordan River and I-15; (3) a robust public transit system; and, (4) increase through put capacity north-south and eastwest for highway and transit travel modes and possible consideration of a new connection closer to the Salt Lake/Utah County Line. Outcomes of the study were considered and incorporated into the development of the 2019 RTP. Olympia Hills Development Traffic Impact Study, May 2018 Description: Traffic study to address impacts associated with the proposed Olympia Hills development located on the northwest side of TRANSPORTATION Herriman City, north of Herriman Highway and east of S.R. 111 in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Recommendations: The study recommended implementing roadway improvements of the Herriman City Transportation Master Plan and the following additional improvements: extending 7300 West south of Herriman Highway; widening 11800 South to provide 7, 5, and/or 3-lane cross-sections; widening Herriman Parkway to provide 5 and 3-lane cross sections; signalizing and adding turning lane improvements at various intersections in the vicinity of the development; and extending Herriman Highway to connect with Butterfield Canyon Road. Salt Lake County Southwest Area: Transportation Study, November 2018 Description: Transportation study to review land use data and proposed roadway sizes for the southwest area of Salt Lake County. The study reviewed and built on the Olympia Hills study described above. Recommendations: The study analysis shows 12600 South, between MVC and Bangerter Highway, will draw high-level traffic volumes before the build-out of the southwest area (including before build-out of the Olympia Hills development). The study recommends regional-level mitigation, including transit, to address travel demands for 12600 South in the southwest area. The study also recommends expedited improvements for U-111 and construction of other roadways in the southwest area. 5600 West Express Bus Transit Service, 2018 Description: Analysis and stakeholder coordination to identify and evaluate transit service options for 5600 West. Recommendations: Analysis and coordination efforts resulted in amendments to the 2015 RTP to include 5600 West express bus or core route service extending from the Old Bingham Highway TRAX station to the Salt Lake City International Center, International Airport, and downtown Salt Lake City. This transit service would include high-frequency bus service, enhanced transit stations, and park-and-ride locations. As part of the RTP amendment process, the 5600 West bus transit service received formal support from Salt Lake County, impacted cities and townships, transportation agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Oquirrh Connection Feasibility Study Report, September 2017 Description: Planning-level feasibility study to provide a more direct roadway connection between the Tooele Valley, Salt Lake Valley and/or Utah Valley. Recommendations: The study found it feasible to construct a road through the Oquirrh Mountains. It found that the Butterfield Canyonto-Middle Canyon route provides benefits to the traveling public, as well as to the communities it links. The study defined next steps, including field investigations/surveys and stakeholder engagement. 61 TRANSPORTATION State Route 111 Corridor Study, 2012 Description: Planning study to identify future pedestrian, bicycle, access, safety, and geometric improvements for U-111 from Butterfield Canyon to S.R. 201. Recommendations: The study identified short- and long-term improvements. Short-term recommendations included providing pedestrian facilities and improving intersections, roadway geometry, and railroad crossings. Long-term recommendations included adding lanes, a bypass alternate route around Magna, and accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. Street Connectivity Study, 2017 The Utah Street Connectivity Guide8 (March 2017) was developed in partnership with WFRC, UTA, Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), and UDOT to provide a tool to determine how connected or linked a transportation network within a specified area or municipality. A grid street plan is an ideal street plan that allows for connectivity that is conducive to a robust multi-modal 8. http://wfrc.org/Studies/UtahStreetConnectivityGuide-FINALAndAppendix.pdf 62 transportation system that offers individual travel choices. The Utah Street Connectivity Guide lists multiple benefits of grid efficiency such as increased mobility (reduced congestion), improved transportation mode choices, increased emergency service efficiency, lower risk of severe crashes, and economic/ health gains associated with more walkable communities. In the Oquirrh View Study Area intersection density was used to measure street connectivity. Intersection density was calculated by dividing the number of intersections by the area in square miles. Dead-end intersections were excluded (they provide no connectivity) and large undeveloped areas were also removed. Figure 4.12 shows street connectivity across the study area and provides intersection density calculated by municipality. TRANSPORTATION Figure 4.12: Street Connectivity 63 UTILITIES Chapter 5: Utilities Introduction The developed areas of SLCo share a robust, well-engineered utility infrastructure system. Availability and access to basic utilities within the Oquirrh View Study Area are key to the continued expansion and growth of the undeveloped acreage in the County. The basic utilities discussed herein are water, wastewater, electrical power, natural gas and data/telecommunication services. All of the utility providers within the Oquirrh View Study Area are actively planning and forecasting to improve, prepare for, and increase their service areas in response to the continued and projected growth within SLCo. All of the utility providers were forthcoming with information and were interested in remaining involved and working in conjunction with the County and the other utility providers. These basic utilities are crucial to the further development of SLCo and are desired by the vast majority within the Oquirrh View Study Area. One of the hurdles the utility providers face is public opposition to expansion of utility line corridors, water line easements, and water lines, etc., especially when those expansions present a visual impact or visual nuisance within or near their neighborhoods. Water Water for the Oquirrh View Study Area, for both potable and secondary use, is sourced from regional streams, reservoirs, and local wells west of the Jordan River. Primary regional sources include the Central Utah Project (CUP); and the Provo River system, 64 including Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs which, delivers water to both Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS). The CUP-Diamond Fork System, which collects water from Upper Stillwater, Currant Creek and Strawberry reservoirs, delivers water to Utah County canals and Utah Lake. Utah Lake water is delivered to the Oquirrh View study area for irrigation use via west-side delivery canals, including the Utah and Salt Lake Canal and the Utah Lake Distribution Canal. The Utah Lake System (ULS) will deliver water to the recently completed Spanish Fork to Orem pipeline, which will connect to the Provo River aqueduct and feed the Jordan Valley WTP and the Point of the Mountain WTP. Mountain Dell and Little Dell reservoirs, along with City Creek WTP, deliver water to the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon drainages send water to Big and Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plants, which deliver water to MWDSLS. While a few retail distributors supplement their supply with local water wells and springs within their boundaries, most communities and service districts in the Oquirrh View Study Area purchase water from wholesale providers, including JVWCD. The MWDSLS delivers water to Salt Lake City and Sandy. The only part of the Oquirrh View Study Area served by MWDSLS is that part of Salt Lake City west of the International Airport and Bangerter Highway. Retail water service and distribution is provided by local water districts and municipalities. UTILITIES Water Wholesalers The two main water supply wholesalers in both SLCo and the Oquirrh View Study area are JVWCD and MWDSLS. These two large wholesalers are the source for nearly 92% of the water supply required for the current service areas within SLCo. JVWCD serves, or will serve, the entire Oquirrh View Study Area with the exception of the area west of the Salt Lake City International Airport and Bangerter Highway that will be served by MWDSLS. See Figure 5.1 for wholesale service areas. Figure 5.1: Water Wholesale Service Areas 65 UTILITIES Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) is the largest wholesale water supplier in both SLCo and the Study Area. JVWCD provides 160,978 acre feet (AF) of water per year to its retail service providers. It is anticipated that the undeveloped area(s) within the Study Area will require an additional 79,000 AF to 101,000 AF of water per year as they are developed. Future needs were calculated by JVWCD by analyzing the available acreage for development and average usage per person per acre. See Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Future Water Supply Needs JVWCD operates four Water Treatment Facilities to provide potable water to its member agencies. The largest facility is the Jordan Valley WTP, located in Bluffdale has a capacity of 180 million gallons per day (MGD). JVWCD also operates the Southeast Regional WTP in Sandy has a capacity of 20 MGD. The Southwest Regional WTP in West Jordan has a capacity of 7 MGD and the Bingham Canyon WTP located in Copperton with a capacity of 3.5 MGD. See Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4. 66 JVWCD’s major potable water supply sources are: • The Provo River System, which primarily consists of Jordanelle Reservoir and Deer Creek Reservoir. • Over 40 wells in the JVWCD service area (approximately 20% of water supply). • The Diamond Fork System primarily consists of Strawberry, Currant Creek, and Upper Stillwater resevoirs on the Rock Creek Drainage. These waters will soon be delivered to JVWCD through the ULS pipeline. See Figure 5.3. Water from the Provo River system delivers raw untreated water to JVWCD by two large aqueducts, the Jordan Aqueduct and the Provo River Aqueduct (Murdock Canal Enclosure), that run from the mouth of Provo Canyon to the Jordan Valley WTP. The Provo River Aqueduct’s primary terminus is the new Point of the Mountain WTP, which delivers potable water to both JVWCD and MWDSLS. The Provo River Aqueduct can also deliver water to the Jordan Valley WTP. The Salt Lake Aqueduct delivers water from Deer Creek Reservoir to JVWCD’s Southeast WTP in Draper and to MWDSLS’s Little Cottonwood WTP. JVWCD has planned additional water sources: the completion of the CUP - ULS (2025), the Jordan River/Utah Lake M&I Treatment Plant (2030), the Wastewater Recycling Plant (2033), and the Bear River Pipeline Project (2045). See Figure 5.4. JVWCD’s will need to support 90% of the expected expansion and growth throughout Oquirrh View Study Area. With the additional water resource projects UTILITIES added to JVWCD’s portfolio and aggressive water conservation efforts, JVWCD will have a potable water supply that is capable of serving the remaining undeveloped growth areas throughout the Oquirrh View Study Area beyond the year 2060. It should be noted that water conservation, both indoor and outdoor, is a key component in JVWCD’s planning to meet these projections. To support this conservation effort, JVWCD has implemented a conservation program that provides both education and incentives for water users to change to lower water use landscaping. Figure 5.3: Map of Pipeline and Aqueduct Network 67 UTILITIES Demand-side Risks and Vulnerabilities Per Capita Water Use Risks and Vulnerabilities (con’t.) Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Drought Year Water Supply Plan (With 25% Conservation by 2025) 250 Bear River Waste Water Recycling Phase 2 ULS Central Water Project (CWP) 200 Waste Water Recycling Phase 1 Southwest Jordan Valley Groundwater Project Existing JVWCD Water Supplies, Total demand on JVWCD system assuming 25% conservation by 2025* Thousand Acre-Feet JVWCD uses a range of per capita use in its water supply planning Jordan River / Utah Lake M & I Treatment Total Demand on JVWCD system assuming 2000 usage rates* 150 Historical Demand 100 50 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year * Demand projections based on GOPB 2012 Baseline Report population projections Figure 5.4: Per Capita Water Use Risks and Vulnerabilities 68 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 UTILITIES Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS) The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS) provides 81,000 AF of water per year to its retail service providers in Sandy and Salt Lake City. MWDSLS’s major supply sources are from both Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood canyons. Water from Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs is delivered to the Little Cottonwood WTP through the Salt Lake Aqueduct, a 42-mile pipeline from Deer Creek Reservoir. See Figure 5.5. MWDSLS also delivers water to its network of distribution pipelines through the Point of the Mountain Aqueduct, a 12-mile pipeline that connects the Point of the Mountain WTP and the Little Cottonwood WTP. See Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6. MWDSLS treats the potable water supply at two facilities, the Point of the Mountain WTP in Draper and the Little Cottonwood WTP in Sandy. MWDSLS has water supplies that exceed their usage projections for both current usage/ customers and growth within the MWDSLS distribution area. It should be noted that growth and expansion within the MWDSLS is expected within the next 5-7 years, but includes a very small percentage of the undeveloped acreage within the Oquirrh View Study Area. Figure 5.5: Salt Lake Aqueduct in Utah County 69 UTILITIES Figure 5.6: Salt Lake Aqueduct through Salt Lake County Water Conclusion Adequate infrastructure and supply of both potable and secondary water sources exist or are planned to accommodate population growth. Water is not likely to be a limiting factor to population growth within the Oquirrh View Study Area. 70 Municipal Retail Water Distribution Providers Retail distribution of water within the Oquirrh View Study Area is provided by local distribution service districts/companies located and operated within the Oquirrh View Study Area. See Figure 5.7. UTILITIES Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) serves the Salt Lake City, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay and Millcreek areas. SLCDPU sources their potable water from the WTPs, wells, and springs that they operate. SLCDPU also provides secondary water with canal delivery systems. The source for secondary irrigation water is from Utah Lake. Additional potable water for any expansion or growth is available from MWDSLS. Bluffdale The Bluffdale Service District serves the Bluffdale area. Bluffdale’s primary source for potable water is JVWCD. Bluffdale also operates a pressurized irrigation water system throughout the majority of their service district that is sourced from Utah Lake. Additional potable water for growth and expansion is available from JVWCD. Granger-Hunter Improvement District (GHID) The Granger-Hunter Improvement District (GHID) primarily serves the West Valley City area. GHID sources potable water from JVWCD. GHID also operates a pressurized irrigation water system throughout the majority of its service district, sourced from Utah Lake. Additional potable water to supply growth and expansion within the area is available from JVWCD. Herriman Herriman Service District primarily serves customers within the boundaries of Herriman. Herriman Service District sources its potable water from JVWCD, as well as District-owned wells and springs. Herriman also operates a pressurized irrigation water system that serves the majority of its service area. The source for secondary irrigation water is Utah Lake. Additional potable water for population growth and expansion will be sourced from JVWCD, additional secondary irrigation supplies possibly coming from the re-use of wastewater and the Utah Lake canals. Hi-Country Estates Hi-Country Estates Service District operates solely within the Hi-Country Estates development, west of Herriman. Hi-Country sources its potable water from JVWCD and Hi-Country owned wells and springs within the service district. Hi-Country also operates a pressurized irrigation water system that serves all of their district and is sourced by water from Utah Lake. Any additional potable water supply will be sourced from JVWCD. 71 UTILITIES Figure 5.7: Retail Water Providers 72 UTILITIES Kearns Improvement District (KID) The KID encompasses and serves Kearns and a small portion of Taylorsville. The primary source for potable water supply within the KID is from JVWCD. The KID operates a pressurized irrigation water system that serves approximately 55% of the service district with Utah Lake water. Additional potable water supply, if needed for population expansion or growth, will be sourced from JVWCD. Magna Water District Magna Water District serves customers within Magna and small portions of West Valley City and Salt Lake City. The district growth areas will be primarily to the west on lands currently owned by Rio Tinto. Additional potable water supply will be sourced from both District-owned wells and JVWCD. Riverton The Riverton water system primarily serves areas in Riverton City. The primary sources for Riverton's potable water are JVWCD and city-owned wells. Riverton operates a PI system serving the majority of the city with water from Utah Lake. Additional potable water supply, if needed for population expansion or growth, will be sourced from JVWCD. South Jordan Service District South Jordan serves customers within the South Jordan city boundaries. Magna Water District is the only service district that supplies the majority of its potable water from district-owned wells. Three of the wells are contaminated, but the water is treated with an electrodialysis recovery (EDR) WTP. Magna Water District supplements its potable supply with JVWCD water. The only source for potable water within South Jordan city boundaries is from JVWCD. The Magna Water District operates a pressurized irrigation water system that serves approximately 60% of its district with water sourced from Utah Lake through the Utah and Salt Lake Canal systems. The district is working to expand its pressurized irrigation system and requires all new developments install pressurized irrigation (PI) lines. Additional potable water supply, if needed for expansion or growth, will come from JVWCD. Source water for the PI system will be from either Utah Lake or reclaimed wastewater. South Jordan operates two PI water systems. Both are sourced with Utah Lake water; the Daybreak system is treated, filtered and cleaned. Taylorsville-Bennion Improvement District (TBID) The TBID primarily serves retail customers in Taylorsville, along with a few small areas of Kearns, West Valley City, and West Jordan. The primary source of supply for potable water 73 UTILITIES comes from JVWCD and 10 city-owned wells. The TBID operates a PI system that serves approximately 45% of its service area with water from Utah Lake. Additional potable water supply, if needed for expansion or growth, will come from JVWCD. West Jordan Water System The West Jordan Water System serves retail customers within the West Jordan city boundaries. The primary supply sources for potable water are JVWCD and three district-owned wells. West Jordan operates a PI water system that serves approximately 63% of the District. The irrigation system is sourced from Utah Lake Water. Additional potable water supply, if required, will be sourced from JVWCD. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) The SLCDPU service areas are for the most part, outside the Oquirrh View Study Area. It does serve the area of Salt Lake City west of the airport and Bangerter, which is in the study area and will include the new state prison and inland port. The SLCDPU operates as a municipal water distributor, but will become a wholesale water provider with the construction of the new prison. 74 The SLCDPU serves the Salt Lake City, Millcreek, Holladay and Cottonwood Heights areas. SLCDPU has multiple source locations, including WTP’s in City Creek Canyon, Parleys Canyon below Mountain Dell, and Little Dell reservoirs, Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, as well as Point of the Mountain WTP. Additional potable water will be sourced from the Point of the Mountain and the Salt Lake Aqueduct. Rio Tinto The majority of the undeveloped acreage in the Oquirrh View Study Area is privately held by Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto has developed a strategic plan to develop land holdings as mining operations shift. The Daybreak development that was annexed into South Jordan is an example. While Rio Tinto has not discussed where or when any future land development may occur in detail, internal forecasting and long-range planning for their holdings indicates that, utilizing current population growth and density criteria, the company holds enough water rights to develop its land holdings. Rio Tinto holds significant water rights to Utah Lake water, in addition to significant water sources on company properties. Quantities and quality of those sources within Rio Tinto boundaries are both unquantified and unverifiable as part of this study. UTILITIES Municipal Retail Water Distribution Conclusion existing water treatment facilities. See Figure 5.8. Adequate infrastructure and distribution exists to accommodate anticipated population growth. Culinary and PI water distribution is not likely to be a limiting factor to population growth within the Oquirrh View Study Area. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Future water, especially water for the undeveloped areas within the County, may be more expensive, due to increased costs of conveyance, water treatment, and pumping to higher elevations. Water conservation must play a key role in planning and extending existing and future water supplies. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Within the Oquirrh View Study Area, wastewater treatment is performed by Central Valley Water Reclamation, Magna Water District, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, South Valley Sewer District, and South Valley Water Reclamation. Upon completion of the new Utah State Prison, Salt Lake City Public Utilities will serve the prison region within the study area. Wastewater treatment facilities within the study area have planned expansion for growth or all available lands not owned by Rio Tinto. Expansion for service into the Rio Tinto-owned property may need to include expansion of the main gathering trunk lines that were not sized to accommodate any of the population expansion into the property owned by Rio Tinto. Additionally, the north end of the Oquirrh View Study Area provides topographic challenges for a gravity-flow system to reach Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU) operates a treatment plant in the Rose Park area. SLCPU serves the Salt Lake City area and will serve the expanded airport, the new prison site and the inland port are being developed within the Oquirrh View Study Area. SLCPU has budgeted for and is in the design stages to upgrade the Rose Park area plant to handle additional flows in 2024. Magna Water District The Magna Water District provides wastewater treatment and gathering lines for all of Magna and a small area of West Valley City. Wastewater is treated at the District's plant in Magna. The treated effluent flows into the C7 ditch, Lee Creek, and ultimately, into the Great Salt Lake. The Magna Water District treatment plant has additional capacity and room for expansion. Central Valley Water Reclamation Central Valley Water Reclamation (CVWR), operates the water treatment plant located near 3300 S. 800 W. within the Oquirrh View Study Area. CVWR provides water treatment for most of West Valley City, Kearns, and Taylorsville, and a small area of West Jordan. CVWR maintains only main outfall lines that collect sewage flows from its member entities. CVWR does not own or operate sewage 75 UTILITIES Figure 5.8: Wastewater Treatment Service Areas 76 UTILITIES gathering lines. The treated effluent is released into the Jordan River, which flows to the Great Salt Lake. operate sewage gathering lines. The treated effluent is released into the Jordan River, which flows to the Great Salt Lake. The CVWR plant has anticipated growth along the West Valley City boundary and has capacity to accept additional flows. CVWR is not forecasting additional plant expansion, due to site limitations. The SVWRF plant is currently undergoing renovation to add capacity for additional flows within the service boundary. The SVWRF plant has space available to add additional equipment/capacity. South Valley Water Reclamation Facility South Valley Sewer District South Valley Sewer District (SVSD) provides wastewater treatment and over 900 miles of gathering lines throughout Bluffdale, Copperton, Draper, Herriman, Riverton, South Jordan, and Sandy. See Figure 5.9. South Valley Water Reclamation Facility (SVWRF) provides wastewater treatment for West Jordan only. SVWRF maintains only main outfall lines that collect sewage flows from lines operated by West Valley City. SVWRF does not own or SVSD operates two wastewater treatment plants within the Oquirrh View Study Area South Valley and Jordan Basin. For operating South Valley Sewer District Service Areas South Jordan Sandy Riverton Draper Herriman Bluffdale Draper 4 0 Service Area 3 Service Area 1 6,000 12,000 Bluffdale 24,000 36,000 Feet Figure 5.9: South Valley Sewer District Service Areas 77 UTILITIES efficiencies, the Jordan Basin plant is operated at capacity, which is 15 MGD. The South Valley plant is operating at 70% of capacity, or about 5.5 MGD. The effluent from both of these wastewater treatment plants is released into the Jordan River. SVSD has additional capacity at the South Valley plant for short-term growth in its service region. SVSD has plans to add capacity at the Jordan Basin plant to facilitate population growth, west to U-111, but not beyond. Wastewater Conclusion Adequate infrastructure and facilities for wastewater exist or are planned for the population growth up to the borders of Rio Tinto-owned lands. Westward expansion into undeveloped areas of Rio Tinto will require relatively significant upgrades to the current/ planned infrastructure and facilities. Depending on the rate of growth, wastewater service for new development may require significant public and developer investment. Electrical Power Electrical power is supplied to the Oquirrh View Study Area by Rocky Mountain Power, (RMP). RMP owns and operates all of the transmission lines, substations, and distribution lines within the Study Area. See Figure 5.10. RMP has installed several main transmission lines as part of its long-range plan to supply power to the undeveloped areas of the study area. RMP’s long-range plans include additional substations, and low voltage distribution lines as power is needed throughout the Study Area. In general, RMP will bring power to newly developed areas 78 in conjunction with developers’ needs. RMP has analyzed the upcoming needs and has committed to having power available to meet the needs of SLCo as the population expands into the undeveloped areas of the County. Rocky Mountain Power produces power from numerous of sources, with additional generation to be brought online as needed. The primary generation sources in Rocky Mountain Power's portfolio includes, gas, coal, wind, solar, and hydro. In addition to generation that is owned and operated by RMP, the utility has access to the Western Grid suppliers and can purchase supply as, or if, needed. Electrical Power Conclusion Adequate infrastructure and supply of electrical power exists or is planned to allow for population growth. Electrical power is not likely to be a limiting factor to population growth within the Oquirrh View Study Area. UTILITIES Figure 5.10: Electrical Supply and Distribution 79 UTILITIES Natural Gas Data/Telecommunication Services Natural gas is supplied to the Oquirrh View Study Area exclusively by Dominion Energy. Dominion Energy owns and operates all of the natural gas transmission lines, distribution lines and gas meters within the Study Area. See Figure 5.11. Data and telecommunication services are provided by several large private companies within the Oquirrh View Study Area. Providers of these services are consistently upgrading and developing new systems and systems of delivery. See Figure 5.12. Dominion Energy has installed main transmission lines as part of long-range planning to serve undeveloped areas of the Oquirrh View Study Area. The main transmission lines have been sized to accommodate projected population growth. Dominion Energy will install smaller transmission and distribution lines in conjunction with the needs of development. Major suppliers include AT&T, Beehive Broadband, Comcast, Centracom, Century Link, First Digital, Google Fiber, and Verizon. These companies are privately held and were not willing to share expansion plans. Dominion Energy owns and operates wells that supply the majority of the natural gas to the study area and continues to develop new fields, wells, and sources. Dominion Energy also operates two large natural gas storage fields in Wyoming and Utah. Natural gas is transported to the SLCo area through main transmission lines that are owned and operated by Dominion Energy. Dominion Energy also has interconnection points and purchases supply from producers on the Kern River gas pipeline and Ruby pipeline to supplement supplies/demand as needed. Natural Gas Conclusion Adequate infrastructure and supply of natural gas exist or are planned to accommodate population growth. Natural gas is not likely to be a limiting factor to population growth within the Oquirrh View Study Area. 80 Data/Telecommunication Services Conclusion Adequate infrastructure and access to data/ telecommunication services exist or are planned for the population growth. Data/ telecommunication services are not likely to be a limiting factor to population growth within the Oquirrh View Study Area. UTILITIES For planning purposes only. All locations approximate. Call 811 before digging. 03919 3/5/2019 Dominion Energy Mapping 801-324-3970 µ DAVIS CO SALT LAKE CO TOOELE CO Legend Main (HP) Equip State Active DEUWI High Pressure Feeder Lines In Salt Lake County West Of Bangerter Highway 0 0.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 Miles Proposed Figure 5.11: Natural Gas Distribution 81 UTILITIES Figure 5.12: Broadband Access 82 HOUSING Chapter 6: Housing Supply & Demand Housing supply and demand are presented in this section. This includes housing units (supply), households (demand), and tenure1 (owner- and renter-occupied housing units). 1. Between 2000 and 2017, SLCo as a whole added 86,764 new housing units and formed 80,849 new households. 2. Owner-occupied housing increased by 45,732 units during the same period, and renter-occupied units increased by 35,117 units. 3. In 2000, approximately 69 percent of housing units were owner-occupied; in 2017 owner share decreased to 66 percent. 4. The 2025 demand is projected to increase for both SLCo and the Oquirrh View Study Area. Projections at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)2 level show 51,545 new households in the county with 41 percent of the growth concentrated in the Oquirrh View Study Area and 59 percent in the rest of the county. Growth in SLCo has moved south each decade, as shown in Figure 6.1. In the last two decades, the majority of the growth has occurred in the southwest corner of SLCo. 1. Tenure is the general term referring to ownership or renting of the housing unit. 2. Traffic Analysis Zone is the unit of geography most commonly used in convential transportation planning models. The size of a zone varies, but for a typical metropolitan planning software, a zone of under 3,000 people is common. 83 HOUSING Figure 6.1: Decade Built: Residential Structures, Salt Lake County 84 HOUSING Among Oquirrh View cities, West Jordan had the largest numeric increase in housing units in the county, adding 14,211 units since 2000. During the 2000 to 2017 period, Herriman led all cities with a 20.1 percent AARC in housing units. Bluffdale was the second-fastest growing city. in terms of housing units, with an AARC of 6.9 percent, followed by South Jordan at 6.1 percent. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2 show historical housing unit changes. Housing Supply In 2017, SLCo had 397,750 housing units. Since 2000, the number of housing units has increased by 86,764 units for an average annual rate of change (AARC) of 1.5 percent. In 2017, the Oquirrh View Study Area had 101,136 housing units, or 25 percent of all units in the county, and an AARC of 3.3 percent since 2000. Housing units increased by 42,577 in the study area since 2000, accounting for half of all new housing units built in SLCo. 2000 2010 2017 Numeric Change ‘00-’17 Salt Lake County 310,986 364,031 397,750 86,764 1.5% 58,559 87,262 101,136 42,577 3.3% Rest of Salt Lake County 252,427 276,769 296,614 44,187 1.0% Housing Units Area Oquirrh View Study Area AARC ‘00 -’17 Table 6.1: Historical Housing Unit Change, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Housing Unit Growth Ranked by Numeric Change 2000 '00-'17 - 2017 0 20,000 # of Housing Units 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 West Jordan South Jordan Herriman Salt Lake City West Valley City Riverton Bluffdale Taylorsville Magna Kearns # of Units in 2000 New Units 2000 - 2010 New Units 2010 - 2017 Figure 6.2: Historical Housing Unit Growth, Cities in Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 85 HOUSING West Jordan had the largest numeric increase in households in the county, adding 13,354 households since 2000. Over the 2000 to 2017 period, Herriman led all cities with a 20.0 percent AARC in household growth. Bluffdale was the second-fastest growing city in terms of housing units, with an AARC of 6.9 percent, followed by South Jordan at 6.1 percent. Table 6.2 and Figure 6.3 show historical household growth. Housing Demand In 2017, SLCo had 375,988 households. Since 2000, the number of households has increased by 80,849 for an AARC of 1.4 percent. In 2017, the Oquirrh View Study Area had 97,054 households, or 26 percent of all households in the county, and an AARC of 3.2 percent since 2000. Since 2000, 40,208 households were added in the study area, accounting for half of all new households in SLCo. Among cities, Households Area 2000 2010 2017 Numeric Change ‘00 -’17 AARC ‘00 -’17 Salt Lake County 295,139 342,622 375,988 80,849 1.4% Oquirrh View Study Area 56,846 83,326 97,054 40,208 3.2% Rest of Salt Lake County 238,293 259,296 278,934 40,641 0.9% Table 6.2: Historical Household Change, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Household Growth Ranked by Numeric Change '00-'17 0 20,000 Households 40,000 60,000 2000 - 2017 80,000 100,000 West Jordan South Jordan Herriman Salt Lake City West Valley City Riverton Bluffdale Taylorsville Magna Kearns HH's in 2000 New HH's 2000 - 2010 New HH's 2010 - 2017 Figure 6.3: Historical Household Growth, Cities in Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 86 HOUSING Figure 6.4: Change in Total Households by Census Tract (Top 2000 to 2010, Bottom 2010 to 2017) Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 87 HOUSING Current Household Tenure Share of owner and renter households for 2017 is presented in Figures 6.5 and 6.6 below. Of the 375,988 households in SLCo, 66.3 percent are owner-occupied and 33.7 percent are renters. In the rest of SLCo (County minus Oquirrh View), 60.9 percent of the 278,934 households are owner-occupied and 39.1 percent are renters. In the Oquirrh View Study Area, 79,418 households that are owneroccupied, or 81.8 percent of all households. Renter households account for 18.2 percent, well below the county average. In the study area, the homeownership rate is 15.5 percent higher than the county overall and 21 percent higher than the rest of SLCo. Number of Households # of Households 300,000 249,328 250,000 79,418 200,000 126,661 17,633 150,000 100,000 169,910 50,000 0 109,028 Owner-Occupied Rest of Salt Lake County Renter- Occupied Oquirrh View Study Area Figure 6.5: Number of Households by Tenure, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area, 2017 Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Share by by Tenure Share Tenure 100% 80% 33.7% 39.1% 18.2% 60% 40% 20% 66.3% 0% Salt Lake County 60.9% 81.8% View LakeLake County RestSalt of Salt County OquirrhOquirrh View Study Area (Except Oquirrh View) Owner Study Area Renter Figure 6.6: Share of Total Households by Tenure, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area, 2017 Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 88 HOUSING accounting for 65 percent of all new owner households in SLCo. South Jordan had the largest numeric increase in owner households in the county, adding 10,512 units since 2000. Over the 2000 to 2017 period, Herriman led all cities with a 19.7 percent AARC in owner growth. Bluffdale was the second-fastest growing city in terms of owner households, with an AARC of 6.3 percent, followed by Millcreek at 5.8 percent (Table 6.3 and Figure 6.7). Owner Households In 2017, SLCo had 249,328 owner-occupied households. Since 2000, the number of owner households has increased by 45,732, an AARC of 1.2 percent. In 2017, the Oquirrh View Study Area had 79,418 owner-occupied households, or 32 percent of all owner households in the county, and an AARC of 2.8 percent since 2000. Since that year, 29,653 owner households were added in the study area, Owner-Occupied Area Salt Lake County Oquirrh View Study Area Rest of Salt Lake County 2010 2017 Numeric Change ‘00 -’17 203,596 230,419 249,328 45,732 1.2% 67,977 79,418 29,653 2.8% 153,831 162,442 169,910 16,079 0.6% 2000 49,765 AARC ‘00 -’17 Table 6.3: Historical Owner-Occupied Household Change, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 40,000 35,000 36,592 Salt Lake City, 36,372 30,000 West Valley City Owner Households 25,000 West Jordan 20,000 South Jordan 15,000 Taylorsville Riverton Herriman Kearns Magna 10,000 5,000 Bluffdale 0 2000 2010 2017 Figure 6.7: Historical Owner Household Growth, Cities in Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 89 HOUSING the 2000 to 2017 period, Herriman led all cities with a 25.4 percent AARC in renter growth. Bluffdale was the second-fastest growing city in terms of renter households, with an AARC of 11.7 percent, followed by South Jordan at 8.9 percent. While the AARC for renter households is higher in the study area than the county, proportional renter household growth in the study area has lagged. Between 2000 and 2010, for every 100 renter households formed in the study area, 233 were formed in the rest of SLCo. Between 2010 and 2017, for every 100 renter households formed in the study area, 533 were formed in the remainder of SLCo (Table 6.4 & Figure 6.8). Renter Households In 2017, SLCo as a whole had 126,661 renteroccupied housing units. Since 2000, the number of renter households has increased by 35,117, an AARC of 1.9 percent. In 2017, the Oquirrh View Study Area had 17,633 renter households, or 14 percent of all renteroccupied units in the county, and an AARC of 5.5 percent since 2000. Since that year, 10,552 renter-occupied units were added in the study area, accounting for 30 percent of all new units in SLCo. Salt Lake City had the largest numeric increase in renter households in the county, adding 8,291 units since 2000. Over Renter-Occupied Area Salt Lake County Oquirrh View Study Area Numeric Change ‘00-’17 AARC ‘00-’17 2010 2017 91,544 112,203 126,661 35,117 1.9% 17,633 10,552 5.5% 2000 7,081 15,349 Rest of Salt Lake County 84,462 96,854 109,028 24,566 1.5% Table 6.4: Historical Renter-Occupied Household Change, Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View Study Area Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 14,000 West Valley City, 12,066 Renter Households 12,000 10,000 8,000 West Jordan 8,835 6,000 Taylorsville South Jordan 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2010 Magna Kearns Riverton Herriman Bluffdale 2017 Figure 6.8: Historical Renter Household Growth, Cities in Oquirrh View Study Area SLC is not include due to limited housing stock in the Study Area. Source: US Census, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. 90 HOUSING Future Housing Demand Projections show 453,030 households in SLCo by 2025, 51,545 more than 2018. Between 2018 and 2025, the anticipated AARC for the county is 1.7 percent. An additional 21,202 new households are projected to be added to the Oquirrh View Study Area by 2025, an AARC of 3.0 percent. This will bring the area's household count to 113,427, a quarter of all households in the county. Approximately 41 percent of the new households are expected to locate in the study area. Salt Lake City is projected to have the largest numeric increase in households, adding 11,709 households by 2025, followed by South Jordan, which is projected to add 10,367 households for the same time period. Projections between 2018 and 2025 show South Jordan leading all cities with a 5.3 percent AARC in household growth. Herriman is projected to have the secondfastest growth rate in terms of households, with an AARC of 4.4 percent, followed by Riverton at 4.1 percent. Figure 6.9 on the next page presents future demand throughout SLCo. Households Area Salt Lake County Oquirrh View Study Area Rest of Salt Lake County 2025 New Increase by 2025 AARC ‘18-’25 401,485 417,721 453,030 51,545 1.7% 113,427 21,202 3.0% 309,260 319,310 339,603 30,343 1.3% 96,442 11,709 1.9% 2018 92,225 2020 98,411 Cities Ranked by Numeric Growth 2018-2025 Salt Lake City 84,733 88,765 South Jordan 23,762 26,826 34,129 10,367 5.3% Riverton 11,831 13,412 15,720 3,889 4.1% Herriman 10,836 11,926 14,680 3,844 4.4% West Valley City 43,486 44,604 47,215 3,729 1.2% West Jordan 33,478 34,400 36,432 2,954 1.2% Taylorsville 22,426 22,595 22,962 536 0.3% Bluffdale 3,397 3,557 3,799 402 1.6% Table 6.5: Future Housing Demand, Salt Lake County and Other Areas Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Draft TAZ data, 2018. 91 HOUSING Salt Lake City South Salt Lake Magna Millcreek West Valley City Taylorsville Kearns Murray Cottonwood Heights West Jordan South Jordan Copperton Sandy Riverton Draper Bluffdale Herriman Figure 6.9: Projected New Housing Demand by City Boundaries, 2018 to 2025 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Draft TAZ data, 2018 92 HOUSING Data for median selling prices are presented for three time frames; price acceleration and peak (2000 to 2007), peak to bottom during the recession (2007 to 2010), and recovery to today (2010 to 2017). Change in Housing Prices Residential sales data for 2018 is shown in Figure 6.10 below for SLCo. The Oqurrih View Study Area shows a mix of housing prices, with affordable sales distributed throughout the north and south. A similar format is followed for rent data, with the exception being the peak to bottom period presents data from 2008 to 2010, because rents during this period peaked in 2008. Housing prices are presented for the median selling price of a single family home (Figure 6.11), townhome median selling price, (Figure 6.12), and average rents by number of bedrooms (Figure 6.13). Salt Lake City South Salt Lake Magna Millcreek West Valley City Taylorsville Kearns Murray Cottonwood Heights West Jordan South Jordan Copperton Sandy Riverton Draper Bluffdale Herriman Figure 6.10: Median Selling Price 2018 Through Second Quarter (Q2) (Salt Lake County, Census Tract) Source: UtahRealEstate.com. 93 HOUSING Median Selling Price, Single Family The median selling price of a single family home increased at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2017 in inflation-adjusted dollars. From 2000 to 2007, the price accelerated from $213,519 to $295,550, increasing 38 percent. As the recession hit the housing market, between 2007 and 2010, the median selling price for a single family home decreased from $295,550 to $247,305, falling approximately 16 percent. With the recovery beginning in 2010, prices increased approximately 31 percent by 2017, rising from $247,305 to $325,000. All cities in SLCo have experienced an increase in single family sales price since the recovery from the last recession. Over the 2000 to 2017 period, Herriman led all cities with a 2.8 percent AARC in housing price growth, adjusted for inflation. Riverton City had the second highest AARC in the Oquirrh View Study Area with prices increasing 2.5 percent, followed by West Jordan at 2.1 percent. Figure 6.11 shows the historic median selling price of single family homes. $650,000 $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 Bluffdale, $432,040 South Jordan, $419,650 $400,000 Herriman, $373,000 $350,000 Riverton, $360,000 SL Co, $325,000 $300,000 West Jordan, $300,000 Taylorsville, $257,000 $250,000 WVC, $245,000 Magna, $218,750 $200,000 Kearns, $218,100 $150,000 2000 2007 2010 Figure 6.11: Historic Median Selling Price, Single Family ($2017) SLC is not included due to limited housing stock in the Study Area. Source: UtahRealEstate.com. 94 2017 HOUSING Median Selling Price, Townhome The median selling price of a townhome increased at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2017 in inflationadjusted dollars. From 2000 to 2007, the price accelerated from $162,986 to $226,687, increasing 39.1 percent. As the recession hit the housing market, between 2007 and 2010, the median selling price for a townhome decreased from $226,687 to $191,100, falling 15.7 percent. With the recovery beginning in 2010, prices increased 30.2 percent by 2017, rising from $191,100 to $248,900. While sales data for the year 2000 is spotty for townhomes, the trend is parallel to single family sales. Every city has experienced an increase in median selling price of townhomes with the exception of Magna and Kearns. The median selling price has remained relatively unchanged between 2000 and 2017 in Magna. The data for Kearns is incomplete; this is likely due to not enough townhome sales to calculate an accurate change. Over the 2000 to 2017 period, South Jordan led all cities with a 2.2 percent AARC in townhome median selling price growth. West Jordan had the second-highest AARC with prices increasing 1.7 percent, followed by West Valley City at 1.6 percent. Since the bottom of the recession in 2010, Herriman led all cities with a 6.4 percent AARC through 2017, in townhome sales growth. Bluffdale had the second-highest AARC, with prices increasing 5.2 percent, followed by Riverton at 4.1 percent (Figure 6.12). $300,000 $280,000 Bluffdale, $264,003 $260,000 Riverton, $262,800 South Jordan, $255,000 Herriman, $255,000 $240,000 SL Co, $248,900 $220,000 West Jordan, $208,000 $200,000 WVC, $204,250 Taylorsville, $186,500 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 Magna, $123,000 Kearns, $116,000 $120,000 $100,000 2000 2007 2010 2017 Figure 6.12: Historical Median Selling Price, Townhome ($2017) Source: UtahRealEstate.com. 95 HOUSING rents increased from $638 to $1,115 for the same time period. Rents for apartment units with three bedrooms increased from $836 to $1,328 per month between 2000 and 2017 for SLCo. For the Oquirrh View Study Area, rent increased from $782 to $1,281 per month for the same time period. Rents for four-bedroom apartment units increased from $927 to $1,426 per month between 2000 and 2017 for SLCo and increased from $1,103 to $1,634 during the same time period for the Oquirrh View Study Area. Apartment rents tend to be higher in the study area, due to higher demand, lower inventory, and most likely, because a significant portion of the apartments are newer and able to demand higher monthly rents. Change in Apartment Rents Average monthly rents for apartments, by number of bedrooms per unit are shown in Figure 6.13 below. The asking rent for a onebedroom apartment is higher in the Oquirrh View Study Area than SLCo overall. However, in 2000, the asking rent in SLCo was $562 per month and $556 in the study area. By 2017, the study area rent increased to $1,040 per month, while the rent for SLCo rose to $949 per month for a one-bedroom unit. For a two-bedroom unit, monthly rents increased from $683 to $1,129 between 2000 and 2017 for SLCo. For the Oquirrh View Study Area, MONTHLY RENT BEDROOM Monthly Rent by BY Number of SIZE Bedrooms 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom $1,700 $1,634 $1,426 $1,328 $1,300 $1,281 $1,129 $1,100 $836 $927 $782 $683 $562 Oquirrh View Study Area Salt Lake County Figure 6.13: Historical Average Monthly Rent of Apartments by Number of Bedrooms Source: CoStar Group, Inc. 96 2017 2010 2008 2000 2017 2010 2008 2000 2017 2010 2008 2017 2010 2000 $638 $556 2000 $500 $1,103 $949 $900 $700 $1,115 $1,040 2008 Average Monthly Rent $1,500 HOUSING Single Family Unit Size Change The finished median size of new detached single family units built in SLCo has increased by 7.3 percent from 2000 to 2017, peaking just before the Great Recession in 2007. Since 2007, the median size of new detached single family units has decreased, but still remains higher than 2000. This trend is seen countywide, including inside the study area. Consistently, the median size of newly built detached single family homes located in the Oquirrh View Study Area is smaller than that of homes built in SLCo, excluding the study area. The median detached single family home built in the Oquirrh View Study Area since 2000 is about three-quarters the size of newly built detached single family homes in the rest of SLCo. The median size for detached single family homes built in selected years since 2000 is shown in Table 6.6. Year Built (Single-Family) Area 2000 2005 2007 2010 2015 2017 Salt Lake County 2,222 2,574 2,854 2,545 2,368 2,385 Oquirrh View Study Area 2,000 2,276 2,388 2,228 2,287 2,188 Rest of Salt Lake County 2,755 3,304 3,311 2,978 2,480 2,646 Bluffdale 3,611 4,433 3,286 2,471 2,110 2,386 Copperton 1,584 NA NA NA NA NA Herriman 2,191 2,725 3,177 2,763 2,368 2,372 Kearns 1,658 1,798 1,890 1,744 1,440 NA Magna 1,660 1,584 1,845 1,301 1,541 1,469 Riverton 2,793 2,411 2,655 2,552 2,470 2,379 Salt Lake City 1,718 1,818 1,831 2,783 2,912 2,738 South Jordan 2,730 3,226 3,581 3,194 2,578 2,869 Taylorsville 1,987 3,680 3,238 2,244 1,947 1,656 West Jordan 2,030 2,146 2,611 2,097 2,317 2,067 West Valley City 1,782 1,980 2,048 1,622 1,657 1,816 Table 6.6: Detached Single Family Median Finished Unit Size by City and Year Built Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. 97 HOUSING the Oquirrh View Study Area between 2000 through 2017 is 11.3 percent larger than single family homes in the study area. Elsewhere in the county, PUD units remain smaller than detached single family homes. The median unit size for PUD homes built in selected years since 2000 is shown in Table 6.7. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Unit Size Change County wide, newly built PUD homes have decreased in size since 2010 by 3.8 percent to a median of 2,362 square feet in 2017. The median size of a PUD unit built inside Year Built (PUD*) Area 2000 2005 Salt Lake County 2,456 Oquirrh View Study Area 2015 2017 2,657 2,470 2,511 2,434 2,362 2,317 2,687 2,886 2,738 2,612 2,325 Rest of Salt Lake County 2,500 2,552 2,204 2,115 2,352 2,552 Bluffdale NA 4,322 NA 5,496 2,480 2,143 Herriman 4,486 3,077 2,399 3,129 2,288 2,242 Kearns NA NA NA NA 2,781 NA Magna 2,691 2,309 NA NA Riverton 3,297 Salt Lake City South Jordan 2010 NA 2,121 1,976 2,269 1,579 2,376 2,355 1,668 1,460 2,083 2,010 2,720 1,659 3,106 3,138 3,168 2,670 2,990 3,010 Taylorsville 3,904 3,620 2,408 1,924 2,960 NA West Jordan 2,244 2,196 4,048 2,618 2,539 2,697 West Valley City 1,404 1,236 1,764 Table 6.7: PUD Median Unit Size by City and Year Built 2,880 2,292 2,135 Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. *PUD includes both attached and detached structures. 98 2007 HOUSING Apartment Unit Size Change Apartment unit data tends to vary more widely than other unit types because there tend to be fewer projects, with higher numbers of units that take longer to complete. As a result, there are fewer projects built per year than other home types, and just one or two large projects with larger numbers of units can greatly affect the medians. The median apartment unit size built in 2017 in SLCo is 25 percent higher than in 2000. For the years in which an apartment project was built in both the Oquirrh View Study Area and the rest of SLCo, the square footage of an apartment unit in the study area is 21.3 percent larger. The increase in unit size in the study area in 2017 is due to the construction of three- and four-bedroom units that year. The median unit size for apartment homes built in selected years since 2000 is shown in Table 6.8. Year Built (Apartment) Area 2000 2005 2007 2010 2015 2017 Salt Lake County 802 797 1,282 933 922 1,003 Oquirrh View Study Area NA NA 1,270 961 892 1,498 Rest of Salt Lake County 802 797 1,472 733 929 910 Herriman NA NA NA NA 1,054 1,702 Kearns NA NA NA NA NA 1,250 Magna NA NA NA NA 815 NA Riverton NA NA NA NA 1,131 NA Salt Lake City 802 797 NA NA 958 802 South Jordan NA NA NA 799 1,022 NA Taylorsville NA NA NA NA NA NA West Jordan NA NA 1,270 1,036 NA 1,003 Table 6.8: Apartment Median Unit Size by City and Year Built Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. 99 HOUSING unit developments (PUD), which include both attached and detached structures, the median assessed market value in the study area is $289,500 and $298,300 in the rest of SLCo. The median assessed market value for single family homes in the Oquirrh View Study Area is $254,200 and $309,200 in the rest of SLCo. Overall, the median assessed market value for single family homes in SLCo is $295,200. Assessed Value of Homes The following section presents data for median assessed market value of noncommercial residential property. Overall, assessed values tend to be lower in the Oquirrh View Study Area than the rest of SLCo (Table 6.9). The median assessed market value of a condo unit in the study area and in the rest of SLCo is approximately $192,000 in 2018. For a duplex, the median assessed market value is $230,450 in the study area, $300,600 in the rest of SLCo, and $293,200 in SLCo overall. For planned City Salt Lake County Oquirrh View Study Area Rest of Salt Lake County Bluffdale Copperton Herriman Kearns Magna Riverton Salt Lake City South Jordan Taylorsville West Jordan West Valley City Condo $192,400 $192,400 $192,500 $184,800 NA $195,400 $106,100 $118,700 $223,300 $220,300 $206,800 $136,600 $189,500 $157,100 Figure 6.14 illustrates the assessed market value of all residential property in SLCo in 2018. Duplex $293,200 $230,450 $300,600 $368,150 $207,400 $355,200 $246,700 $215,150 $260,000 $315,400 $261,000 $281,800 $260,000 $234,050 PUD* $294,000 $289,500 $298,300 $265,400 NA $269,200 $311,700 $245,550 $270,100 $269,950 $335,600 $243,600 $268,500 $218,900 Single-Family $295,200 $254,200 $309,200 $437,095 $182,550 $373,300 $208,300 $204,300 $345,400 $282,950 $414,700 $247,000 $288,000 $229,700 Table 6.9: Median Assessed Market Value of Residential Properties (noncommercial), 2018 Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. *PUD includes both attached and detached structures. Colored cells indicate the top three cities by property type. 100 HOUSING Salt Lake City Magna South Salt Lake West Valley City Millcreek Holladay Kearns Taylorsville Murray Cottonwood Heights Midvale West Jordan Sandy Copperton South Jordan Riverton Draper Bluffdale Herriman Figure 6.14: Assessed Market Value of All Residential Property, Salt Lake County, 2018 Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. 101 HOUSING Housing Affordability Analysis home insurance, and mortgage insurance, loan term (30 years), and 30 percent of household income available for mortgage payment. The SLCo Assessor’s Office provided 2017 housing price data for single-family homes, condominiums, townhomes, and twin homes/ duplexes for all cities and townships in SLCo. The affordable price thresholds for each income group are shown below (Table 6.10). In 2017, the inventory of owner-occupied homes in SLCo was 286,156 (Table 6.11). Only 5.9 percent, or 1,561 homes were affordable to households with income less than $35,735 or <50 percent AMI in the Oquirrh View Study Area. The number and percent share of homes affordable to each income group are shown. The 50 percent to 80 percent income group has the largest absolute number and percent share of affordable home in both SLCo and Oquirrh View. Thirty-five percent of owneroccupied homes in SLCo are affordable to this income group, in Oquirrh View 50 percent are affordable. The housing data for each city was arranged by five categories of affordability: homes affordable to households at <50 percent Area Median Income (AMI), 50 percent to 80 percent AMI, 81 percent to 100 percent AMI, 101 percent to 120 percent AMI, and homes affordable to households with incomes above 120 percent AMI. AMI represents the median household income in SLCo in 2017 of $71,471. Determining the price thresholds of affordability for each income group required a number of assumptions: homeowner down payment (3 percent), mortgage rate (4.5 percent), taxes, Income by AMI Income Thresholds Affordable Price Thresholds <50% AMI <$35,735 <$165,000 50% to 80% AMI $35,736 to $57,176 $165,001 to $260,000 81% to 100% AMI $57,177 to $71,471 $260,001 to $325,000 101% to 120% AMI $71,472 to $85,765 $325,001 to $390,000 >121% AMI >$85,765 >$390,000 Table 6.10: Income and Price Thresholds Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Income Thresholds Income by AMI Salt Lake County Homes % Share Oquirrh View Homes <$35,735 <50% AMI 16,914 5.9% 1,561 2.0% $35,736 to $57,176 50% to 80% AMI 100,127 35.0% 39,140 50.0% $57,177 to $71,471 81% to 100% AMI 63,554 22.2% 16,552 21.1% $71,472 to $85,765 101% to 120% AMI 41,604 14.5% 11,635 14.9% >$85,765 >120% AMI 63,957 22.4% 9,441 12.1% Total 286,156 100.0% 78,329 Table 6.11: Homes Affordable to Each Income Group in Salt Lake County and Oquirrh View, 2017 Darker areas call attention to the highest values. Source: Salt Lake County Assessor and Kem Gardner Policy Institute. 102 % Share 100.0% HOUSING Affordable Units by City The number of homes affordable to the five AMI income groups in each jurisdiction is shown in Table 6.12. For example, Magna has the highest share of affordable homes for those households at <50 percent AMI. In 2017, 12.8 percent or 913 of the nearly 7,000 homes in Magna were affordable to households at <50 percent AMI ($35,735). Salt Lake City had the largest number of affordable homes for the households at <50 percent AMI: 6,435 homes, 13.3 percent of all homes in Salt Lake City. <50% AMI 50% to 80% AMI (price <$165K) ($165K to $260K) ($260K to $325K) ($325K to $390K) (price >$390K) Affordable Units* Affordable Units* Affordable Units* Affordable Units* Affordable Units* City Number Percent Number 81% to 100% AMI 101% to 120% AMI Percent Number Percent Number >120% AMI Percent Number Percent Bluffdale 33 1.0% 537 15.7% 586 17.1% 565 16.5% 1,707 49.8% Copperton 35 13.0% 219 81.4% 13 4.8% 2 0.7% 0 0.0% Herriman 160 1.5% 1,886 17.9% 2,449 23.2% 2,793 26.5% 3,256 30.9% Kearns 73 0.8% 8,435 90.9% 754 8.1% 14 0.2% 0 0.0% Magna 913 12.8% 5,391 75.6% 675 9.5% 107 1.5% 41 0.6% Riverton 19 0.2% 1,875 16.5% 3,532 31.1% 2,532 22.3% 3,408 30.0% Salt Lake City 6,435 13.3% 15,529 32.1% 9,013 18.6% 6,200 12.8% 11,172 23.1% South Jordan 34 0.2% 2,598 13.6% 3,780 19.7% 4,167 21.8% 8,578 44.8% Taylorsville 1,183 7.9% 8,197 54.6% 3,723 24.8% 1,022 6.8% 901 6.0% West Jordan 344 1.2% 10,525 37.9% 9,103 32.8% 5,069 18.3% 2,696 9.7% West Valley City 1,696 5.7% 20,661 69.0% 5,439 18.2% 1,674 5.6% 480 1.6% 5.9% 100,127 35.0% 63,554 22.2% 41,604 14.5% 63,957 22.4% 2.0% 50.0% 16,552 21.1% 11,635 14.9% 12.1% Salt Lake CO.** 16,914 Oquirrh View 1,561 39,140 9,441 Table 6.12: Number of Housing Units Affordable to Households by AMI and Home Price by City, 2017 Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. * Includes single-family, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes. **Summary of all cities and townships in Salt Lake County, including those not in the study area. 103 HOUSING Extremely Low & Very Low Income Households: Owner Households The distribution of homeowners by income shows a disproportionate share of very low (30 to 50 percent AMI) and extremely low income (<30 percent AMI) homeowners in three jurisdictions: Salt Lake City, West Valley City, and unincorporated SLCo. Fifty-two percent of the very low and extremely low income households live in these three jurisdictions. Oquirrh View, which includes portions of some cities and unincorporated county, has a sizable share of these very low income homeowners. Twenty-seven percent of Oquirrh View homeowners have incomes below 50 percent AMI (Table 6.13). City Less than 30%-49% <50% AMI 30% AMI AMI City’s Share of County Bluffdale 50 105 155 0.5% Herriman 110 260 370 1.2% Riverton 200 410 610 1.9% Salt Lake City 2,535 3,610 6,145 19.4% South Jordan 390 395 785 2.5% Taylorsville 830 1,485 2,315 7.3% West Jordan 895 1,855 2,750 8.7% West Valley City 1,785 2,925 4,710 14.8% Unincorporated County 2140 3,540 5,680 17.9% Salt Lake County* 12,690 19,045 31,735 100.0% Oquirrh View 3,019 5,595 8,614 27.1% Table 6.13: City’s Share of County Homeowners with Incomes Below 50 Percent AMI Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: HUD CHAS 011-2015. *Summary of all cities and townships in Salt Lake County, including those not in the study area. 104 HOUSING county. Sixty-two percent of the very low and extremely low income renter households live in these three jurisdictions. Oquirrh View has 13.5 percent of the renter households with incomes below 50 percent AMI (Table 6.14). Extremely Low & Very Low Income Households: Renter Households Renter households with income below 50 percent AMI are also concentrated in Salt Lake City, West Valley City, and unincorporated City Less than 30% AMI 30%-49% AMI Total City’s Share of County Bluffdale 55 65 120 0.2% Herriman 225 280 505 1.0% Riverton 60 130 190 0.4% Salt Lake City 11,765 8,020 19,785 39.4% South Jordan 340 230 570 1.1% Taylorsville 1,190 1,110 2,300 4.6% West Jordan 1,375 1,355 2,730 5.4% West Valley City 3,255 2,865 6,120 12.2% Unincorporated County 2580 2710 5,290 10.5% Salt Lake County* 27,470 22,790 50,260 100.0% Oquirrh View 3,322 3,457 6,779 13.5% Table 6.14: City’s Share of County Renters with Incomes Below 50 Percent AMI Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: HUD CHAS 011-2015. *Summary of all cities and townships in Salt Lake County, including those not in the study area. 105 HOUSING burden) for housing. Herriman has the highest percent of renters with severe housing cost burden. Nearly one in four renter households in Herriman pays more than 50 percent of their income for rent (Table 6.15). Housing Cost Burden: Renters The housing cost burden of renters in SLCo is relatively consistent among cities. In most cities about 20 percent of renters pay at least 50 percent of their income (severe cost City Renter Households Cost Burden ≥30% Cost Burden 30%-49% Cost Burden ≥50% % with Cost Burden ≥30% % with Cost Burden 30% to 49% % with Cost Burden ≥50% Bluffdale 390 130 70 60 33.3% 17.9% 15.4% Herriman 1,475 695 330 365 47.1% 22.4% 24.7% Riverton 1,125 285 160 125 25.3% 14.2% 11.1% Salt Lake City 39,155 15,970 8,135 7,835 40.8% 20.8% 20.0% South Jordan 3,345 1,195 760 435 35.7% 22.7% 13.0% Taylorsville 6,050 2,155 1,030 1,125 35.6% 17.0% 18.6% West Jordan 7,675 3,010 1,565 1,445 39.2% 20.4% 18.8% West Valley City 11,560 5,030 2,675 2,355 43.5% 23.1% 20.4% Unincorporated County 13,890 5,105 2,760 2,345 36.8% 19.9% 16.9% Salt Lake County* 118,800 46,465 24,250 22,215 39.1% 20.4% 18.7% Oquirrh View 17,715 6,991 3,548 3,443 39.5% 20.0% 19.4% Table 6.15: Cost Burden: Housing Cost as Percent of Renter Income by City Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: HUD CHAS 011-2015. *Summary of all cities and townships in Salt Lake County, including those not in the study area. 106 HOUSING Taylorsville markets. Since 2000, rental rates countywide have increased at an annual rate of 3 percent. In Oquirrh View the annual rate of increase has been 3.4 percent. The Sugar House and downtown Salt Lake City markets had the highest rate of annual increases at 4 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. Between 2010 and 2017, rental rates in both the study area and SLCo have increased close to 40 percent. Apartment Rental Costs The average combined rent for all types of units (apartments, duplex, condos, home, etc.) in SLCo was $1,076 in 2017 (Table 6.16). In Oquirrh View the average rent was a bit higher at $1,147. The most expensive rental markets in the county are the South Jordan, Sugar House, and east Salt Lake City markets. The least expensive markets are West Salt Lake City and the West Valley City/Kearns/ Average Rent (All Units) Percent Change Market 2000 2008 2010 2017 2000 to 2008 2008 to 2010 2010 to 2017 AARC ‘00-’17 Salt Lake County $649 $817 $777 $1,076 25.9% -4.9% 38.5% 3.0% Oquirrh View Study Area $646 $855 $805 $1,147 32.4% -5.8% 42.5% 3.4% Downtown Salt Lake City $648 $816 $803 $1,166 25.9% -1.6% 45.2% 3.5% Draper Area $816 $962 $897 $1,193 17.9% -6.8% 33.0% 2.3% East Salt Lake City $1,096 $1,262 $1,207 $1,271 15.1% -4.4% 5.3% 0.9% Herriman/Copperton $762 $952 $908 $1,178 24.9% -4.6% 29.7% 2.6% Holladay/East Millcreek $762 $894 $842 $1,017 17.3% -5.8% 20.8% 1.7% Sandy/Cottonwood Heights $734 $887 $850 $1,147 20.8% -4.2% 34.9% 2.7% South Jordan/Riverton/Bluffdale $900 $1,055 $971 $1,379 17.2% -8.0% 42.0% 2.5% South Salt Lake/Murray/Midvale $639 $799 $755 $1,024 25.0% -5.5% 35.6% 2.8% Sugar House $695 $924 $837 $1,353 32.9% -9.4% 61.6% 4.0% West Jordan Area $647 $848 $792 $1,072 31.1% -6.6% 35.4% 3.0% West Salt Lake City/Liberty Wells $588 $731 $686 $913 24.3% -6.2% 33.1% 2.6% West Valley City/Kearns/Taylorsville $595 $750 $706 $950 26.1% -5.9% 34.6% 2.8% Table 6.16: Changes in Average Rent for Market Areas in Salt Lake County (Combined Rental Rates for All Types of Units) Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: CoStar Group, Inc. 107 HOUSING Apartment Rental Costs Rental rate trends for two-bedroom units are similar to the performance of combined rents, with an annual growth rate of 3 percent. The highest rent growth has been in Sugar House and downtown Salt Lake City. The highest rents are in these areas, and lowest rents in the West Salt Lake City and the West Valley City/Kearns/Taylorsville. All markets have experienced rapid growth in rents since 2010 (Table 6.17). The average rent for a twobedroom unit in SLCo in 2017 was $1,129 in Oquirrh View it was $1,115. Between 2010 and 2017, rental rates in both the study area and SLCo have increased close to 40 percent. Average Rent (Two Bedroom Units) Percent Change Market 2000 2008 2010 2017 2000 to 2008 Salt Lake County $683 $855 $813 $1,129 25.2% -4.9% 38.9% 3.0% Oquirrh View Study Area $638 $848 $797 $1,115 32.9% -6.0% 39.9% 3.3% Downtown Salt Lake City $754 $947 $943 $1,410 25.6% -0.4% 49.5% 3.8% 2008 to 2010 to AARC 2010 2017 ‘00-’17 Draper Area $849 $997 $931 $1,243 17.4% -6.6% 33.5% 2.3% Herriman/Copperton $722 $939 $896 $1,118 30.1% -4.6% 24.8% 2.6% Holladay/East Millcreek $743 $871 $821 $1,005 17.2% -5.7% 22.4% 1.8% Sandy/Cottonwood Heights $731 $883 $848 $1,177 20.8% -4.0% 38.8% 2.8% South Jordan/Riverton/Bluffdale $915 $1,100 $981 $1,418 20.2% -10.8% 44.5% 2.6% South Salt Lake/Murray/Midvale $667 $830 $787 $1,063 24.4% -5.2% 35.1% 2.8% Sugar House $794 $1,074 $963 $1,522 35.3% -10.3% 58.0% 3.9% West Jordan Area $677 $883 $819 $1,078 30.4% -7.2% 31.6% 2.8% West Salt Lake City/Liberty Wells $629 $793 $736 $963 26.1% -7.2% 30.8% 2.5% West Valley City/Kearns/Taylorsville $621 $770 $733 $976 24.0% -4.8% 33.2% 2.7% Table 6.17: Changes in Average Rent for Two-Bedroom Units in Market Areas Darker areas call attention to the cities with the highest values. Source: CoStar Group, Inc. 108 HOUSING From 2015 to 2017, the median lot size inside the Oquirrh View Study Area was less than a fifth of an acre, while the rest of the county remained close to a quarter-acre lot. The median lot size for detached single family homes in SLCo for select years is shown in Table 6.18. Trends in Single Family Lot Size Since 2000, the median lot size for new homes has fluctuated from a fifth-to a quarter-acre. The median lot size for detached single family homes from 2000 through 2017 in SLCo was 17.3 percent smaller inside the study area. Year Built (Single Family) Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017 Salt Lake County 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.22 Oquirrh View Study Area 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.18 0.17 Rest of Salt Lake County 0.26 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.26 Bluffdale 1.01 1.01 0.77 0.10 0.15 Copperton 0.19 NA NA NA NA Herriman 0.22 0.25 0.34 0.15 0.14 Kearns 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 NA Magna 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.15 Riverton 0.32 0.22 0.24 0.29 0.25 Salt Lake City 0.16 0.15 0.25 0.16 0.13 South Jordan 0.26 0.33 0.34 0.17 0.30 Taylorsville 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 West Jordan 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.23 0.23 West Valley City 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.24 Table 6.18: Detached Single Family Median Lot Size by City and Year Built Source: Salt Lake County Assessor. 109 HOUSING Tax Credit, Public Housing, and Project-Based Units There are 14,185 subsidized and assisted apartment units in SLCo. These units consist of tax credit units, public housing units, and project-based units. Forty-two percent of these units are located in Salt Lake City (Table 6.19). A majority of these units are tax credit units and are clustered in the downtown area within close proximity to amenities and public transportation options (Figure 6.15). Salt Lake City, West Valley City, Murray, and Midvale have almost 10,000 rent-assisted units, a combined total of 70 percent of the County’s total supply. There are 1,600 subsidized and rent-assisted apartment units in the Oquirrh View Study Area. This is 11 percent of the County’s subsidized and assisted units. Sixtyfour percent of the units in the study area are located in West Jordan and West Valley City (Table 6.19). Throughout the Oquirrh View Study Area, 87 percent of subsidized and assisted apartment units are tax credit eligible. Only two of these apartment communities are south of 7800 South; both communities are large tax credit apartments with 240 and 258 units each (Figure 6.15). The recent introduction of the MAX 3500 South bus rapid transit route has increased the access to public transportation for many of the communities in West Valley City and Magna. However, the projects in the south, particularly in Kearns and West Jordan, still lack proximity to bus rapid transit lines, TRAX, and FrontRunner. Public Housing Units Project-Based Units Oquirrh View County County 5,212 — 468 — 314 West Valley City 1,236 356 186 68 Murray 1,459 — — — Tax Credit Units City County Salt Lake City Oquirrh View Oquirrh View Oquirrh View — 5,994 — 79 — 1,501 424 — — 1,459 — Midvale 853 — 54 — 110 — 1,017 — West Jordan 813 600 — — 150 — 963 600 Sandy 697 — — — 134 — 831 — Millcreek 470 — — — — — 470 — South Salt Lake 363 — 26 — 52 — 441 — Bluffdale 336 — — — — — 336 — Taylorsville 181 — 34 — 65 — 280 — Magna 164 164 28 28 80 — 272 192 Herriman 258 258 — 32 — — 258 290 Holladay 133 — — — — — 133 — Draper 113 — — — — — 113 — South Jordan 56 — — — — — 56 — Kearns 14 14 32 — — 80 46 94 Riverton — — — — 15 — 15 — Total 12,358 1,392 828 128 999 80 14,185 1,600 Table 6.19: Subsidized and Assisted Apartment Communities in Salt Lake County, 2018 Source: Housing Authorities of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and West Valley City. 110 Total County HOUSING Figure 6.15: Location of Subsidized & Rent-Assisted Apartment Communities in Salt Lake Co., 2018 Source: Housing Authorities of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and West Valley City. 111 HOUSING voucher holders is located in Salt Lake City (Table 6.20). The top three cities--Salt Lake City, West Valley City, and Millcreek--account for more than half of all vouchers in the county (55.1 percent). Only a small portion of Section 8 vouchers are located in the southern portion of the County. Section 8 Vouchers Section 8 vouchers are the federal government’s main program for assisting very low income families to afford housing in the private market. The vouchers provide a rent subsidy that allows participants to find their own housing, and are not restricted to subsidized housing projects. The vouchers are administered locally by three housing authorities (Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, and West Valley City Housing Authority). Of the 5,415 Section 8 voucher holders located in SLCo, 11.4 percent are inside the Oquirrh View Study Area. Eighty percent of voucher holders in the study area are located in West Valley City, West Jordan, or Kearns (Table 6.20). Forty percent are being used in West Valley City alone. The three housing authorities administer 5,415 vouchers. The spatial distribution of these vouchers is shown in Figure 6.16. One in three Vouchers Oquirrh View Share of County Total Area Total Salt Lake City 1,686 — 31.1% — West Valley City 826 252 15.3% 40.7% Millcreek 469 — 8.7% — South Salt Lake 403 — 7.4% — Murray 382 — 7.1% — Taylorsville 321 15 5.9% 2.4% West Jordan 290 128 5.4% 20.7% Midvale 280 — 5.2% — Sandy 234 — 4.3% — Kearns 113 113 2.1% 18.3% Holladay 75 — 1.4% — Unincorporated County 73 3 1.3% 0.5% Cottonwood Heights 70 — 1.3% — Magna 69 69 1.3% 11.1% South Jordan 33 9 0.6% 1.5% Draper 32 — 0.6% — Riverton 20 11 0.4% 1.8% Herriman 18 18 0.3% 2.9% Bluffdale 16 — 0.3% — Copperton 1 1 0.0% 0.2% Total 5,415 619 100% 100.0% Table 6.20: Section 8 Vouchers by City in Salt Lake County, 2018 Source: Housing Authorities of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and West Valley City. 112 Share of Oquirrh View Total HOUSING ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ 8 $ Y6 LEGACY N B PKW RE DWOO D RD Y 400 N 500 S Housing Authority of Salt Lake City " Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake 1100 N ! West Valley City Housing Authority ¿ ¾ Oquirrh View Study Area HW # FrontRunner Trax ¿ ¾ Bus Rapid Transit ¾¿ Section 8 Vouchers ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ Bus Rapid Transit (In Development) ¿ ¾ #" ## # " !# " "# #" # ## " # " " " ## ! # " #I-15 # ! " " "# ! #! #" " # " # "! " "" #" # ! # ## " # "" "" " " # # " # " # ! # & ""# " #" "#"# # ## " ##Salt " # " "" " ! !# # " "#" ## "#" # # " # #"# # ## " " " "#" "" # # # ##" # ## " # # # # # " ! # # # # # " """" #""" #"# #" " # # " # #Lake " & City "# ### $ "#" # " & # & "##" & & ! " ! # ""! # #"# & & & # # # "! " & # " Emigration " # "#""#" "&# #### "#! " # # " #!" # # # "# I-80 &! # # ## ! " #" " ## # ""# & #" # 400 S " ## " " # #&" & # "" "" $ # # & & ### ""# " Canyon &## #&# &" " # "" ## " #"# " ! " # " # ## " & # "# # " # " # # # # # " # # # " # " " # # " #### " " " # " " # # """# "# " # ! "# "" # " " # #""" "" ### " #" # "! " # ! "# # ! " "#! ## # " # # """# # # # " " " " " # # " " & " " # ! "! #" "#"# ## ### #" ## ! ##"# " ## # # "" # " "##### #" # ##" "## "# # " " #" & ## " # "# " #"## !# # " # #"# # " " # ""#" # " # #" #! #! ##"#" " # " " " ! " ! # " # " " """ # #" " ## ! ## # ## " "## "# " " # " # # # ## " " " # # # #! #" "" #"## #" # ! " " # ! # # # # # ! HWY 201 " " 2100 " S !" ## " !# # # " #"## # " ""#" # & ## & &" ## "#&& # # & " &# # " " ! #! # #" # "! #! # # " & "# # "& # " # "" " "!"! " "" H # "# " ##"# # ##" # # # " " " # " " # " " # 18 W Y " " " # ! ## # ## # #" # ### # ## " "# " " #""# #"#! " ! #!# 6 "" ¿"#"""#"#!"!" "!##"" "! ! ¾ " # """ # I-215 &# " !""#"" " #" # " # "# # " "# ! !## # # # South# "! # ! # " " # ! # ! # # ! ! # " " " " # # # # # " " # " # # # " # HWY " # # " # #" #" ! # "" " !" # # "" ## #" " ##""""" # "# " &! " # " # ###"" #! # # "#" #""! # " #! # " #!" " # " " # " " #" ! " Salt Lake #" ### # #"# # "#" # " #### # ! "# 171" ! # ## West S #! ! " # "! #" " # #3500 #S! #!! # " ! ##""#""" # """##" # "# !"! # " !¾ # "! ! #! " #! " ##" " # " # ! " # #! ! # ##" "¾ "! # # ¿ ¿ #&"!###"""##"#"#"##""##"##!""#!#""###"#""#"3300 " ¾ " "# # # # " #" # #! # "" " ¿ !#" !#"#"!##"! #"#"#¾ ¾ #¾ ! ¿" ###"¾ ¿ "Valley # !! ##" # ¿ ¿ "#"# ¿ "!#! ¾ ¿ ! ¾ # " # # ! " ! & " " " # " # ! ! ! # " " # " " # " # # # # # # # # " # # " ! # ! " ! ! # ! # # #"" " " " "## " #" "Millcreek ¿ "" ! ¿ " " "# "# !"¾ ¾ " # " " " # " " # # # # ! ! # " " ! " " ! # " " " # ## # # # # " # # " " ! " # " " " " " # #"# # " ! ## # " ! " " "! #" City# " ### #" #"" ! ##"" # ##"" "" #! #! # "! # " ! # " ### " ## " " " "# ! " ! " ! " "#"" # # # #" # " ! # #" ! " # ## " " "# " # " ! ! ! # #" "# #"#! " #LE &" #" #" "" # # "" # ! # " !" " " # ! " ## " # ! # "" #" " " ! # # " " !" ## " " "! !"# # # # " ! ! # # " L # " ! " ! ! "" ! " ! " I! # ## "# #"" #" #!##! # ## ## !" # "# #" "" " !!# ## "# # # #" !#" "" !" "!# #"" " " !" " #"## " " " # ! ## SV#" " # #" " " " " " ! # # " " " # # # " # ! " ! ## #" " " # """"#" " "# # """ OR# " "&" # ! # # " 44 # L 4500 # S # # " 30 S # ! " " " " " " Y " # # # # # ! # # # # # " " " " ! " ! #" # # # !## # "# " # " "" " ## " #A Y #" " ! !# " # "T "#" # " !!"## !# # ¿"""#"#!"#!"##"!"#!"#!# !#"!"#"# ""##""""##"#"!#""##!"###""###"#""#""## ## # ¾ # !#" " # ! ! " #E# # # " V "" Holladay ## ! X"P! # # # #"#" #" # ! ! # # "##" # " ""!# " # "#" #! # "" " " # " # " " " # " # ! " " " # " # " " # " " # " " # # # " " " # " " " 5415 " ## # #"" #"# ! " ! ! # #"# "" ! # " "# " #" " ""# ! # # "" " # ! # #" "# # #"# ""##""" !# !# ¿0$&"S !" "" ##"" ### "#"!##"! ¾ ###" !#!##" " # """#" "##### # # !"!# # 53 S ## # " ## " ! " " # "0 "" # #""#S # # "" !" #""# NK " "5400 Taylorsville #"# " # "Kearns # " # " " # # #" ## # ! ! " # " # # " " " # # # " # " " " # # Murray # " "" # ""# " # #! ! " " " "" #" # LE 6 # "! " " " ## # #" # # # ## "" #""" "##" # " "! "#" " # ## ## # ! " 20 # # # ""# # #" " "" ! " " "# # "# "" " # " # #" "#"" " # # 0 #" ## # ! # " " ! " # " " " " " ! ##" ! " " 7000 " " & "!"# " """ # # " " ## # # 7200 " " #" " ##" # # # #S ## # # # # " " !" # # " " " # # " # # ! # " ! " ! ! # # " # " # " ! # " " # # " ! " " # # " #" # # " " #" # """! # # " # "!# ! "# ! ! #! # " " # """ ! ! " " # !#" # "" " " # # # " ! " " # "" " !"! # # " # ! ! " S " " " "" "# ! # #" " " "" # "# # " ! # &# " " ## """ " ## #Cottonwood # " " " # " # & ##" # ! # " ! " # " # " " #"# #" ### # #!!" ! ! # ! #" "# "" # 7800 # S# "# " Midvale # # "" "# """ # " # " # & # # " # # Heights # " ! ! " # # ! " # " ! " " # # # "# # West#Jordan # # !# " & ""# """ " ! " " "# "" "# #! ## " "" # ! # # ! #! # # " ## # " " &" ! ! " ! # """ " "" !#" ! #" " " &##"# # HWY 48 "# # ""# ! " " ## ! "" &" ! " " " " M "" # #" " " "" A # ! "# " ! 9000 #S! L # " "! ! #"& #""! "#" # "! "ITTLE " GH "# # "" # # " # " ! # " ##" "C ### 9400 # BIN Y # ! ## "# ""& """ "# ! OTTO S # & ! # " ! W " NW O # " HW ###" #" # " E E OD RD ! # " White S TAT N SOUTH "Sandy # & ! #& ## # "JORDAN # HWY# City # # # P K W # " ! Y $ S ###" " 10600 Copperton " & # " ## "" # Granite # # ! " South Jordan "# #! ! " # " " " 11400 # "" S " # # ! " ! # & # & # # " " # " # " " " " & "# !# " ! 12300 S! "# " " 12600 S " & " " # " ! # # " Riverton " $ # # # # " " ! #" " Draper 144! 00 # " " S " 14600 S Herriman " # Bluffdale " # "" ! " "" Y OR CT¿ VI ¾ § ¦ ¨ 2100 E ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ S BANGERTE R HWY 1 11 H HWUSK Y Y 900 E Y WI AN XP Y E HW BLV D W A S ATCH 2 700 E BANGERTER NB HWY 20 5600 W Y L HIL OT FO DR HW § ¦ ¨ 8400 W RD ¿ ¾ § ¦ ¨ ¿ ¾ Magna STATE ST Salt Lake City Int'l Airport V IE W UNTAIN Y M O RRIDOR HW CO CA M P 0 1 2 2100 N A LP INE Miles 4 TIMPANOGOS HWY 1200 W D SR $ HWY LIA M W IL 11000 N Figure 6.16: Section 8 Vouchers in Salt Lake County, 2018 Source: Housing Authorities of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and West Valley City. 113 ECONOMY 114 ECONOMY Chapter 7: Economy The State of the Economy The SLCo and Utah economies have been thriving for years. With 3 percent unemployment rate in the County, individuals looking for work can typically find it. Furthermore, businesses continue to grow, adding jobs at a rate that outpaces the national average. While the County as a whole is succeeding, it is helpful to look more specifically at both data and geography. The Oquirrh View Study Area includes 325,080 individuals1, which is one-third of the County’s total population (1,152,633)2. Economically, the Oquirrh View area is similar and fairly representative of the County as a whole. While median household income (MHI) is slightly higher in the Oquirrh View area ($69,288) than in the County generally ($68,404), the difference is not significant and falls within the margin of error. While the area as a whole matches the County, discrepancies in MHI are clear at the census tract level (figure 2.1). When viewed visually, it becomes evident that averages or medians for large areas do not necessarily tell the whole story. In the case of Oquirrh View, MHI clearly trends upward further south in the area. 1. Estimate from Esri 2. 2010 Census Quick Facts: Population Estimates July 1, 2018. The MHI disparity within the area, while striking when viewed geographically, is more pronounced when considering that the census tract with the lowest MHI in the area has an MHI of $37,885, which is in the bottom 10 percent of census tracts in the County. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) living wage calculator, a family of three (roughly the average household size in the County) needs between $46,385 and $60,981, depending on the composition of the family, to meet their basic needs (Table 7.1). Clearly, the MHI in the lowest-earning tract in the area falls below this threshold of basic family needs. The highest-earning tract in the area, on the other hand, has an MHI of $111,845, nearly three times as much as the lowest-earning tract. This is 1.64 times the MHI for the County as a whole ($68,404). While the median household in the highest-earning tract brings in 1.64 times the County MHI, the median household of the lowest earning tract brings home 55 percent of the County MHI. This discrepancy in household income begins to outline a geography in which the northern and southern ends of the area experience different economic realities. While MHI discrepancies are important, they point to a larger concern, which is a geography of economic disparity throughout the area. Hourly Wages 1 Adult 1 Adult 1 Child 1 Adult 2 Children 1 Adult 3 Children 2 Adults (1 Working) 2 Adults (1 Working) 1 Child 2 Adults (1 Working) 2 Children 2 Adults (1 Working) 3 Children 2 Adults 2 Adults 1 Child 2 Adults 2 Children 2 Adults 3 Children Living Wage $11.48 $24.12 $29.32 $38.90 $18.95 $22.30 $25.44 $29.24 $9.48 $13.05 $16.30 $19.87 Poverty Wage $5.80 $7.81 $9.82 $11.83 $7.81 $9.82 $11.83 $13.84 $3.90 $4.91 $5.91 $6.92 Min. Wage $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 Table 7.1: MIT Living Wage Calculator for Salt Lake County 115 Blv d ECONOMY B ou nt if ul Woods Cross North Salt Lake S 900 E S 900 W S 5600 W S 5600 W W 4700 S TAYLORSVILLE Taylorsville S 2700 W W 6200 S U N I N C O R P O R AT E D M urray Cot t onwood Height s M I D VA L E Erda SOUTH JORDAN SANDY S andy S 1 300 E n C reek R d S 700 E i W Old B y S 1300 W COPPERTON B angerter H wy Lincoln Hw m mi COTTONWOOD E HEIGHTS Jordan W E S T J O R DWest AN a gh S 2 300 E HOLLADAY M U R R AY Bl v d KEARNS W Erda Way gra S Was a t ch 111 M illcreek l and Dr h owe r H w y Stansbury Park Cit y W 4100 S S 90 0 E t D Eis en WEST W 3500 S VALLEY CITY h S Hig S 6400 W Great Salt Lake E S 1300 E igh S alt LakeEMIGRATION Cit y CANYONE Can t io n South Salt Lake E 2 7 00 S SOUTH SALT LAKE West V alley MILLCREEK W 240 0 S Magna S out h Jordan W 11400 S Tooele W 11800 S 11 1 Dw Bang e r t e r Hw y 201 S Redwood Rd Salt Lake City Int'l Airport SALT LAKE CITY MAGNA Lake Point Junction S U- on R I V E R T Rivert ON W 13400 S 36 HERRIMAN Draper DRAPER BLUFFDALE H ig hl an r dD Bauer Stockton Alpine 0 3 6 Miles Camp Williams State Military Reservation 92 Highland W 2 1 00 N Cedar Hills Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap Cedar Valley and the GIS user community Lehi Eagle Mountain Median Household Income by Census Tract Oquirrh View Study Area ≤ $57,888 ≤ $87,137 ≤ $63,734 ≤ $111,845 ≤ $73,125 Project Boundary Data Source: Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation Figure 7.1: Median Household Income by Census Tract 116 yo n Rd ECONOMY Employment Opportunities Contributing to the disparity in incomes is the disparity in land uses and zoning, with more commercial and industrial uses in the northern portion of the study area than in the southern half. The discussion of land uses here is cursory, and more information can be found in the Land Use chapter of this report. It is important to note that land use contributes heavily to key economic indicators. This is, perhaps, no more evident in the employment opportunities available in the area and where these opportunities exist. The proximity to and number of jobs differs significantly in the northern and southern portions of the area. While the southern half is more affluent, there is also lower job density than in the northern portion.1 This is due to land use differences, as described in the Land Use chapter of this report, wherein the southern half heavily favors single family zoning. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 show the difference in large employer job density and general employment density, respectively, where large 1. Job density is low throughout the Oquirrh View area, but the northern half, primarily in Salt Lake City and West Valley City, does have higher job densities. Oquirrh View employers are defined having more than 500 employees. Noticeable in Figure 7.2 is the complete lack of large employers in the southern portion, other than the Bingham Copper Mine, operated by Rio Tinto Kennecott. Beyond the lack of large employers in the southern portion, it should be noted that there are few large employers within the Oquirrh View Study Area south of 2100 South. While it is important to note the lack of large employers in the area, focusing only on large employers would be misguided. In SLCo, 99.7 percent of all businesses employ fewer than 500 employees. While looking only at large employers presents an incomplete picture of the area, looking at large-employer location, overlaid with general job densities for the area, presents a more complete image. Job clusters can be seen along north-south corridors and a few along east-west corridors. However, there is a clear imbalance in densities favoring the north end. Table 7.2 describes the job density in another way: jobs per 100 residents. The table compares the Oquirrh View area with SLCo as a whole and another suburban area along the east bench Salt Lake County Sandy-Draper Population Number of Jobs Per 100 Number of Jobs Per 100 Number of Jobs Per 100 Segment Residents Residents Residents Residents Residents Residents Population over 18* 221,302 30 837,893 70 106,087 60 Population 191,797 33 702,711 84 87,331 72 18-65† Total Resident 325,080 20 1,165,539 51 146,529 43 Population‡ Table 7.2 Jobs per 100 residents: comparison between Oquirrh View, Salt Lake County, and Sandy-Draper * Adult population. † Prime working-age adult population. ‡ Oquirrh View South has only 25 jobs per 100 prime working-age adults (18-65). 117 ECONOMY that includes both Sandy and Draper.2 As described in Table 7.2 and seen in Figures 7.2 and 7.3, the job densities and ratio of jobs to prime working age adults are remarkably low in the study area. While SLCo as a whole has 84 jobs per 100 working age adults3 and SandyDraper has 72, Oquirrh View only has 33. Such low jobs-per-resident ratios mean that large numbers of residents in the Oquirrh View area must leave the area for work each day. Census data from 2015 show that 81 percent of employed persons leave Oquirrh View for work each day, with a net out-migration of nearly 45,000 people (Figure 7.4).4 Such a large out-migration during the day is in contrast to the large in-migration that SLCo as a whole experiences. Each day, SLCo’s daytime population increases by over 84,000 people, as individuals from outside the County commute to work. pay an average monthly wage of $5,592, which results in an annual income slightly higher than the MHI of the County. Still, at least 34 percent of jobs in Oquirrh View are in industries that pay an average wage under $43,000 per year.5 5. This is based on the top five industries by employment and the average monthly wages of those industries, so it is not comprehensive. Of further concern is the type of jobs that exist within the Oquirrh View area. Over 17 percent of employees in the area work in the retail field (Table 7.3). This is a 3 percent increase over the rates of SLCo as a whole, meaning that retail jobs are over-represented in the area. While retail jobs dominate the area, manufacturing jobs are higher, claiming 14 percent of all jobs (compared with 7.7 percent of jobs in the County). This over-representation is welcome as jobs in the manufacturing sector 2. The Sandy-Draper area, while smaller in geography and population, is a useful comparison because, like the Oquirrh View area, it is primarily single-family residential and suburban. Additionally, the area is in the southern end of the County, which mitigates the impact that Salt Lake City has on job densities. 3. This is a surplus of jobs, as the county experiences a net in-migration during the day. 4. 2018 models from Esri estimate that 75,590 people leave the Oquirrh View area during daytime hours each day. 118 Figure 7.2: Location of large employers (500+ employees) ECONOMY Figure 7.3: Large employer location and general job density 119 All Workers ECONOMY Figure 7.4: In-migration and out-migration of Oquirrh View. Industry (NAICS) Percent Employees Average Monthly Wage (County) 0.0% $3,036 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting Mining 0.6% $7,216 Utilities 0.4% $6,927 7.3% $4,533 13.9% $5,592 Construction Map Legend Manufacturing Selection Areas Wholesale Trade Analysis Selection Inflow/Outflow 8.2% Employed and Live in Selection Area Employed in Selection Area, Live17.2% Retail Trade Outside Transportation & Warehousing Live in Selection Area, Employed 4.8% Outside Information 2.6% Note: Overlay arrows do not indicate Finance & Insurance directionality of worker flow between 2.3% home and employment locations. Real Estate, Rental, & Leasing 1.3% $5,078 Professional, Scientific, & Tech Services 5.1% $6,715 Legal Services 0.0% Management of Companies & Enterprises 0.0% $8,893 3.5% $3,352 Educational Services 9.6% $3,519 Health Care & Social Assistance 6.9% $4,221 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 2.5% $2,902 Support, Waste Page 1 ofAdministrative, 3 Management, & Remediation Services $3,107 $4,764 $6,244 $7,625 Accommodation & Food Services 7.5% $1,671 Other Services (except Public Administration) 3.4% $3,160 Public Administration 2.7% $4,209 Unclassified Establishments 0.2% $5,254 100.0% $4,617 Total Table 7.3: Employment in the Oquirrh View Area 120 $6,382 ECONOMY Despite the over-representation of retail jobs in the area, Oquirrh View experiences high levels of retail sales leakage to other areas (Figure 7.5). The only industry sub sector that captures surplus sales is Motor Vehicle & Parts Services. Every other retail sub sector of retail is losing money to other areas of the County. While this is not necessarily bad for municipalities from a sales tax revenue perspective (most municipal borders extend east beyond Oquirrh View and, therefore, may experience lower levels of sales leakage), it does mean residents in the area are spending money outside the area and likely driving farther to do so. Figure 7.6 shows major shopping areas in Oquirrh View and the surrounding area, and shows that, aside from a few shopping areas right on the border, there is only one major shopping area within the Oquirrh View boundary (Colt Plaza, West Valley City). With such few options, it is not a surprise that retail leakage is so high in most industry sub sectors. The area’s retail leakage and employee leakage go hand in hand. As mentioned above, land use has contributed to a lack of employment opportunities with not as much retail, general commercial and office to follow residential development as desired. Figure 7.5: Retail sales leakage in Oquirrh View. 121 The Gateway S 900 W S 5600 W S 2700 W Height s M I D VA L E COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS 11 1 S 1300 E SANDY S out h Jordan Draper Peaks Rivert on RIVERTON W 1340 0 S Rose Creek Crossing 3 C reek R d The District W 1 1400 S W 11800 S HERRIMAN S 700 E South Jordan SouthSTown andy Towne Center SOUTH JORDAN E E 9 40 0 S S 1300 W S 4000 W Hw Bangerter Hwy am d gh Blv W Old COPPERTON n Bi S W a s at c h Fashion Place Shops at Cot t onwood Fort Union West Jordan River WEST JORDAN Pointe Plaza Quarry Bend y U N I N C O R P O R AT E D d Dr H O L L A D AY E 5600 S Redwood Village Jordan W 7000 S Landing lan M urray M U R R AY gh S Hi Salt Lake Crossroads at Taylorsville Taylorsville 3900 S S 2 300 E S 6400 W MILLCREEK TAYLORSVILLE W 6200 S 0 E 3300 S M illcreek E WCITY 4100 S KEARNS U- Plaza SOUTH S A LT L A K E S 90 0 E S 5600 W Valley FairValley West WEST City VALLEY W 3500 S W 5400 S Foothill Village Trolley Square South Salt Lake E 2700Brickyard S Colt Plaza I, II, III Magna E M I G R AT I O N CANYON City Creek Salt Lake City S 1300 E Ban g er t e r H wy W 240 0 S S Redwood Rd SALT LAKE CITY S 700 E 80 UNINCORPORATED 89 S State St Salt Lake City Int'l Airport MAGNA 201 N Redwoo d Rd ECONOMY BLUFFDALE Draper DRAPER gh Hi la nd Dr 6 Miles Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, AlpineIntermap and the GIS user community Major Areas in in Region MajorShopping Shopping Aras the Region Gross Leasable Area ≤200,000 ≤300,000 ≤500,000 ≤800,000 ≤1,800,000 Project Boundary Data Source: Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation Figure 7.6: Major shopping areas in Oquirrh View and surrounding 6area. 6. Data from Directory of Major Malls, Inc. 2018. 122 ECONOMY Educational attainment follows the same pattern for both men and women in the Oquirrh View area, with roughly a third of the workingage population having earned no higher than a high school diploma (or equivalent). This differs from the county wide data that showing the percentage of the population at each educational step increases (less than high school, high school, bachelor’s degree or higher). Educational Attainment Overall, the Oquirrh View area is less educated than the County as a whole (Figure 7.7). That said, there are certain tracts that are highly educated and others that are not. Education is one important indicator of earnings and financial stability. The most-educated tracts all outperform in terms of the County rate as a whole, with greater than 30 percent of residents aged 18-65 having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the highesteducated tract (1130207), 43 percent of residents have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. Comparatively, in tract 113802, only 4 percent of residents have earned a four-year degree. In the County as a whole, 89 percent of working age adults (18-65) have at least earned a high school diploma or equivalent. Within the Oquirrh View area, there are 10 census tracts in which fewer than 80 percent of residents have earned a high school diploma. In the worst-performing tract in the area, only 63.3% of adult residents (18-65) have, at a minimum, graduated from high school. Not included in this data is the percentage of working-age residents that have completed some college but have not graduated. Among males in Oquirrh View, this number is 34 percent. Among females the number is 41 percent. It is important to note that while similar proportions of men and women graduate from college, more women than men start but never finish their degrees (Figure 7.8). Working Age (18-65) Resident Educational Attainment 45% 39% 40% 35% 30% 15% 29% 24% 25% 20% 36% 30% 18% 13% 11% 10% 5% In the 18-to-24-year-old subset of the population, a full 16% of residents have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. This is most prominent among males in this age group, with approximately one in five individuals having less than a high-school education. This is due, in large part, to a few under-performing census tracts. In one tract, in particular, over 50 percent of young adult males have no high school diploma (113907)⁷. Tract 113600 has the worst rate for young women, with 39.1% without a diploma. 7. See Figure 7.11 to view the census tracts in the Oquirrh View Study Area. 0% Less than HS High school graduate (includes equivalency) Oquirrh View Some College or Associate's Degree Bachelor's or higher County Figure 7.7: Resident Educational Attainment for Working-Age Residents (18-65) Oquirrh View Educational Attainment by Sex 42% 45% 40% 36% 35% 31% 30% 29% 25% 20% 15% 19% 14% 18% 12% 10% 5% 0% Less than High School High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) Oquirrh View Male Some College or Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Oquirrh View Female Figure 7.8: Oquirrh View Educational Attainment by Sex 123 ECONOMY Earnings Differences in educational attainment lead to differences in earning potential. Figure 7.9 shows the average median earnings for the Oquirrh View area, compared with the median earnings for SLCo as a whole, for various levels of education. At all education levels, except for those with graduate or professional degrees, the average median Oquirrh View resident earned more in the past 12 months, even if slightly, than the County median. The differences in earning potential between education levels is significant given the educational attainment levels of individuals in the Oquirrh View area. With 30 percent of the Oquirrh View adult population having no more than a high school education, earning potential for that third of the population is at the lower end of the spectrum. It is important to keep in mind that the data presented in Figure 7.9 for Oquirrh View are average medians which means that it is not a true average or a true median. Rather it is an average of the median values for all the census tracts in the area. Furthermore, median values denote that half the population earned above the value and half the population earned below the value. Educational attainment does not necessarily lead to higher earnings. Low-education, highskill jobs, such as those in the trades, can be quite lucrative. And owning a successful business does not require a college degree. However, educational attainment does serve as a good litmus test for an individual’s economic stability as it opens up an individual’s potential job prospects. Figure 7.9: Average Median Earnings in Past 12 Months by Educational Attainment 124 ECONOMY Remuneration for educational attainment, however, is not equal across gender lines. According to a 2018 WalletHub analysis, Utah is rated the worst state for women’s equality, based on an array of metrics including economic equality and education. shows that the wage disparity persists across education levels, with the greatest value discrepancy existing at the graduate-degree level, where the average median male earns $26,690 more than the average median woman. Women in the Oquirrh View area earn 66 cents for every dollar that men earn, which is in line with the County as a whole. While this disparity is alarming, of even greater concern are census tracts in which women earn less than 50% of what men earn. In the tract with the lowest ratio, women earn only 38% of what men earn. The tract with the greatest earnings parity in Oquirrh Hills sees women earning 93% of what men earn. Indeed, the educational level with the greatest earnings parity is for individuals without a high school diploma, with women earning 75 percent of what their male peers earn. Overcoming such pay disparity, at this level, would require a 33 percent raise for this subpopulation of women. Women who have completed some college but do not have a degrees would need a 64 percent raise in order to attain pay equality. It is important to note that the subpopulation of women who have not completed a four-year degree comprises the bulk of women in the area. This disparity can be influenced by myriad sources, but differences in educational attainment alone do not seem to be a strong factor in women’s earning rates. Figure 7.10 Average Median Earnings in Past 12 Months by Sex and Educational Attainment in Oquirrh View $80,000 $30,000 $70,000 $25,000 $60,000 $20,000 $50,000 $40,000 $15,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 Less than High School High School (Includes Equivalency) Some College / Associate's Oquirrh View Male Average Median Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree $0 Oquirrh View Female Average Median Male - Female Disparity (Right Axis) Figure 7.10: Average Median Earnings in Past 12 Months by Sex and Education 125 ECONOMY Labor Force Participation Labor force participation may be one contributing factor for the wage disparity. In the Oquirrh View area, 38 percent of the full-time, year-round workforce (age 16-64) is comprised of women, slightly lower than the County rate of 42 percent. While comprising only 38 percent of the full-time workforce, women represent 50% of the total population (age 16-64). This means that only 41% of women are participating in the full-time labor force, whereas 68 percent of area men participate in the full-time workforce. While this data includes individuals still in high school or who may be enrolled in college or trade schools, it is telling to note that, while the unemployment rate in SLCo hovers around 3 percent, the full-time, year-round labor force participation rate is 52 percent in the County and 54 percent in the Oquirrh View area. This suggests that many individuals choosing not to engage fully in the labor force for one reason or another. Tables 7.4–7.68 describe census tracts in the Oquirrh View area with the highest and lowest full-time, year-round labor force participation rates for the total workforce, the male workforce, and the female workforce, respectively. Note that the top-performing tracts for female participation roughly match the participation rates of the worst-performing tracts for male participation. For the top five census tracts, the participation rate is 61 percent, quite a bit higher than the County and area averages. For male participation, the top five tracts reach 79 percent participation rates, whereas for women, the top five tracts only reach 50 8. Census tracts can be viewed in Figure 7.11. 126 percent participation rates. Meanwhile, the worst-performing tracts for female participation rates sit at 32 percent. With only one in three women (16-64) engaged in the full-time workforce, more could be done to invite women to engage in full-time employment. This is critical, especially in two of the tracts, which both experience high levels of poverty and low education rates among both women and men in the area (113536 and 113802)⁸. Such low full-time labor force participation rates are intriguing, given recent data from a County wide business outreach project. Through interviewing decision-makers at over 500 small and medium businesses (SMBs), SLCo Regional Economic Development learned that workforce was the biggest challenge facing regional businesses. Being unable to find enough employees was the most frequently cited barrier to growth for SMBs in the County. Finding ways to invite area women into the workforce could be one way to help fill the employee needs of local SMBs and help lift households out of poverty. This is easier said than done, as there are likely multiple factors that keep women from entering the full-time workforce, including education, childcare needs, transportation, health, culture, family leave policies, and scheduling, among others. Acknowledging these factors and seeking ways to overcome them could invite more area women into the full-time workforce. ECONOMY Full-Time, Year-Round Labor Force Participation (16-64) Full-Time Full-Time Total Census Working Labor Force Population Tract Population Participation (16-64) (16-64) Rate (%) 113534 113525 Top 113701 Tracts 115106 113528 113008 113906 Bottom 113406 Tracts 113007 113410 4755 5116 2663 5514 3447 4420 2704 4237 3442 4272 2972 3127 1606 3288 2043 2174 1309 1989 1580 1779 63% 61% 60% 60% 59% 49% 48% 47% 46% 42% Table 7.4: Full-time, year-round labor force participation rates, total population Female Full-Time, Year-Round Labor Force Participation (16-64) Full-Time Full-Time Total Census Working Labor Force Population Tract Population Participation (16-64) (16-64) Rate (%) 113525 113523 Top 113411 Tracts 113600 113521 113016 113536 Bottom 113802 Tracts 113105 113007 2656 2069 889 1737 1934 1951 1427 1242 1363 1718 1414 1042 441 852 922 669 485 419 403 477 Male Full-Time, Year-Round Labor Force Participation (16-64) Full-Time Full-Time Total Census Working Labor Force Population Tract Population Participation (16-64) (16-64) Rate (%) 115106 113535 Top 113107 Tracts 113528 113102 113408 113702 Bottom 113521 Tracts 113906 113410 2633 2273 7134 1681 1190 1916 1043 1914 1331 2095 2186 1790 5576 1301 914 1066 577 1054 696 932 83% 79% 78% 77% 77% 56% 55% 55% 52% 44% Table 7.5: Full-time, year-round labor force participation rates, male population 53% 50% 50% 49% 48% 34% 34% 34% 30% 28% Table 7.6: Full-time, year-round labor force participation rates, female population 127 ECONOMY Figure 7.11: Census Tracts in Oquirrh View Study Area 128 ECONOMY As mentioned above, low unemployment rates and low labor force participation rates put a strain on local businesses as labor and talent shortages limit growth. As with other key metrics, however, low unemployment rates are not universal, and certain areas see much higher rates than others, with one tract in the area seeing 12 percent unemployment, while others are under one percent unemployment. Unemployment While labor force participation is relatively low, and especially low for women, for most of the Oquirrh View area, unemployment rates are also low. While the unemployment rate for all individuals over 16 years of age is 4.3 percent in the area, certain census block groups experience rates much higher than that (Figure 7.12).9 9. Note that the census block group at the northwest of the area experiences high unemployment. It is important to keep in mind that this particular census block group has an oversized visual impact as it includes large swaths of uninhabited (and uninhabitable) land. W 240 0 S S 5600 W Stansbury Park Salt Lake TAY L O R S V I L L E Taylorsville KEARNS S 2700 W 111 S 900 E M illcreek MILLCREEK W 6200 S U N I N C O R P O R AT E D HOLLADAY M urray M U R R AE Y 5600 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS Cot t onwood W 7000 S M I D VA L E Erda S l and Dr ho wer H w y S E 3300 S S 9 00 E Height s West Jordan W Erda Way Tooele 1 U- ha m Hw y SANDY S andy SOUTH JORDAN S 1300 E COPPERTON ng S 700 E Droub ay R d Lincoln i W Old B Bangerter Hw y WEST JORDAN S 1300 W t D Eis en N Ma in St ig h SOUTH WEST VALLEY 410 0 S WCITY h S H ig Dw South Salt LakeE 2700 West Valley S A LT L A K E City W 3500 S S 6400 W Magna S 900 W S 5600 W 201 S 1300 E Ba n g e r t e r Hwy Lake Point Junction Salt Lake City S Redwood Rd SALT LAKE CITY MAGNA S Sta t e St Salt Lake City Int'l Airport N Redwo od R d North Salt Lake S out h Jordan W 11400 S 11 W 11800 S Draper Rivert on RIVERTON W 13400 S 36 HERRIMAN DRAPER BLUFFDALE Hi gh la nd Dr Bauer Stockton 0 3 6 Miles Camp Williams Tim pa nogos Hw y Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap State Military and the GIS user community Reservation Percentage of Unemployment by Block Group 2018 Unemployed Population 16+ (%) 7.07% to 9.43% 0% to 2.22% 9.44% to 11.98% 2.23% to 4.61% Project Boundary 4.62% to 7.06% W 2100 N Data Source: Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation Figure 7.12: Unemployment Rates in Oquirrh View Census Block Groups 129 ECONOMY Housing One factor that may contribute to the low female labor force participation rate is household size. For owner-occupied households, the average household size is 3.17, while for renter-occupied households, the household size is slightly smaller (2.76). An average household size of three suggests there are many households with children, which could lead women to stay out of the full-time labor force. And while the average household size for the Oquirrh View area is around three, there are seven census tracts where the average renter-occupied household size is greater than five persons. In the census tract with the largest households, the average household size is 6.72 persons. Such large households in rental units do not come cheaply. While asking rent vary based on the size of the rental unit, the average rent across all rental units in the Oquirrh View area is estimated at $1,147. This value is higher than the average for the County as a whole, which is $1,076 per month. High rents lead to high rates of rent burden, meaning that a household pays more than 30 percent of its income toward rent. Of the 17,715 renter households within the Oquirrh View area, 6,991 are rent burdened. With nearly 7,000 rent-burdened households, representing nearly 40 percent of all renting households, this is a significant concern for area residents. Conversely, only 28 percent of all mortgagepaying households spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. One difference between mortgage and rent burdens is that paying down a mortgage, even if it is a burden on the household, is contributing to the wealth of that household, whereas rent payments do not help a household accumulate 130 wealth. It is important to note that homeownership is the primary means of transferring wealth to future generations. Thus, while mortgage burden is problematic, it does not inflict the same intergenerational challenges upon families and individuals as rent burdens do. Such high rates of rent-burdened households are a result of low vacancy rates for both housing units generally, and rental units specifically, in the Oquirrh View area. As mentioned in Chapter 6, there tends to be higher demand, lower inventory, and newer apartments in the Oquirrh View area than in the County as a whole, which puts upward pressure on rents. While there is a housing and rental unit shortage throughout the County, the vacancy rates are even lower in the Oquirrh View area. While the County vacancy rate averages for housing units and rental units are 5.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively, the vacancy rates in Oquirrh View are under 4 percent for each.(10) While vacancy rates in the area are lower than the rates for the County as a whole, the proportion of households with access to a vehicle is higher. Over 97 percent of households have access to at least one vehicle in the Oquirrh View area, while 94 percent of households in the county have access. Despite the generally favorable accessibility rates, there are a few census tracts in which only 90 percent of households have vehicle access. 10. U.S. Census Bureau 2012-2016 ACS 5-Year Outlook. A number of census tracts report 0% vacancy rates in the dataset. When these tracts are removed from the dataset, the average vacancy rate increases to 8.85%. It is unclear why so many tracts report as zero values. ECONOMY Food Access Access to vehicles is crucial in the Oquirrh View area because 90 percent of census tracts in the area are considered low foodaccess tracts by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA defines low food access using different metrics. One metric, low access at a half-mile, defines a tract as low access if more than 33 percent of tract residents do not live within a half mile of the nearest supermarket. Within the Oquirrh View area, only five tracts are not low access under this metric. A separate indicator for food access used by the USDA is low access at one mile. This follows the definition above but uses a onemile determination as opposed to a half-mile determination. Even at this more generous metric, a full 20 census tracts (40%) within the area are considered low access. Beyond low access tracts, the USDA also considers income levels for both one-mile and half-mile metrics. This overlay of income data with food access data denotes areas in which both income and access are low. At the onemile metric, there are three such tracts within the Oquirrh View area. At the half-mile metric, 11 tracts are both low, income and low-access. In 27 of the 50 tracts, the USDA counted at least some individuals, not quite a full third, living farther than one mile from the nearest supermarket, though some of these tracts had very few people in this category. In total, the USDA estimates that over 57,000 individuals within the Oquirrh View area live further than one mile from the nearest supermarket, 25 percent (14,865 individuals) of whom are considered low-income. Furthermore, despite accounting for a third of the County’s total population, the area contains for 43 percent of the County’s residents that do not live within a mile of a supermarket. The Oquirrh View area also accounts for 38 percent of the County’s total low-access, low-income population. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program In the area, 8.14 percent of households receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Of the households receiving SNAP benefits, 44.7 percent have at least two individuals working, 45.6 percent had one individual working, and 9.8 percent had no one working during the past year. For the County as a whole, the average median household income for families receiving SNAP benefits $26,051. The data for the Oquirrh View area had a number of missing data points and is unreliable. It would be safe to assume that the median household income for individuals receiving SNAP benefits in the Oquirrh View area would be similar. Comparing the data for households that receive SNAP benefits to general household demographics, it is clear that certain groups are overrepresented. While only 21 percent of households in the Oquirrh View Study Area have at least one person with a disability, 45 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits have at least one person with a disability. While 18 percent of the area households are Hispanic or Latino, 27 percent of area households receiving SNAP benefits are Hispanic or Latino. And while only 12 percent of area households are headed by single women, 36 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits are households headed by single women. When looking at households of single-mothers with children at home, the disparity is more 131 ECONOMY 201 W 240 0 S M U R R AE Y 5600 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS Cot t onwood W 7000 S M I D VA L E Erda S l and D r HOLLADAY M urray h S H ig S 2700 W S 900 E MILLCREEK Salt Lake U N I N C O R P O R AT E D E 3300 S M illcreek Taylorsville W 6200 S S S 90 0 E S 5600 W SOUTH S A LT L A K E TAY L O R S V I L L E KEARNS 111 Stansbury Park South Salt LakeE 2700 West V alley Cit y W 3500 S WEST VALLEY 4100 S WCITY S 6400 W Magna S 900 W S 5600 W Ba n g e r t e r Hwy Lake Point Junction Salt Lake City S Redwood Rd SALT LAKE CITY MAGNA S Sta t e St Salt Lake City Int'l Airport S 1300 E striking. While singlemothers with children at home represent only 8.5 percent of households in the area, they represent 30.5 percent of SNAP households. Thus, while single-mother households represent fewer than 1 in every 10 households in the population as a whole, nearly 1 in 3 households Dw receiving SNAP benefits igh t D are headed by single E i s e nho wer H wy mothers. N Redwo od R d North Salt Lake Height s West Jordan W Erda Way Tooele U- 1 Hw y SANDY S andy SOUTH JORDAN S 1300 E W Old am S 700 E COPPERTON gh S 1300 W Lincoln n Bi Bangerter Hw y Droub ay R d N Ma in St WEST JORDAN S out h Jordan W 11400 S 11 W 11800 S Draper Rivert on RIVERTON W 13400 S 36 HERRIMAN DRAPER BLUFFDALE g Hi hl an r dD Bauer Stockton 0 3 6 Miles Camp Williams Tim pa nogos Hw y Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap State Military and the GIS user community Reservation W 2100 N 2012-2016 American Community Survey Households Receiving Food Stamps 0% to 5.1% 10.87% to 17.15% 24.11% to 33.17% 5.11% to 10.86% 17.16% to 24.1% Project Boundary Data Source: Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation Figure 7.13: Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits by census block 132 ECONOMY percent of children under 18 live in poverty. And in the Oquirrh View Study Area, there are 11 tracts in which child-poverty rate exceeds 20 percent. Poverty While MHI in the Oquirrh View area is similar to the MHI for the County, the area outperforms the County in terms of poverty. The County has a poverty rate of 11.4 percent and the Oquirrh View area has a rate of 8.9 percent. Despite outperforming the County generally, there are still some census tracts of concern. Five tracts in the area have poverty rates approaching 20 percent (Figure 7.14). In these tracts, nearly one in five individuals lives below the federal poverty level. In the most poverty-stricken census tract, nearly 40 Another way of looking at this is to note that 11.4 percent of all children in the Oquirrh View area live in poverty, and that child poverty is concentrated in a few tracts. While some tracts see two in five children living in poverty, others have a child-poverty rate as low as 0.5 percent. The tract with the lowest poverty has a rate of 1.1 percent. W 240 0 S WEST VALLEY 410 0 S WCITY Stansbury Park Salt Lake TAY L O R S V I L L E Taylorsville KEARNS S 2700 W 111 W 6200 S U N I N C O R P O R AT E D S 900 E M illcreek MILLCREEK HOLLADAY M urray M U R R AE Y 5600 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS Cot t onwood W 7000 S M I D VA L E Erda S and Dr S 5600 W e nh o wer H w y S E 3300 S S 90 0 E Height s West Jordan W Erda Way Tooele 1 U- ha m Hw y SANDY S andy SOUTH JORDAN S 13 0 0 E COPPERTON ng S 700 E Droub ay R d Lincoln i W Old B Bangerter Hw y WEST JORDAN S 1300 W t D Eis N Ma in S t ig h SOUTH S A LT L A K E hl S H ig Dw South Salt LakeE 2700 West Valley City W 3500 S S 6400 W Magna S 900 W S 5600 W 201 S 1300 E Ba n g e r t e r Hwy Lake Point Junction Salt Lake City S Redwood Rd SALT LAKE CITY MAGNA S Sta t e St Salt Lake City Int'l Airport N Redwo od R d North Salt Lake S out h Jordan W 11400 S 11 W 11800 S Draper Rivert on RIVERTON W 13400 S 36 HERRIMAN DRAPER BLUFFDALE Hi gh la nd Dr Bauer Stockton 0 3 6 Miles T i m pa nogos Hw y Camp Williams Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap State Military and the GIS user community Reservation W 2100 N 2012-2016 American Community Survey Households Below Poverty Level 0% to 4.25% 8.09% to 13.26% 17.73% to 33.32% 4.26% to 8.08% 13.27% to 17.72% Project Boundary Data Source: Salt Lake County Regional Planning and Transportation Figure 7.14: Poverty Level by Census Tract in Oquirrh View 133 ECONOMY Health Insurance Coverage Another key economic indicator is health insurance coverage rates of residents. Individuals without adequate health insurance are more likely to avoid medical care because of prohibitive costs,(11) which can aggravate medical conditions and lead to missed days at work and/or school. Children who regularly miss days of school are more likely to fall behind in math and reading and be less engaged at school.(12) Because educational attainment is highly correlated with future earning potential, missed days of school can lead to lower wages as an adult, perpetuating poverty and negative health outcomes for future generations. Similarly, adults who miss work due to medical conditions (their own or those of a family member) may have their employment terminated, leading to more precarious economic circumstances and fewer options to address the health concerns that led to missing work in the first place. Adequate health coverage can help prevent such economic hardships. $50,000 annually is striking. This difference represents thousands of people who are uninsured. If coverage rates for those earning less than $50,000 equaled the rates for those in the $50,000-$75,000 range, an additional 10,000 people would be covered by some form of health insurance. Furthermore, while the data shows the number of individuals with some form of health insurance, it does not include data for individuals who have health insurance, but who are under insured or who do not have adequate coverage. Paying for healthcare costs can further distress the economic circumstances of individuals and their families without adequate healthcare coverage, which are primarily individuals making less than $50,000 per year. Coverage rates within the study area match the rates for the County as a whole. Overall, 87 percent of the population has some form of health insurance. Of note is that coverage rates increase as income increases, with a dramatic Figure 7.15: Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Income increase at the $50,000 threshold (Figures 7.15 Health Insurance Coverage Rates at Different and 7.16). Incomes The 16 percent difference in coverage rates between persons making less than $50,000 annually and persons making more than 11. Weinick, R. M., Byron, S. C., & Bierman, A. S. (2005). Who Can’t Pay for Health Care? Journal of General Internal Medicine,20(6), 504-509. 12. Gottfried, M. A. (2014). Chronic Absenteeism and Its Effects on Students’ Academic and Socioemotional Outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 53-75. 134 100% 90% 80% 91% 75% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under $50k Over $50k Figure 7.16: Health Insurance Coverage Rates Above and Below $50,000 ECONOMY Conclusion Bluffdale General Plan (2014) In terms of economic health, the Oquirrh View area is, on average, doing well. Looking only at averages, however, hides the concerns that face this area. Disparities in most key indicators exist based on northsouth geography, with the higher-earning areas located at the south end of the valley. Higher earnings contribute to lower rates of poverty, lower rates of rent-burdening, higher educational attainment, and higher rates of health insurance coverage, all of which increase the likelihood of higher earnings in the future. The overarching vision of the economic development section of the Bluffdale plan is to “promote a future that builds the community’s unique character, while supporting a variety of local economic opportunities and choices, and safeguarding low residential tax rates.” To do this, Bluffdale limits commercial development to five commercial nodes, only one of which exists within the Oquirrh View area (2700 West and Bangerter Highway). Guiding Economic Development Strategies A search through available records on municipal websites yielded a variety of economic development plans. Five of the jurisdictions within the Oquirrh View area have some form of economic development plan. The amount of detail in each varies from a few bullet points to a section of a larger general plan to a full strategic economic development plan. Of the municipalities with some form of strategic economic development plan, only Herriman is entirely within the Oquirrh View area. Because most of the municipalities extend beyond the study area, only portions of their plans are applicable. In what follows, summaries of the economic development plans are outlined for the municipalities for which they exist. The plan also outlines several goals that align with their foundational vision: 1. Encourage commercial and industrial developments at appropriate locations. 2. Formalize and fund economic development functions in the city. 3. Promote commerce through businessfriendly and streamlined city interactions. 4. Develop, enhance, and protect the city’s aesthetics to maintain a positive public image. 5. Protect and expand amenities and programmed events that promote quality of life. 6. Improve, diversify, and increase the tax base. 7. Actively seek and attract high-paying jobs and diverse employment options. 8. Integrate economic development efforts with major transportation infrastructure projects. Herriman City Economic Development Plan (2012) Herriman’s plan focuses most on their vision for what Herriman should be. The vision outlines that Herriman should maintain a small, hometown feel that controls growth and has a rural or suburban mentality. They want to maintain open space with good access to transportation, low crime, and quality 135 ECONOMY education. They would like to be a place where their children can stay once they are grown, and they want to maintain affordability. Within all of these objectives, Herriman also realizes that all major shopping and restaurant amenities and centers are located in other municipalities. This lack of commercial centers prompted the city to develop the following key goals: 1. Expand economic base with new retail and commercial businesses. 2. Encourage the development of a business park or employment center that will provide quality, good-paying jobs. 3. Pursue infrastructure improvements that will increase mobility and access to and from Herriman, connect to “shovel-ready” sites, and offer state-of-the-art technology. 4. Maintain and expand high quality of life and rural atmosphere. Riverton Strategic Plan (Fiscal Year 2016-2017) Riverton’s plan was the shortest and least detailed, but it did highlight a general need to facilitate balanced economic development. This included focusing efforts on three key areas, one of which is located within the Oquirrh View area. Emphasis was placed on working with the developer to streamline development of the Western Commercial District, which would include shopping and dining amenities. Salt Lake City Economic Development Plan (2017-2020) Salt Lake City’s plan is the most recent of any within the Oquirrh View area. As a standalone plan, it presents various data leading toward the development of strategic goals. And while these goals will impact the approach to the 136 areas with the Oquirrh View corridor, it is also important to note that as the states largest city and capital, Salt Lake City has a diverse array of economic development possibilities, many of which lie outside the study area. Furthermore, this plan was drafted prior to the 2018 inland port legislation, which will undoubtedly have an impact on strategy and implementation, though it was not captured in the plan. Four goals govern Salt Lake City’s economic development strategy through 2020: 1. Position the city to compete against like cities in capturing job opportunities for all residents, while seeking sustainable growth. 2. Cultivate vibrancy throughout the city by enhancing the arts, commercial districts, and housing opportunities. 3. Secure the city as a global, vital, and innovative community. 4. Position Salt Lake City’s Department of Economic Development as the authority on economic opportunities in the city. South Jordan Economic Development Plan (2011) While this plan is the oldest of those available, it is the most detailed. South Jordan acknowledges that population growth in SLCo is projected to hit the southwest segment of the valley hardest and South Jordan is anticipated to house a full third of that new growth. This projected growth informs the strategic goals and the general understanding that a balanced and sustainable economic base that includes property tax and sales tax revenues, as well as high-paying jobs, needs to be established to meet the needs of present and future residents. South Jordan’s plan highlights multiple nodes of developmental emphasis, three of ECONOMY which are included in the Oquirrh View area: Daybreak Economic District, Harvest Village Economic District, and The District Economic District. The plan outlines target industries and uses for each district along with zoning and transportation considerations. Because this plan is already seven years old, much has likely been done to meet the goals outlined already, but the plan continues to offer a framework for future economic development. Among the goals outlined in the plan are the following: 1. Promote transportation improvements. 2. Foster a regional retail perspective. 3. Advance neighborhood and community retail options. 4. Encourage specialized commercial development. 5. Support highway commercial development and transit-oriented development. 6. Build upon existing class A office(13) strengths. 7. Build economic diversity through research and business parks. South Jordan’s plan notes that to reach its goals, the city will need to plan for adequate land within the city dedicated to shopping and employment locations. Furthermore, South Jordan hopes to foster a positive business atmosphere and expand its economic base. Redevelopment Project Areas and Opportunity Zones Redevelopment project areas are intended 13. Class A Office space is defined by Area Development magazine as buildings that "represent the newest and highest quality in their market. They are generally the best looking buildings with the best construction, and possess high-quality building infrastructure. Class A buildings also are well located, have good access, and are professionally managed." to spur economic growth, reduce blight, and facilitate the creation of new jobs. To incentivize private development in certain areas within municipalities, project areas take advantage of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a public financing tool. Tax increment dollars are property tax dollars received above and beyond an established baseline level of property taxes. TIF allows redevelopment agencies to collect all or a portion of tax increment dollars generated within a project area for a specified period of time. Municipal redevelopment agencies can then use taxincrement dollars to incentivize development within the project area, increasing the property values and generating more tax revenues for the municipality. Prior to 2016, legislation that made changes to Utah Code Title 17C, project areas existed in three distinct categories: Urban Renewal Areas (URAs), Economic Development Areas (EDAs), and Community Redevelopment Areas (CDAs). Each of these project area types had different emphases. The primary objective of URAs was to reduce blight, leading to investment primarily focused on property enhancement. While URAs primarily focused on increasing property values, EDAs targeted job creation through attracting new employers to the area. CDAs were less specific in their purpose and focused on a combination of job creation, land revitalization, and land development. After the 2016 legislation, these designations were replaced by Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs), which have multiple emphases, simplifying project areas. This simplification adds an increased level of both flexibility and accountability to project areas. Flexibility comes from a single project area type that can remove urban blight, add new jobs, develop vacant land, or a combination of 137 ECONOMY these uses. Accountability comes through statutory language that requires project area budgets to allocate at least 10 percent of the project’s budget to affordable housing. Accountability has also been enhanced through increasing transparency. During the summer of 2018, SLCo Regional Economic Development launched a public database of all the redevelopment project areas in the County, including details on budgets, property tax increases, and tax increment collection. According to the database, there are 22 project areas within the Oquirrh View Study Area, 17 areas that are actively collecting tax increments. Of the tax area one expired project area, and four areas have been designated, but have not yet begun collecting tax increments (Tables 7.7 and 7.8). Considering only the projects that are actively collecting tax increment shows considerable growth in the property values. Within these project areas, the average growth in taxable value per acre is $172,572. The average per-project growth in taxable value for the 18 project areas that have collected tax increments (17 active, one expired) is $31,883,044. Such an increase in property values leads to increased revenue for West Valley City Table 7.7: Total Project Areas within Oquirrh View Study Area West Valley City Table 7.8: Active Project Areas within Oquirrh View Study Area 138 ECONOMY municipalities within the Oquirrh View area. Unfortunately, there is no current mechanism for assessing how effective project areas are at creating jobs. Given that there has been a lack of transparency and accountability prior to the use of CRAs, it is unclear whether the six EDAs within the Oquirrh View area that have collected tax increment have efficiently created jobs. New reporting and monitoring mechanisms should be implemented in order to better understand the employment impacts of these project areas. The closest data available are from the US Census Bureau’s On the Map tool. However, the most recent data is from 2015 and is, therefore, outdated. While the tool does allow users to view some historical data, the tool is imperfect. Nevertheless, the data can be helpful to begin to see some of the trends. According to the "On the Map" tool, there were a total of 3,457 jobs within the redevelopment project areas in 2002. In 2015 that number had increased to 4,567. Over a 13-year span, project areas saw an increase of 1,110 jobs, an increase of 85 jobs per year. When considering this increase, it is important to note that not all of these areas were active during the entire 13year period. Indeed, some of the project areas included in this analysis did not begin actively collecting tax increment until after 2015. Despite the holes in the data, it is clear that project areas are having at least some nominal impacting on the localities where they exist. Whether by generating increased property tax revenues or increasing the number of jobs available to local residents, redevelopment project areas have been beneficial, though the extent of these benefits is yet unclear. More needs to be done to analyze the impacts of these project areas, especially regarding their benefits on local employment and local wages. And while much could be done to fill gaps in the data, it should be remembered that these project areas are intended to be a boon to municipalities. Focusing development in and around these project areas would be wise as they are meant to spur development. Any emphasis on redevelopment areas should go in tandem with conversations around opportunity zones. As part of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act established by Congress, opportunity zones are economically-distressed communities where new investments may be eligible for preferential tax treatment. These low-income communities are designated as Opportunity Zones in a hope to spur economic growth and development. Within the Oquirrh View area, there are three Opportunity Zones (Table 7.9). The median household income (MHI) of each of these opportunity zones is below the MHI of the county as a whole ($64,601). Additionally, two of the three Opportunity Zones in the area have poverty levels that exceed the background levels of the County (11.4%). The following Table 7.9: Opportunity Zones within Oquirrh View Study Area 139 ECONOMY paragraphs will focus primarily on the most economically distressed Opportunity Zone in the area. While this document will focus primarily on one location, information can be gleaned on how investment and development could occur in other areas within the Oquirrh View Study Area, whether they are Opportunity Zones, redevelopment project areas, or other areas. The Opportunity Zone that is the most economically distressed in the area is located in Kearns Metro Township. Located along 5400 South, a major east-west thoroughfare, and with easy access to Bangerter Highway, this tract is a prime location for investment because of its accessibility. That said, investment in walkable infrastructure is needed along the 5400 South corridor, as this seven-lane road is not pedestrian-friendly. Infrastructure investment, coupled with community resources and commercial redevelopment, could make this tract much more beneficial to the residents nearby and to the larger County wide economic landscape. This tract has suffered from lack of investment. With a staggering 11% unemployment rate (nearly four times the background rate of the County as a whole) and a 20% poverty rate (nearly double the rate for the County as a whole), this tract needs the right kinds of investment. Simply bringing in a new commercial shopping district, which could be helpful for the Kearns Metro Township, would not necessarily meet resident needs. Currently the area is a relative employment desert with only 581 jobs. At only 0.14 jobs per resident, the area is in need of attention and provides a prime opportunity for investment. The low number of jobs likely contributes to the striking unemployment and poverty rates experienced. The low job prospects and the 140 high unemployment undoubtedly contributes to the low MHI in the area. With MHI ($40,917) far below the County average and average household sizes (3.35) above the County average, the residents in this tract do not necessarily have the disposable income that would be required for a thriving commercial center. Furthermore, redevelopment in this tract could raise property values to a point that local residents cannot afford to remain in the area, which could cause more harm than good. Strategic investment in this area, through strong investment in community resources, which includes the current plans to rebuild the County library, would go a long way to contributing to the success of the area. Bringing in more than just living- and highwage jobs is needed. Investment in internship and apprenticeship programs is critical to connecting local students with jobs to support them in the future. Furthermore, because the school district experiences strikingly low graduation rates, having community resources and connecting individuals with jobs could go a long way toward helping to keep students in school, helping students graduate, and helping individuals receive the training (college or otherwise) that will enable them to find gainful employment that earns a living wage. In addition to investing in young people, which would go a long way toward helping move individuals out of poverty, investment in the area's adult residents is also needed. While investing in living-wage jobs is critical, jobs alone are of little aid to residents without the skillset or the experience needed to attain those jobs. Job-training programs, Englishlanguage programs (nearly 10% of tract residents are non-English speakers), and ECONOMY employment-skills trainings are also needed. Investment and redevelopment focused on developing talent and skills in local residents would not only help the residents of the area, but it would be a boon to the region as a whole. Conclusion Strategic investment and development in Opportunity Zones, redevelopment project areas, and other parts of the Oquirrh View area, should consider the needs of the residents who will live there after investors have left. These needs include high-wage employment opportunities, amenities and services for residents, affordable housing, transit and active-transportation options, and educational and health resources, among other things. As these investments are made strategically, the economic outcomes of the community will increase and disparities across geography can begin to be overcome. 141 PARKS & TRAILS Chapter 8: Parks and Trails Introduction Access to parks, natural lands, trails, and recreation is essential to a healthy population. SLCo recognizes the value of regional amenities in parks and trails, such as Sugarhouse Park, Dimple Dell Regional Park, Wheeler Historic Farm Park, and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The west side of Salt Lake Valley also has some historic large parks: Oquirrh Park (including the Olympic Oval, Kearns), Centennial Park (West Valley City), and Welby Park (160 acres, partially built, South Jordan). The biggest difference between the east side of Salt Lake Valley and the west bench is the access to public lands. As shown in the Land Use chapter, the majority of the Oquirrh Mountains (in SLCo) are owned by Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation/ Rio Tinto and are closed to public access. The Wasatch Mountains east of the Valley are primarily managed by United States Forest Service and are open to public use. However the Oquirrh Mountains still offer opportunities for recreation in limited areas and hopefully more in the future as mining operations continue to be reclaimed (Environment chapter). Measuring Park Lands Two main methods are used to gauge the effectiveness of park systems. The first is usable park land per 1,000 residents; the second is walkable distance between residential neighborhoods and parks. Figure 8.1: Wardle Fields Regional Park Pickleball Courts, Bluffdale 142 PARKS & TRAILS Park Lands Per 1,000 Residents When considering acreage per population (1,000 residents), parks should be considered usable, such as passive, recreation, pathways, developed, etc. Land that is not suitable for parks from this viewpoint includes stormwater basins, steep hills or mountains, small areas, etc. This definition focuses on park lands that are maintained and managed by park departments (city/county). Natural lands have high value, but offer different purposes than city/county parks. According to a 2018 report published by National Recreation and Park Association, there are typically 10.1 acres of park land per 1,000 people, as a nationwide average (NRPA, 2018). The SLCo Parks & Recreation Division has established the following standard of “5 acres per 1,000 population; Acreage standard includes Class One Regional Parks, Class Two Regional Parks, Neighborhood Parks” (SLCo 2015 Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan, 2015). and adding future parks (total 2,409 acres), the ratio becomes 6.08 park acres per 1,000 residents. Oquirrh View Parks/ Open Space PARK TYPE Acres Natural Lands (County Park) 2496 BLM Land City Parks 1666 926 Golf Courses 750 County Parks 802 City Parks--Future 351 County - Identified Future Parks 191 Private Parks/Open Space 139 City Parks--Natural 97 Table 8.1: Oquirrh View Park Land The 2017 population of the Oquirrh View area is approximately 325,000 (see Demographics), putting County Parks per 1,000 residents at 2.5 acres, well below the County goal of 5. Looking ahead at the 2025 projected population of 396,994 (or more), and including identified future County parks, (802 + 191) this would put the County at 2.50 acres per 1,000 residents. Combining city, County and private land (HOAs1) provides a park acreage total of 1,867, and approximately 6 park acreage per 1,000 residents. Looking ahead to 2025 population 1. HOA "common areas" are open to the public. 143 Figure 8.2: Copperton Park PARKS & TRAILS Figure 8.3: Oquirrh View Parks Map 144 PARKS & TRAILS Walkable Distance to Parks The second way to gauge the effectiveness of an entire park system is the access or availability of parks within a walkable distance from the population. A number of studies have provided data showing that distance matters when it comes to frequency of park usage. A California study reported “People living closer to a park tended to visit more often. Among observed park users, 43% lived within 0.25 mile, and another 21% lived between 0.25 and 0.5 mile of the park. Only 13% of park users lived more than one mile from the park. Of local residents, 38% living more than one mile away were infrequent park visitors, compared with 19% of those living less than 0.5 mile away. Residents who visited the park monthly or more frequently lived an average of 0.7 miles away, versus 1.07 Figure 8.4: Lodestone Regional Park, Kearns 145 miles for those visiting less frequently” (Cohen, 2007). Simply put, the closer people live to a park the more they use it. In Figure 8.5 Distance to Parks Map, parks (City, County and HOA) have been mapped. Population areas that are within 0.25 to 0.50 mile to a park are depicted in green and areas outside 0.5 mile are in blue. While much of the park land is within a reasonable distance to a population, not all neighborhoods are within walking distance. When mapping distance to parks from populations, it's also important to consider the amount of park lands. Figure 8.6 is a map showing both Park Concentration (amount of park land) and Walkability. It is clear that on a large scale park land is not equally distributed among the greater population and cities. PARKS & TRAILS Figure 8.5: Distance to Parks Map 146 PARKS & TRAILS Figure 8.6: Park Concentration and Walkability 147 PARKS & TRAILS the County and western cities. The west BST would start at the SLCo owned Rose and Yellow Fork canyons and continue north to Magna. Segments and beginnings of the trail are already built in southwestern SLCo. For the majority of the west BST there is minimal land, right- of-ways or easements acquired. Regional Trail System In a survey of SLCo residents regarding recreational priorities, building new trails was ranked at the top. This follows national trends and desire by the public to have extensive, well-maintained trail systems. Establishing a fixed alignment, agreement The idea of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail with land owners, land ownership purchase (BST) germinated in 1990 and the official or easements is essential for the future of the planning process began in 1991. The concept of a regional BSTtospread When asked prioritizenorth park to andCache recreation amenities west BST and should be a top priority for the planning the Oquirrh Mountains and western County and south to Utah County. Today, a alking/running/bike Salt Lake Valley. good portion of the east bench in SLCo has a eas/wildlife habitat BST and more is planned as funds are raised, The 2015 SLCo East-West Recreational Trails property acquired and trails built. The difficulty d un-programmed Master Plan identified five major trail corridors of establishing regional trails through multiple ground (traditional) jurisdictions and land ownerships reiterates the connecting much of the Valley. All five trail corridors connect the Wasatch one the east pavilion/picnic area needs for planning. with the BST on the west (see Figure 8.8). mming pool, indoor A western Bonneville Shoreline Trail is also ming pool, outdoor desired and planned on recreation maps in 5% 0% 20% 15% 10% 25% When asked to prioritize actions by Parks and Recreation new walking, hiking, and biking trails 32% When asked Build to prioritize outdoor sports amenities 54% Higher level of park maintenance ball court, outdoor 49% ootball/Rugby field Improve regional trails Purchase land for parks 44% 47% 36% 32% Purchase land to preserve natural open space 29% 50% 40% 34% Higher level of sports fields maintenance nd volleyball court 47% 20% 46% baseball diamond 36% Build new swimming pools 37% Light more sports 21% fields 37% Build new athletic fields 38% 24% 0% 26% 19% 13% 10% Build new outdoor special event venues Golf course 36% 28% 20% 44% /Field hockey field 23% 51% Build new passive use parks ck baseball games 33% 43% Purchase land for regional trails28% 45% 51% 25% Higher level of natural area maintenance nis court, outdoor 29% 51% 47% Softball diamond 41% 40% 38% Higher level of building maintenance baseball diamond 37% 48% 35% 33% 17% Higher level of golf course maintenance High Priority 12% 32% natural turf30% grass sports fields to synthetic turf 60% 40% 50% 10% Convert20% Medium Priority 16% 0% 14% 70% 5% 10% 80% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 8.7: Recreation Priorities for Salt Lake County Residents Medium Priority Valley Regional Park High Priority 148 Map 2: Final Preferred Alignments PARKS & TRAILS US 8 9 Salt Lake County East West Recreational Trails Master Plan CK BE ST Y OR CT VI 1000 N RD 600 N VIR GIN ST IA 500 W UNIVERSITY ST W TE EST FR MPL E ON TAG E 2100 E MAIN ST 700 E RICHMOND ST 300 W 900 E WA SAT CH JAGUAR DR 4800 W BLV D FASHION BLVD 700 W REDWOOD RD TEMPLE DR COUGAR LN STATE ST CANAL ST 4015 W 6400 W 3200 W 2200 W SAN D PKW Y Y LITTLE RD COTT ONW OOD RD LITTLE COTTONWOOD CYN DIM DE PL LL E RD rH 1300 W do rri RY FACTO D R ET OUTL igh y wa 1300 E DRAPER PKWY 12300 S PIONEER RD 12600 S FORT ST Co 2700 W 11000 S 1700 E 6000 W 5400 W 4000 W T EC NN CO DAN JOR WY GT ew Vi ain nt CY N BENG AL B LVD S SEGO LILY DR 11400 S § ¦ ¨ 15 TER GER BAN B HWY E 13400 S W 2 14 00 13800 S S 14600 S L GH HI D AN S NE DR AY D W RL O W DR PO NY E XP RE S RO SE SR D CY NR D 14400 S 1700 W D BIG OOD W TON COT CYN 8600 S E 10600 S u Mo 6800 P CAM WIL LIA RD MS Salt Lake County East West RecreaƟonal Trails Master Plan BU TT ER FIE L 5 68 Page 3 Corridor Alignments Corridor A Preferred Corridor A Alternative Corridor C Alternative Corridor D Preferred Primary North-South County Regional Trails Existing County Regional Trails Light Rail Route Commuter Rail Route Corridor B Preferred Corridor B Alternative Corridor D Alternative Corridor E Preferred Proposed County Regional Trails Parks Light Rail Stations Commuter Rail Stations Corridor C Preferred Corridor E Alternative Open Space Figure 8.8: East - West Trails Master Plan - SLCo Parks and Recreation 149 215 8000 S 9400 S 100 00 S SHIELDS LN § ¦ ¨ 3500 E U-111 HW Y 7755 FORT UNION BLVD I SK Trail 9800 S HILLC R HIGH EST DR 8680 S SOU JOR TH DA PKW N Y 11800 S BIG COTTONWOOD RD 6400 S UNION PARK AVE WASATCH ST River Jordan Y ST 5600 S SIXTH AVE 7500 S 9000 S ail l Tr na Ca HW 5300 S CENTER ST ake M VI NE TER ST WINCHES 4500 S MURRAY HOLLADAY RD 4800 S 7200 S L alt A GH BIN 15 7000 S hS Uta D OL Y CYN AY AD LL D HO BLV AIRPORT RD B PA AG RK LE R Y D DANNON WAY § ¦ ¨ 5900 S 7800 S HERRIM AN HW MILLCREEK 3800 S E KL IN Y NW XP VA E 5400 S 6200 S Y HW 3300 S 3900 S LE SVIL LOR Y TAY EXP MURRAY VILLE RD TAYLORS 4700 S 4715 S 215 M WEST TEMPLE ST DOW MEA OK BRO Y EXP § ¦ ¨ A GH BIN § ¦ ¨ 2700 S Trail 5415 S W NE PA R W LE Y AY S 80 2300 E 3600 W 5200 W 120 0 W 5600 W CONSTITUTION BLVD 8400 W 7200 W 8000 W 9180 W 9200 W 3100 S DR 2100 S 1300 NB E Canal SUNNYSIDE AVE 800 S 1300 S 3230 W alt Lake 600 S N O TI RA RD IG N EM CY LL HI OT FO TER BANGER HWY Utah S 500 S 1700 S 3500 S 4100 S 400 S PARKWAY BLVD ATE POR COR K DR PAR C BE OP ND PE R RD LAKE PARK BLVD SOUTH TEMPLE ST 900 W BANGERTER NB HWY § ¦ ¨ 215 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 15 ver Trail Jordan Ri LE MP L TE CO EB CALIFORNIA AVE H NORT RD TAGE FRON § ¦ ¨ 400 N H TC SA WA DR R AL D MIN TER NORTH TEMPLE ST ° 0 1 2 Miles March 2015 PARKS & TRAILS Each trail offers different options and alternatives The five major trail corridors are as follows: • A - City Creek Canyon and/or Emigration Canyon to Great Salt Lake. On the east this trail starts in Salt Lake City and heads west to the Great Salt Lake and Magna. • B - Parley’s Canyon to Mid-Valley & Magna. This trail starts near Wasatch Boulevard, follows Parley’s Trail west to the Jordan River Trail, and continues west on the Mid-valley Trail, Decker Park and Parkway Boulevard. An alternative connects with the established Utah and Salt Lake Canal Trail, a major trail going diagonally southeast to northwest. • C - Big Cottonwood Canyon to Magna & West Bench. This trail starts at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon and follows the Cottonwood Trail, using multiple streets and trails heading west. This trail also has an option of connecting to the Utah and Salt Lake Canal Trail at about 3200 West. • D - Little Cottonwood Canyon to Copperton. This trail starts at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon and follows the north rim of Dimple Dell Regional Park. In the middle part of the valley, it follows a number of streets and goes to the Jordan River Trail; farther west, it generally follows Bingham Creek. An alternative route follows 9000 South, heading west. • E - Little Cottonwood Canyon to Midas Creek & Rose Canyon. This trail heads southwest following the bench, then towards Herriman, before going southwest again to connect with Rose Canyon (SLCo property). Figure 8.9: Foothills hiking in Utah 150 PARKS & TRAILS Rose Canyon/ Yellow Fork Canyon The Rose Canyon and Yellow Fork Canyon recreational area is a preserved natural landscape and destination for residents seeking an outdoor escape close to home in the southwest corner of the Valley. There are three management areas: (1) 1,508 acres owned by U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM); (2) 809 acres in Yellow Fork owned by SLCo; and (3) 1,692 acres in Rose Canyon Ranch, owned by SLCo. SLCo Parks and Recreation manages only the non-BLM land. Yellow Fork Canyon was purchased in 1984 and Rose Canyon Ranch in 2007. The recreation area has two major access points: Butterfield Canyon Road on the northern and western sides and Rose Canyon Road on the eastern and southern perimeter. The main land use objective is to preserve the environment of the natural landscape and allow low intensity recreation uses, including: equestrian, hiking, mountain biking, nordic skiing, snowshoeing, picnicking, and wildlife observation and photography. Figure 8.9: Rose Canyon looking east over the Salt Lake Valley 151 Motorized vehicles in any form, such as motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, etc., are not permitted on the land or trails. Some of the biggest issues facing land management includes: non-motorized vehicles on trails/land, trail user conflicts, erosion, public access and parking, damage to public property, and wildfire risk. The recreation area has a number of different vegetation landscapes, with sagebrush on the lower and south-facing slopes, starting around 5,600 feet. Big Tooth Maple and Gamble Oak woodlands comprise the largest vegetation group, stretching from the lower to the upper portions. At the upper elevations (above 7,900 feet) vegetation is alpine and subalpine with conifers. Rose Canyon and Yellow Fork Canyon offer rare opportunities to recreate in the Oquirrh Mountains in SLCo, and they merit resources and attention. PARKS & TRAILS Figure 8.10: Rose Canyon/Yellow Fork Canyon Map 152 ENVIRONMENT 153 ENVIRONMENT Chapter 9: Environment Introduction SLCo lies on the easternmost edge of the Basin and Range Province, a large geologic region that extends from southeastern Oregon all the way to central Mexico and from California to Texas. This geologic province is characterized by alternating narrow, faulted mountain chains and flat, arid valleys. The mountains are typically asymmetric in shape with one side having a steep slope and the other a gentler slope. The Salt Lake Valley is unique because it is situated on the ancient floor of Lake Bonneville, the historic predecessor to the Great Salt Lake that once covered a large portion of the western half of the state. This has led to a valley that is comprised of mostly unconsolidated soils. Unconsolidated soils can be prone to liquefaction, a phenomenon that occurs most often during earthquakes and causes water-saturated soils to behave as quicksand. However, the unconsolidated soils also allow for water to infiltrate the ground and enter the groundwater system, replenishing the aquifer beneath. Figure 9.1: Geologic Provinces of Utah. Utah Geologic Survey Figure 9.2: Extent of Lake Bonneville. Utah Geologic Survey 154 ENVIRONMENT Physical and Geological Setting The Salt Lake Valley has a very typical Basin and Range cross section. Starting at the top of the Oquirrh Mountains, the slope is steep. It gradually changes to moderately steep benches, which gradually turn to gentle slopes into the valley. The valley continues with gentle slopes until it reaches the Wasatch Mountains. The east side of the valley rises from gentle slopes to steep mountains. Transition between the valley and mountains is more pronounced on the east than in the west (see Figure 9.3). Figure 9.4 shows the slope of the Oquirrh View Study Area. Shades of green represent areas where the slope is less than 10 degrees. Yellow is for slopes between 10 and 20 degrees. Orange represents slopes of 20 to 30 degrees and red slopes are greater than 30 degrees, which are not suitable for development. Because the valley was once the bottom of an ancient lake, the vast majority of it is relatively flat, having a slope of less than 10 degrees, with the exception of the mountains. The aspect of a slope or mountain is the direction the slope faces. The majority of the slopes on the east side of the Oquirrhs face north and east, whereas the Tooele side of the Oquirrhs face mostly south and west. Slopes that are north-and east-facing are generally more wet and have more vegetation than south-and-west facing slopes. (Figure 9.5). Figure 9.3: Cross Section of the Salt Lake Valley from Nelson Peak (left) to Twin Peaks (right) 155 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.4: Slope Map 156 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.5: Aspect Map 157 ENVIRONMENT Hydrological Setting From a precipitation and snow-pack viewpoint, the West Bench receives only slightly less precipitation than the East Bench of the valley. Dry Fork, located north-northwest of Bingham Canyon Mine at an elevation of 7093 feet, receives an average of 31 inches of precipitation a year. As a comparison, Parley's Summit in the Wasatch Mountains is at an elevation of 7585 feet and receives an average of 32 inches of precipitation a year. Louis Meadow, at an elevation of 6700 feet in City Creek Canyon, receives 37 inches of precipitation on average (Figure 9.6). The Oquirrh Mountains contain few perennial streams, none of which are perennial over their entire course. Only certain sections are perennial while the rest of the stream runs dry for periods of time as it hits the loose valley sediment and infiltrates into the groundwater. There are many intermittent streams across the range on the Salt Lake County side. The lack of significant perennial streams, compared to the Wasatch, directly affects the availability of surface water for drinking, agriculture, recreation, etc. There are numerous springs in the mountains and several canals and ditches throughout the valley. Several artificial lakes and reservoirs are scattered throughout the region. Figure 9.7 shows the distribution of surface water throughout the study area. According to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, which services the majority of the Oquirrh View area, groundwater accounts for approximately 10-20 percent of the drinking water supply in the region. Figure 9.8 shows the recharge and discharge areas for groundwater in the study area. The recharge zones are areas where the groundwater has a downward component to its flow, whereas the discharge zone is where the groundwater has an upward component to its flow. The discharge zones are located in the northern portion of the area, nearest the Great Salt Lake. The Oquirrh Mountains provide slow recharge, while the primary and secondary recharge zones, located at the foothills and farther into the valley, respectively, allow for quicker water infiltration to the aquifer. The recharge zones are the areas of most concern as contaminants spilled in these zones have the potential to contaminate the groundwater supply. Contaminants in the discharge zone do not pose as great a threat to the groundwater supply because the water is traveling upwards, away from the aquifer. Wetlands and water account for approximately 15 percent of the total area of the study area (Figure 9.9). The majority is located in the northern part of the study area, near the Great Salt Lake. Wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act and are managed by the Federal government. Figure 9.6: Precipitation and Snow Comparison 158 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.7: Surface Hydrology Map 159 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.8: Aquifer Zones Map 160 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.9: Wetlands Map 161 ENVIRONMENT Native Vegetation While the urbanization of the region has changed the vegetation significantly, there are four main native vegetation ecoregions (plant ecosystems) within the Oquirrh View Study Area (Figure 9.10). The northern portion is dominated by salt deserts and saline basins. These regions have soils with high salt and alkali content and tend to be dry for long periods of time. Typical vegetation found in this area includes saltgrass, shadscale, greasewood, and other extremely salt-tolerant plants. The easternmost boundary of the study area within approximately a mile of Bangerter Highway is characterized as being fertile outside of urban areas. Vegetation native to this area includes sagebrush, wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, and other shrubs. The middle portion of the study area is characterized by sagebrush, bunchgrasses, and other herbaceous plants. This area was historically mostly used as rangeland with farming occurring locally. The Oquirrh Mountains were historically used for rangeland and logging. The dominant vegetation in this area is juniper-pinyon and sagebrush. 162 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.10: Native Vegetation Ecoregions Map 163 ENVIRONMENT Geological Hazards Earthquakes are a major concern for SLCo. The Wasatch Fault runs through the valley. While the main segment of the fault lies on the eastern side of the valley, the West Valley Fault Zone runs through the northern section of the Oquirrh View Study Area. While earthquakes occur nearly every day (most of which are too small to feel), according to the Utah Geological Survey, the most recent earthquake to occur along the West Valley Fault Zone occurred approximately 5,500 years ago. The West Valley Fault Zone is not as active as the neighboring Wasatch Fault Zone. Despite the Wasatch Fault being located at the base of the Wasatch Range, the epicenter, or location directly above where the earthquake originates, is approximately in the center/west-of-center of the valley. This is where some of the strongest ground shaking could occur outside of the actual fault on the surface. So while the Wasatch Fault is not located within the Oquirrh View Study Area, some of the strongest shaking could occur near the study area. Another concern associated with earthquakes is liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated soils experience shaking (typically from an earthquake), which causes them to lose strength and act like a viscous liquid, such as quicksand. This can cause buildings to tilt or sink into the ground and can cause damage to existing infrastructure. Figure 9.11 shows the liquefaction susceptibility, as well as known faults in the Oquirrh View Study Area. Most of these hazards are located in the northern portion of the study area. Figure 9.11: The West Valley Fault Zone and the Salt Lake City Segment of the Wasatch Fault * Yellow dots represent excavation trenches for fault studies ** Holocene is the present geologic time era that began approximately 11,000 years ago. Faults that have been active in the last 11,000 years are considered "active". Figure 9.12: Simple Illustration of Liquefaction 164 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.13: Liquefaction Potential and Faults Map 165 ENVIRONMENT Contaminants Due to the history of mining in the region, there are a few locations that have experienced contamination. Kennecott has taken steps to re-mediate all contamination due to historical mining practices. Other sources of contamination include gas stations with potentially leaking storage systems and businesses that process or manufacture goods, among other things. The Environmental Protection Agency keeps records of businesses that store or use potentially hazardous materials. The map of potentially contaminated sites, Figure 9.17, shows locations where contamination could occur, not where contamination has occurred. Another contamination concern is air quality. The Salt Lake Valley experiences a unique phenomenon known as inversion, where cold air remains in place beneath warm air, trapping pollutants in the valley. This is most common during the winter, but can occur any time of the year. Figure 9.14: Man Inspecting Hazardous Waste Figure 9.15: View of Downtown Salt Lake City during a Winter Inversion There are many pollutants in the air during an inversion, but particulate matter is one of the main concerns. Particulate matter, especially fine particulate matter, can infiltrate the lungs and get stuck, which can lead to pulmonary issues. The biggest factor that leads to particulate matter in the air is vehicular and truck emissions, with factories and houses also contributing. In the Oquirrh View Study Area, there are a few businesses that contribute to particulate matter. The largest of these is Kennecott, which has taken measures to reduce its emissions of particulate matter during times of inversion. Kennecott announced in 2019 it will be closing its power plant. Figure 9.16: Graphic of Winter Inversion 166 ENVIRONMENT Figure 9.17. Potential Contamination Map 167 ENVIRONMENT Mining Reclamation Mining has occurred in the Oquirrh Mountains since the early 1860s. Environmental stewardship was not a priority during the first century that mining occurred in the area. When Rio Tinto took control of Kennecott in 1989, plans were made to protect and re-mediate past environmental mishaps. Part of those plans involved cleaning up past contaminations, including excavation of contaminated soils from various sites and disposing of them in contained areas. Rio Tinto is also pumping contaminated groundwater and treating it to prevent it from spreading into the valley, creating and restoring wetlands for bird habitat, and restoring sites to a more natural condition with native vegetation. Figure 9.18: Map of Active and Reclaimed Mining Sites One of Rio Tinto’s most successful reclamation projects is Daybreak, 4200 acre planned community. The site of evaporation ponds used during the mining process. Daybreak was Rio Tinto’s idea of creating a sustainable use of post-mining land. While Kennecott has long-term plans to reclaim all of their land from mining operations, there is no pending closure date on the Bingham Mine. In the meantime, Kennecott plans to responsibly mine and reclaim areas that are no longer in use. Reclaimed lands are not "restored to the original state of the natural landscape", but they are often graded to stable slopes and re-vegetated. Figure 9.19: Before and After Pictures of Lark Tailings at Kennecott 168 EXECUTIVE APPENDIX SUMMARY Appendix Acronyms AARC AF AGRC AMI ATIP BLM BRT BST CDA CRA CUP CVWR EDA EDR EIS GHID GIS GLA HH HOA JVWCD KID MGD MHI M&I MIT MVC MWDSLS NAICS OV PI PUD Q2 RTP SF SLC SLCo 169 Average Annual Rate of Change Acre Feet Automated Geographic Reference Center Area Median Income Active Transportation Implementation Plan Bureau of Land Management Bus Rapid Transit Bonneville Shoreline Trail Community Redevelopment Area Community Reinvestment Area Central Utah Project Central Valley Water Reclamation Economic Development Area Electrodialysis Recovery Environmental Impact Statement Granger-Hunter Improvement District Geographic Information System Gross Leasable Area Household Homeowners Association Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Kearns Improvement District Million Gallons per Day Median Household Income Municipal and Industrial Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mountain View Corridor Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy North American Industry Classification System Oquirrh View Pressurized Irrigation Planned Unit Development Second Quarter Regional Transportation Plan Square Footage Salt Lake City Salt Lake County EXECUTIVE APPENDIX SUMMARY SLCDPU SMB SNAP STIP SVSD SVWRF TAZ TBID TIF TIP UDOT ULS URA USDA UTA WFRC WTP WVC Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Small & Medium Business Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan South Valley Sewer District South Valley Water Reclamation Facility Traffic Analysis Zone Taylorsville-Bennion Improvement District Tax Increment Financing Transportation Improvement Program Utah Department of Transportation Utah Lake System Urban Renewal Area United States Department of Agriculture Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front Regional Council Regional Water Treatment Plant West Valley City 170 EXECUTIVE APPENDIX SUMMARY Glossary Active Transportation: any self-propelled, human-powered mode of transportation, such as walking or bicycling. Aquifer: a body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater. Bus Rapid Transit: a term used for a variety of bus systems that provide faster and more efficient service than regular bus. Stops are branded and more visible, and may look similar to light rail transit stations. An exclusive-lane BRT system operates similarly to light rail transit. Census Tract Geography: a region created by the US Census Bureau that falls completely within a county. Each tract generally contains between 1,500-8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. Child Poverty Rate: The ratio of the number of people 0-17 years old who live below the poverty line. Core Bus: The core bus network signifies an existing and continuing commitment to high levels of transit service. Core routes achieve high productivity (riders per mile) by being useful to many people for many trip purposes. Once defined, core routes are typically not subject to service cuts. ESRI: Environmental Systems Research Institute is an international supplier of geographic information system (GIS) software, web GIS and geodatabase management applications (Wikipedia). 171 Geometric Improvements: the positioning of physical elements of the roadway according to standards and constraints. The basic objectives in geometric design are to optimize efficiency and safety while minimizing cost and environmental damage. This also includes designing roads to foster broader community goals, including providing access to employment, schools, businesses and residences, accommodate a range of travel modes such as walking, bicycling, transit, and automobiles, and minimizing fuel use, emissions ,and environmental damage (Wikipedia). Main Gathering Trunk Lines: Main Outfall Lines: MAX: Bus Rapid Transit described by UTA as light rail on rubber tires, referring to BRT on 3500 South. Metro Township: a municipality like a city or town. Its governing board, the Metro Township Council, is comprised of five members who are elected to serve, just like cities and towns elect their councils. In the Oquirrh View Study Area, there are three Metro Townships: Magna, Kearns, and Copperton. Mountain View Corridor: a state-maintained highway on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley. Mountain View Corridor is being built using a phased construction approach designed to balance transportation needs with available funds. Initial construction includes two lanes in each direction, with signalized intersections and biking and walking trails. Future construction phases will EXECUTIVE APPENDIX SUMMARY build out the remainder of the corridor by converting intersections to interchanges and adding inside lanes to achieve a fully functional freeway. Mountain View Corridor will eventually be a 35-mile freeway from I-80 in SLCo to S.R. 73 in Utah County. Poverty Rate: The ratio of the number of people whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Project-Based Units: a component of a public housing agency's Housing Choice Voucher program. Public housing agencies are not allocated additional funding for project based voucher units; the public housing agency uses its tenant-based voucher funding to allocate project-based units to a project. Public Housing Units: provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single family houses to high-rise apartments. TAZ: Traffic Analysis Zone is the unit of geography most commonly used in convential transportation planning models. The size of a zone varies, but for a typical metropolitan planning area, a zone of under 3,000 people is common. Tax Increment Financing: a public financing method used as a subsidy for redevelopment, infrastructure, and other community-improvement projects. Municipalities typically divert future property tax revenue increases from a defined area or district toward an economic development project or public improvement project in the community (Wikipedia). Western Grid Suppliers: Roadway Corridor: an area (often linear) defined by vehicular transportation. Depending on the design and function, roadway corridors can also include elements of active transportation and transit service. Tax Credit Units: residential housing units that qualify for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. This is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for affordable housing investments. It gives incentives for using private equity in the development of affordable housing for low-income Americans. 172 EXECUTIVE APPENDIX SUMMARY WFRC: The Wasatch Front Regional Council is an Association of Governments (AOG) and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) comprised of elected officials from Box Elder, Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber counties. One representative from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and one representative from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) also serve on the Council, as well as six nonvoting members from the Utah State Senate, the Utah House of Representatives, the State Planning Director, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Utah Association of Counties, and Envision Utah. According to its mission statement, "The Wasatch Front Regional Council builds consensus and enhances quality of life by developing and implementing visions and plans for a well-functioning multi=modal transportation system, livable communities, a strong economy, and a healthy environment." 173