[0:03] Welcome to the regional growth

[0:04] committee. My name is Mayor Tammy Tran.

[0:07] It is Thursday, March 19th, 2026. It is

[0:10] 9:18 a.m. And we'll have introductions

[0:13] both around the table and then those

[0:15] attending online. If this is your first

[0:17] meeting as a member, we'd like we'd love

[0:19] to have you take a minute to tell us

[0:21] about yourself when you do go around the

[0:23] table and introduce yourself.

[0:27] » Start with

[0:28] >> start.

[0:28] with start with. Okay, Rosie.

[0:31] >> Good morning. Rosie Hernandez. I'm part

[0:33] of the admin team at WFRC.

[0:36] >> Jordan Chandler, also part of the admin

[0:38] team at WFRC.

[0:44] » Jeannie Groberg, mayor and in Fruit

[0:46] Heights.

[0:49] >> Yes. And Genie, you are a new member.

[0:51] Would you like to share anything about

[0:53] yourself? We're happy to have you.

[0:56] we can share.

[0:58] >> Sorry.

[1:00] Oh my gosh, my mind is a blank, guys.

[1:02] I'm having a crazy morning with stuff

[1:04] happening in life. So, can I delay that

[1:06] for another time?

[1:07] >> Yes. I will say that you're an

[1:09] incredible mayor and friend. And yes, we

[1:12] love you.

[1:12] >> Thank you.

[1:12] >> Former Fred Heights City Council as

[1:14] well.

[1:14] >> Thank you so much.

[1:17] >> I'm Gayen Ben and I'm the mayor of

[1:19] Cottonwood Heights. I served in the

[1:21] legislature. I've lived in in Cisville

[1:25] >> and near Cottonwood Fruit Heights.

[1:30] » Keith Bradshaw. I serve as mayor of

[1:32] Bountiful. Uh prior to this role, I

[1:35] served on the city council for a number

[1:36] of years. Um when I'm not in meetings, I

[1:40] prefer to be mountain biking.

[1:42] >> Mountain biking.

[1:44] Mayor Bradshaw is also, you know, all

[1:46] know this, but Mayor Bradshaw is also

[1:47] the current president of the Utah League

[1:49] of Cities and Towns and uh we were on

[1:52] the flight together back from DC just

[1:53] yesterday.

[1:55] >> We were I sprinted and made the flight.

[1:58] I was really excited about that,

[2:01] although I do have blisters from

[2:02] sprinting in shoes.

[2:07] » I'm Andrea Pearson, part of the admin

[2:09] team at WFRC.

[2:11] >> Good morning. I'm Andrew Guber.

[2:12] executive director here at WFRC.

[2:14] Welcome. Happy to have all of you.

[2:18] >> Good morning. Hi, I'm Ted Nolton. I'm

[2:20] the deputy director and chief planner

[2:22] here at WFRC and I am also the regional

[2:25] growth committee point of contact.

[2:32] I'm Loren Kamalu, not new to the group,

[2:35] but um I serve as a Davis County elected

[2:39] commissioner and um but I'm in this

[2:42] group appointed by the Utah Association

[2:44] of Counties and it's really awesome to

[2:48] see all the new mayors.

[2:53] I'm Mick Sbury, Mayor Magna. My first

[2:56] time ever.

[3:00] » Good morning. Christy Overson, mayor of

[3:02] Taylor'sville.

[3:04] >> And good morning. I'm Bryce Bird with

[3:05] the Utah Division of Air Quality.

[3:10] >> I'm Kristen Cordova with the Urban Land

[3:12] Institute of Utah.

[3:15] >> Jordan Bachmann with DOT.

[3:18] >> Jiren Robertson with the Utah Transit

[3:19] Authority.

[3:21] >> Jason Brown. I'm the CEO of Envision

[3:23] Utah.

[3:26] Good morning. Ty McCutchen. I'm here as

[3:28] in my role as chair of the board of

[3:30] advision Utah.

[3:35] » Mike Pageant, WFRC staff CT director.

[3:39] >> Tim Watkins, WFRC staff.

[3:42] >> Emma Clinton with Envision Utah.

[3:46] >> Cody Lutz, I'm a planner at Envision.

[3:49] >> Uh Jory Joner, long range plan director,

[3:51] WFRC.

[3:54] I'm Adam Olsen with uh Midville City and

[3:56] Community Development.

[4:00] » John A. Nardone, communications manager

[4:02] with WFRC.

[4:04] >> Heidi Hammond, Grantsville City Mayor.

[4:06] And I think I'm in the wrong spot.

[4:08] >> You are. Come on up, mayor.

[4:12] >> Paula Aguilera, WFRC staff.

[4:16] >> Joel Temple, WFRC staff.

[4:19] >> Julie Bernadet on WFRC longrange

[4:21] planning.

[4:23] Good morning. Hugh Van Wagon, long-range

[4:25] planning at WFRC.

[4:28] >> Byron Head, WFRC Community and Economic

[4:31] Development Staff.

[4:33] >> Christy Dolberg, WFRC Community Economic

[4:35] Development Staff.

[4:38] >> Bert Granberg. I just made the long walk

[4:40] across the hallway from the WFRC

[4:42] analytics group.

[4:46] » I'm Donnie Johnston and I'm the

[4:48] assistant to Mayor Sudbury in Magna.

[4:51] introduce

[4:56] your shirt.

[4:57] >> Hi, Kim Frost with uh Regents. I'm the

[5:00] air quality seat.

[5:02] >> Kim, you're a member. Come on up to the

[5:04] table. We do. We do. Of course.

[5:14] » People online one time.

[5:15] >> Oh. Oh.

[5:16] >> Mayor Mayor Dhy, would you like to

[5:19] introduce yourself?

[5:23] Marie Dherty, Clinton city mayor.

[5:25] >> And you are a new member. Would you like

[5:26] to share anything about yourself?

[5:28] >> Oh, I am new. All right. Late, new, all

[5:30] the all the things. Yeah.

[5:33] Just happy to be here. That's excited to

[5:36] go.

[5:37] >> Fantastic. And Mayor Hammond, you are

[5:38] also new. Would you like to say

[5:39] something about yourself?

[5:43] >> Yeah.

[5:43] >> Yes. I'm happy to be here. Thank you.

[5:45] And I'm sorry for being late, but

[5:47] >> Oh, no problem. I found us and now next

[5:50] time I'll know right where to go. So,

[5:52] >> it's tricky the first time.

[5:54] >> We regard it as a uh an aptitude test

[5:57] >> to to find your way in and and if you

[5:59] drove here to navigate parking. So far,

[6:01] you're doing great, everybody.

[6:02] >> Yes.

[6:04] >> All right. Online.

[6:08] » Do you want to call them out?

[6:10] >> No, I cannot see it. I can't see it.

[6:11] Andrea, will you call them out? I don't

[6:12] have it for me.

[6:15] >> Okay. online today. We have Reed Ewing,

[6:19] um Blaine Ferrell,

[6:22] Mayor Braden Mitchell, Mayor Lauren

[6:25] Palmer.

[6:25] >> Let's have the Andrea, if it's okay,

[6:27] Mayor, let's have the folks introduce

[6:28] themselves. Do you want to go Professor

[6:30] Ewing and then uh um and then uh

[6:34] Commissioner Ferrell. Next,

[6:37] >> uh Reed Euing. I'm at the U in city and

[6:40] metropolitan planning.

[6:43] I'm Blaine Ferrell, Morgan County

[6:45] Commissioner. Been here a while.

[6:51] >> A while.

[6:54] >> Yeah. I don't know if I don't know if

[6:56] I've been on this committee for a long

[6:58] time, but I've been working with WFRC

[7:01] for five years.

[7:02] >> You have indeed. Um, can I keep going?

[7:05] Mayor Palmer. Mayor Mitchell.

[7:09] Uh,

[7:09] >> Mayor Palmer out in Herman.

[7:14] Uh, Mayor Mitchell from uh, Sunday

[7:16] Riverdale City

[7:18] >> in his lab coat. Welcome.

[7:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm playing pharmacist

[7:22] today, too. So,

[7:24] >> council member Strad and Mayor Wood,

[7:27] >> Allison Stout, Sandy City Council,

[7:30] >> Sherwood, mayor of South Salt Lake,

[7:33] >> and Mayor Vanderwood,

[7:35] >> Mayor Rob Vanderwood of West Haven City.

[7:39] >> And welcome, Mayor Vanderwood. Would you

[7:41] like to share anything about yourself?

[7:44] It's your first meeting.

[7:45] >> Uh I actually attended the last meeting,

[7:47] but uh it's been it's been really

[7:50] interesting and fun to join and uh be

[7:52] involved with uh with this group. So

[7:55] happy to be here.

[7:56] >> Well, thank you.

[7:57] >> And madam chair, I'll just note that we

[7:58] have several other folks attending uh

[8:00] participating online guests and members

[8:02] of the public as well.

[8:03] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank

[8:06] you everyone. We have our first item is

[8:09] an action item on the minutes. Would

[8:10] someone like to make a motion to pass

[8:11] the minutes from January 15th, 2026?

[8:18] » So moved.

[8:18] >> Thank you, Commissioner Kamer. Do we

[8:20] have a second?

[8:20] >> Second.

[8:21] >> All right, we have a motion and a

[8:22] second. All in favor?

[8:23] >> I.

[8:24] >> Any opposed?

[8:26] >> Okay, none opposed. All right, thank

[8:28] you. We might have some public comment.

[8:30] Is anyone online or in the room um

[8:34] interested in public comment?

[8:38] Okay, sounds great. We'll now hear an

[8:41] overview of the regional growth

[8:42] committee roles and responsibilities

[8:44] followed by a brief discussion of issues

[8:45] of interest that committee members would

[8:47] like to explore for future meetings.

[8:49] I'll turn the mic over to Ted Nolton.

[8:57] Mayor, as Ted is going to the mic, I'll

[8:59] just note for our participants online,

[9:01] we want you to feel fully able to

[9:03] participate. So feel free to speak up at

[9:06] any point that you want to and also

[9:08] we'll keep an eye on you if you want to

[9:10] raise your hand. So please uh in the

[9:12] hybrid world please feel free to engage.

[9:14] Thanks.

[9:18] » Okay. Uh new chair Tran, thank you so

[9:21] much and uh it's so great to welcome a

[9:25] lot of new members here today and to

[9:28] have kind of our first uh new member

[9:30] regional growth committee. I'm really

[9:32] excited for this. Um, as mentioned

[9:34] before, I'm uh the WFRC staff point of

[9:37] contact for the regional growth

[9:38] committee. What I want to do is two

[9:40] things. One, just do a very short

[9:43] overview of some of the roles that RGC

[9:46] plays and then second listen to your

[9:49] thoughts and ideas of things you want to

[9:51] explore as members and uh so later

[9:57] it's going to work right.

[10:00] This is a test of patience which I don't

[10:02] have any. Um, at the end of my

[10:06] introductory slides, we'll ask you these

[10:08] three questions and I'm giving them to

[10:10] you in advance so that your brain can

[10:13] start tickling. Um, what topics you'd

[10:16] like to have discussed at future

[10:17] meetings, specific guest speakers,

[10:19] subject matter experts, or

[10:20] organizations, other suggestions for RGC

[10:24] meetings. you can start to join um at

[10:27] slido.com with that number or that uh QR

[10:31] code. I will bring up those instructions

[10:33] again in a number of slides. So, don't

[10:36] worry if you don't get it now.

[10:38] All right. So, WFRC

[10:42] is the name of our organization and our

[10:44] board, right?

[10:46] um 27 people I think it's 17 elected

[10:49] officials on the board and there's

[10:51] really two big branches off of that

[10:55] transportation coordinating committee

[10:57] which focuses on short range uh planning

[11:00] and programming the assignment of money

[11:03] to projects and the regional growth

[11:05] committee which focuses on long range

[11:08] planning including the Wasuch choice

[11:10] vision and the regional transportation

[11:12] plan both branches are then supported by

[11:15] technical technical advisory committees.

[11:17] Um

[11:19] now, so I'm going to touch on the RGC

[11:21] roles. You can have this in your head as

[11:23] new members. Um under three bins,

[11:27] planning, implementation, and

[11:30] engagement. Uh so you're really uh the

[11:33] guiding uh committee to help shape these

[11:38] activities at WFRC. So when we're

[11:41] talking about planning at WFRC that

[11:43] starts with the Wasatch Choice vision

[11:45] and you may know about the Wasuch Choice

[11:47] Vision already, but the easy way to

[11:50] think about this is this is the shared

[11:52] effort to coordinate a transportation

[11:55] plan for the region. um a framework for

[11:58] where communities want to go with their

[12:00] land use and major economic development

[12:04] opportunities and how those three things

[12:06] align geographically

[12:08] on a map. And so this is just a zoom in

[12:11] on a portion of the region. I think this

[12:14] is northern Davis, Southern Weber. And

[12:16] you can see all these pieces come

[12:17] together, different uh road, transit,

[12:21] trails,

[12:24] um major destination areas in our land

[12:27] use plans or our vision of where we want

[12:29] to go as we handle the demands of growth

[12:32] and parks and open space uh and how

[12:36] these these uh components align

[12:38] together. That's what we mean by the

[12:39] Wasich Choice vision. will hear a lot

[12:41] more about that over time. But this is

[12:44] one of the key things that the regional

[12:46] growth committee advises is how do we

[12:48] develop and use the Wasatch Choice

[12:51] vision. Now that's the umbrella. A key

[12:54] part of that a focus area of the of the

[12:57] RGC is the regional plan itself. You can

[13:00] kind of think of it as so if the W was

[13:02] choice vision coordinates land use

[13:04] transportation economic opportunity the transportation piece is very robust

[13:10] and detailed the regional transportation

[13:12] plan roads transit active transportation

[13:14] especially with a focus on regionally

[13:17] significant facilities. So we we oversee

[13:20] that process. This is a four-year

[13:22] process to develop the regional

[13:24] transportation plan. where we are at is

[13:27] we are in the second to last year of a

[13:30] four-year cycle. So the the tenor of our

[13:33] conversations as a committee, they

[13:35] adjust based on where we are in the

[13:38] regional transportation plan cycle. So

[13:40] this year we're focusing on

[13:44] uh phasing projects or prioritizing them

[13:47] and addressing fiscal constraint. How

[13:50] much money do we think we might have

[13:52] available into the future? and that

[13:53] informs that prioritization process. So,

[13:56] we'll talk about it as a as a committee

[13:59] and we'll talk about how to engage the

[14:02] rest of the comm uh community on this

[14:04] question of the regional transportation

[14:06] plan. Um, so there's planning, there's

[14:10] also analytics. Uh, WFRC

[14:13] shines a light on issues in our region,

[14:17] transportation, land use conditions, and

[14:19] we forecast. We we have models that help

[14:22] us,

[14:24] you know, look at plausible or probable

[14:29] futures based on what we might do. If we

[14:32] build a road here, we build a transit

[14:34] line there, if land use patterns shift

[14:36] in this way or that way. So, we forecast

[14:38] things and we provide data and tools to

[14:41] fill in the blank communities, um,

[14:44] transportation agencies, this kind of

[14:47] work. You'll advise that was all under the planning and

[14:52] analytics. Now we're in the second bin,

[14:54] the implementation bin. Within

[14:57] implementation, there's a couple of

[14:59] things that the regional growth

[15:00] committee focuses on. One is to advise

[15:03] the transportation land use connection

[15:05] uh

[15:07] program. This is a planning and

[15:09] technical assistance program uh that

[15:11] helps local governments. You're going to

[15:13] hear about this. It's on the agenda

[15:16] today. I'm gonna I just want to

[15:19] highlight that that is a partnership

[15:20] effort with UD do and UTA. Really

[15:23] important to note that um and you're a key adviser in that. One of the

[15:29] things that we do as well is we certify

[15:32] or we make recommendations to the

[15:34] council to certify station area plans um

[15:38] in support of statewide legislation

[15:41] helping communities as they fulfill

[15:43] those requirements by certifying plans

[15:46] about a half a mile around uh rail

[15:49] stations and a quarter mile around BRT

[15:51] stations. That was a huge activity for

[15:54] regional growth committee last year.

[15:56] there was about 50 stationary plans that

[15:58] were certified. This year it's only like

[16:01] a tenth as much. And that's just a note

[16:04] that we have a lot more room in our

[16:05] agendas uh this year because of that.

[16:09] Last of the three bins, engage. How do

[16:12] we reach out and work to build

[16:15] consensus? Um and we'll bring up these

[16:18] questions of process and engagement here

[16:21] at uh the regional growth committee.

[16:23] What are the kinds of things that we

[16:24] might do? um and are they being

[16:27] effective and how can we uh sharpen our

[16:29] efforts? And then also within that

[16:32] engagement space, thinking about policy

[16:35] levers, analyzing federal, state, and

[16:38] local policies for our members, thinking

[16:40] about what we advocate for, um such as

[16:43] appropriations and policies that are

[16:45] consistent with our plans like the

[16:47] Wasuch Choice Vision and the Unified

[16:48] Transportation Plan, and we coordinate

[16:50] with National Association partners to

[16:52] adopt best practices. These are the

[16:54] kinds of things that the regional growth

[16:56] committee uh looks at. Here's the

[16:58] summary of those that you can look at.

[17:00] These are the ones that I went through.

[17:02] But this is not everything that we might

[17:04] look at. And this is where I want to

[17:06] turn it to you to say what are the

[17:08] things you want to explore given a basic

[17:11] notion of the space that was front

[17:14] regional council addresses

[17:17] transportation

[17:19] land use and economic development that

[17:20] are associated long range within that

[17:22] general space dealing with the demands

[17:25] of growth what should you what do you

[17:28] think we should discuss as well so here

[17:30] I'm going back to the slido

[17:32] um uh joining instructions

[17:37] these this that slido.com number is also

[17:41] on the first question. So I'm going to

[17:43] pull up the first question so people can

[17:45] start pouncing on that and have at it

[17:49] and then uh uh madame chair love to have

[17:53] a short discussion around these three

[17:55] questions as uh as you'd like.

[17:59] >> Sounds great. Has everyone had a chance

[18:01] to uh take a picture of the QR code?

[18:04] Will you go back a slide? I think it

[18:05] would help to just kind of give the

[18:07] lanes a little bit

[18:08] >> to give the

[18:09] >> go back one slide just as people are

[18:12] thinking about these questions. I think

[18:13] it would be helpful to have that

[18:14] information up there.

[18:16] >> Okay. Yeah. And it's

[18:18] >> want to see all the all the questions.

[18:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was saying.

[18:22] >> I'd h I'd have to go back slides to get

[18:25] all three, but I can I'll just

[18:26] articulate them. The first is

[18:28] >> what are the issues that you want to

[18:30] explore? Okay. The second is are there

[18:32] specific subject matter experts,

[18:35] organizations, etc. that you think we

[18:38] ought to invite or engage? And the third

[18:40] is general reflections on how to create

[18:43] great meetings here at the regional

[18:45] growth committee. That kind of thing.

[18:47] >> Okay.

[19:08] if anybody online has any issues with

[19:10] the slidoh, just let us know in the

[19:13] chat.

[19:23] new UTA governance. How much housing is

[19:27] being developed around transit hubs?

[19:29] What does that development look like?

[19:31] How much of housing is investment

[19:32] property for second homes? Yeah, that's

[19:35] that is a real issue that we we could

[19:37] explore.

[19:39] I'm I'm trying to not do like a a James

[19:41] Earl Jones dramatic reading around each

[19:43] of these, but I can if you'd like. So,

[19:45] just let me know.

[19:54] You could breathe breathe heavily into

[19:56] the microphone if you wanted to.

[20:00] Climate,

[20:01] no snow by 2050, regional transportation

[20:05] solutions,

[20:08] opportunities for small owner occupied

[20:10] housing such as condos or town homes.

[20:13] Yeah,

[20:15] >> Ted, I think as I see these topics come

[20:17] up, I also look around the table and we

[20:19] have experts in some of these topics.

[20:21] Like there was a one that passed by

[20:23] about uh air quality growth and

[20:25] development. I'm looking at uh Kim and

[20:27] Bryce

[20:28] >> on on that issue. There was a topic

[20:31] raised about the UTA governance changes.

[20:34] We'll be talking about that. Jiren's

[20:36] here from UTA. So there's a lot of folks

[20:39] that participate already on this

[20:41] committee that we can uh tap for their

[20:44] expertise as we look ahead here.

[20:46] >> Does anybody want to do any elaboration

[20:48] on an item that you've shared here?

[20:55] » Ted.

[20:56] >> Yeah,

[20:57] >> it's Lorine.

[20:59] When I was first starting in public

[21:01] service in 2014,

[21:04] um, in my city on a planning commission,

[21:08] um, I got the chance to be part of an

[21:12] active transportation coordination

[21:15] between two cities who had gotten a

[21:17] grant and it was Kisville and Farmington

[21:20] together. And it was incredible to be

[21:25] part of that. And I and so what I put up

[21:28] there, I put two things. I put great

[21:29] Salt Lake, but the first thing I put was

[21:32] um just some of the things that are

[21:35] happening that are great updates between

[21:39] jurisdictions such as multiple cities

[21:42] working together because we all know

[21:44] that these plans don't stop at borders

[21:47] and shouldn't stop at borders. So just I

[21:49] think it's inspiring like when we heard

[21:51] last year from all of those um

[21:54] reinvestment zone areas or sorry

[21:57] >> stationary plan. Yeah. Like I felt like

[22:01] it was very inspiring to hear what was

[22:03] going on in in certain areas and and

[22:06] that stimulates ideas for other areas

[22:08] too.

[22:10] >> That's a great suggestion. Thank you.

[22:12] And we do have experts in the room about

[22:15] air quality and we all know that that's

[22:17] an issue along with water. So just to to

[22:21] be aware of,

[22:23] you know, what's appropriate for this

[22:25] group and the Great Salt Lake.

[22:27] >> Absolutely. Um Madam Chair, if it works,

[22:31] okay, I'll go to the next question.

[22:32] >> Yeah, go ahead.

[22:34] >> If you have more thoughts on that first

[22:37] question, please share them as you can.

[22:39] Um, I just want to note we're we're not

[22:41] wiping the slate clean. There was

[22:44] feedback from a year earlier that I just

[22:47] wanted to reflect and that we're going

[22:49] to continue to keep that in mind. Things

[22:51] like the Olympics, understanding

[22:53] markets, and I won't do the reading of

[22:55] this, but I wanted to note some of the

[22:56] findings that we got from this survey a

[22:58] year ago. But Ted, if you if you now go

[23:00] back one, that first item on there,

[23:02] housing solutions missing middle, that

[23:04] was a a suggestion that came from uh

[23:07] Sandy City Council person Allison Stout,

[23:09] who's on with us here and a member of

[23:11] this committee. Do you want to say

[23:12] something about that?

[23:13] >> Yes. Um and uh Council Member Strad

[23:16] suggested, hey, we ought to focus on

[23:18] this. And we talked as a committee and

[23:21] decided a great way to do this is to

[23:24] uh spread that training and conversation

[23:27] out into the community. And so we're we

[23:29] have a webinar just on March 26th, okay,

[23:32] that delivers on that conversation. So

[23:35] that regional growth committee guidance

[23:37] led to a webinar that is jointly hosted

[23:40] with the League of Cities and Towns, uh,

[23:42] WFRC and others. And we can give you

[23:44] some more details on that.

[23:45] >> Focused on home ownership. Yes. Also,

[23:49] >> that's right. home ownership es

[23:51] especially with regard to other options

[23:53] that add to ownership that complement

[23:57] single family homes. Okay, second of

[24:00] three questions. Are there specific

[24:02] guest speakers, subject matter experts,

[24:04] or organizations you'd like to hear

[24:05] from?

[24:14] And for the sake of time, we may not

[24:17] discuss this one quite as long. And then

[24:20] I think what I could do on the third

[24:22] question,

[24:23] uh,

[24:25] Madame Chair, is I could leave that up

[24:27] as we do an introduction to the, uh, the

[24:30] ensuing agenda item.

[24:32] >> Sounds great.

[24:38] Professor Reed viewing indeed. And if if

[24:40] anybody would like to elaborate on some

[24:43] of the things that you're putting into

[24:44] this question for a few minutes, we

[24:46] could do do that.

[24:51] » You know what? One of the things that I

[24:53] hear a lot is that um since we are in a

[24:56] drought and we have such water issues,

[24:57] why are we allowing multiple units to be

[25:00] built and more housing to be built? So I

[25:02] think it would be a great future

[25:03] discussion to talk about how building

[25:05] more doesn't use more necessarily.

[25:09] >> Yeah. Uh it's a it's a great point and

[25:12] it and it's sort of at Envision Utah has

[25:15] helped us through the years. I I think about this question of

[25:19] >> if we try to limit growth, what are the

[25:21] consequences of that, right?

[25:22] >> Um but what we do have is we have a lot

[25:24] of a lot more control collectively on

[25:26] the form that of growth uh that growth

[25:29] takes. And so we can think about impacts

[25:31] through form whereas we don't have a lot

[25:35] of control over the how much.

[25:38] Um but we can talk that through

[25:40] >> Jugs. Okay.

[25:42] >> I'll also note we as staff can do some

[25:44] interpretations here like the housing

[25:47] guy for the gov. Who's that? Steve

[25:48] Walrip. So we'll help just throw out

[25:50] whatever you want and we can fill in

[25:52] some blanks here.

[25:53] >> Love that.

[25:55] So, I know that I'm I'm going to move on

[25:58] perhaps before everybody's gotten their

[25:59] thoughts in here. I just want to

[26:01] reiterate that as members, please share

[26:03] additional thoughts after this meeting

[26:05] and we will follow up with an email that

[26:08] enables you to do that.

[26:09] >> Yeah.

[26:10] >> So, I'm going to go to the next uh

[26:11] question

[26:13] uh which is the last question. Any other

[26:15] suggestions to enhance the value of

[26:17] regional growth committee meetings? And

[26:19] I think uh Madam Chair, what I could do

[26:21] is I can leave this up.

[26:22] >> Okay. even as we uh move into the next

[26:25] agenda item if that is acceptable to the

[26:28] committee.

[26:29] >> People can think about the question.

[26:30] Okay,

[26:33] >> Jason, were you trying to Were you

[26:34] raising your hand, Jason? Oh, okay.

[26:36] >> No,

[26:39] >> ready to move on then? Okay.

[26:42] >> Thank you so much everybody.

[26:47] Okay, so we know the Wasatch Choice

[26:49] vision is our long-standing regional

[26:51] blue blueprint is coordinating

[26:53] transportation, land development, and

[26:54] economic opportunities. Um, back in

[26:57] August, WFRC staff shared the idea of

[27:00] reporting on five key progress

[27:02] indicators to follow up on the ground

[27:04] progress towards this the Wasatch Choice

[27:06] vision. So today, let's look at the

[27:09] draft numbers and see the progress and

[27:11] I'll turn it over to you to to do that.

[27:17] >> Sorry, Julie.

[27:18] >> Julie, sorry about that.

[27:20] >> It's fine.

[27:20] >> To you, Julie. Thank you.

[27:23] >> I know the last name was a little

[27:24] tricky. Um, and this is Look, things are

[27:26] sliding down. Okay, so um yeah, we're

[27:29] going to talk about a progress indicator

[27:31] dashboard that we created here. And

[27:33] before I get started, I just want to

[27:35] mention that this was a joint effort

[27:36] between um our analytics team, our

[27:39] community economic development,

[27:40] communications, and long-range planning.

[27:41] So even though I'm up here alone, I most

[27:43] certainly didn't do all of this work um

[27:45] by myself.

[27:47] So Ted,

[27:49] yep, there we go. Sorry, I have two ways

[27:50] to advance the slide, then I got a

[27:52] little confused. Um so Ted mentioned the

[27:54] Wasatch Choice vision and uh our four

[27:57] key strategies on how to make that

[27:59] vision happen. So with any plan or any

[28:02] strategy, in this case a vision, we want

[28:04] to ensure that we're actually meeting um

[28:06] what we set out to do. So

[28:10] the law,

[28:12] I'm going to put this here for now. Um

[28:16] one second. I'm not used to being at the

[28:18] podium.

[28:20] Here we go. Okay. I'm gonna get fired in

[28:24] two seconds if I don't figure out how to

[28:26] slide. Okay, there we go. Okay. Um yeah,

[28:29] so we set out to to kind of figure out

[28:32] how our vision is being implemented. Are

[28:33] we meeting what we set out to do? Um

[28:36] with uh we have a performance indicator

[28:38] dashboard. We wanted to start small. So

[28:40] we have five key indicators that align

[28:43] with the four Wasatch Choice vision

[28:45] strategies. The fifth one being um our

[28:47] beloved access to opportunities. So if

[28:49] you're new here at RDC um and we haven't

[28:51] talked to you about access to

[28:52] opportunities, this is one of our key

[28:54] performance measures that we do at WFRC.

[28:57] It's a way to measure how how well

[28:58] people can be connected to jobs,

[29:00] education, and other key destinations.

[29:02] So that's the opportunity part of access

[29:04] to opportunity.

[29:06] And we chose these five so that they

[29:07] were easy to understand. Um they were a

[29:10] way for us to be able to calculate them

[29:12] over time. So we wanted to make sure

[29:13] that we had um both past data and data

[29:16] that we could continue to measure well

[29:18] into the future. We were focusing on

[29:20] that transportation land use connection.

[29:22] So you'll see that some of these are

[29:23] more land use. Um some of these are

[29:25] transportation and affordability is a

[29:27] mixture of of transportation and land

[29:30] use. Um and then we wanted to be able to

[29:32] calculate these at different

[29:33] geographies. So not just for the region

[29:34] but be able to dig down into county and

[29:36] city um level numbers.

[29:39] So I'm going to um go to the

[29:44] dashboard now. You can join using this

[29:46] QR code. if you're online, um, we're

[29:48] dropping it into the chat and we'll also

[29:51] send this out after the meeting for you

[29:53] to explore as well.

[29:55] >> And Julie, if you don't mind a quick

[29:57] interjection,

[29:58] >> this is a work in progress. It's a

[30:00] draft. Um, so it's not ready for prime

[30:04] time. And then the other note is we

[30:06] talked about this initially at the

[30:08] regional growth committee back in August

[30:10] and I and I just wanted to remind you of

[30:13] that. So, we're coming back to say you

[30:15] gave us some guidance in August and now

[30:17] we're at, you know, 85%.

[30:24] » Okay. So, on the Wasatch Choice Vision,

[30:26] if you ended up going to the QR code, uh

[30:30] there's a little bit of introduction

[30:31] text about what um the intent of this

[30:34] was was doing. And if you scroll down a

[30:36] little bit, you'll see the dashboard

[30:38] with the five key indicators.

[30:40] Um this is generally for the was when

[30:43] you first get on the the um website it

[30:46] will be for the Wasatch Choice as a

[30:48] whole. So that includes our planning

[30:49] area as well as our MO to the south, the

[30:51] Matland Association of Governments. Um

[30:54] and it's just a a broad overview of how

[30:56] the the five measures um are measuring

[31:00] and then how the trend is is going. So

[31:02] that's what the these arrows are. You

[31:05] can click on the learn learn more on any

[31:07] of the

[31:09] five um indicators and you'll get um not

[31:13] only the data

[31:16] sorry

[31:20] um but you'll also see that there's on

[31:23] the left

[31:29] uh is a little description of what we're

[31:31] measuring, why it's important,

[31:39] um why what are some solutions to um

[31:42] improve this measure? How we're

[31:44] measuring it? So, our methodology and

[31:46] our data sources so anyone can kind of

[31:48] double check our work or dig deeper into

[31:50] the details. Um and then there are some

[31:52] resources at the bottom of this. So,

[31:54] we're trying to give you sort of an

[31:55] overview what what the measure is um and

[31:58] how we can improve the measure

[32:01] for some of the indicators. So this is

[32:02] access opportunities, how many jobs we

[32:04] can get to in a typical commute. Um for

[32:07] some of the measures like this one,

[32:08] that's the strength of our centers. So

[32:10] we're measuring development within our

[32:12] um was choice vision centers.

[32:15] You can see the total number. So this is

[32:17] the total number of households and jobs

[32:18] that are within a center. Um but here

[32:22] also you'll be able to scroll across and

[32:24] break that down into the number of

[32:25] households within the center and the

[32:27] number of jobs within the center.

[32:30] And likewise for um

[32:32] >> and Julie, can I do a quick add-on?

[32:34] Sorry for that. This a quick add-on on

[32:36] the strength of our centers. Um in part

[32:39] because we have a lot of new members.

[32:40] Part of the reason why WFRC focuses on

[32:43] city and town centers is they have a

[32:45] significant transportation impact. they coordinate location-wise with major

[32:52] roads and major transit and they tend to

[32:54] have a significant

[32:57] sort of a punching above their weight

[32:59] impact on on a transportation behavior.

[33:03] So that's part of the reason why we we

[33:04] have a focus on on city and town

[33:06] centers.

[33:07] >> Great. from a regional perspective.

[33:10] >> Um on households and transportation,

[33:12] you'll also see um so I just wanted to

[33:14] point this one out because often I feel

[33:16] like people think that you only want a

[33:18] positive numbers up. So here we are um

[33:20] showing that the total household and

[33:22] transportation cost that we see in our

[33:24] region is um increasing over time. Um

[33:27] you can break that down into how the

[33:29] percentage that is being caused by the

[33:32] household cost. So, rent, mortgage

[33:35] payment, and then the um amount that's

[33:38] being on the transportation cost. You'll

[33:39] see that dip in 2020 when we were not

[33:42] driving as much um and our overall sort

[33:45] of gas purchases and and other wear and

[33:47] tear on the vehicle um dropped over

[33:49] time.

[33:51] Um

[33:53] I will also note one other thing. Um so,

[33:56] let's go to transportation choices. So,

[33:59] this is measuring the number of people

[34:00] who have transportation options.

[34:03] um in particular with the choice of

[34:06] driving or using frequent near nearby

[34:09] frequent transit. Um so I want to say

[34:12] two things here. First is that I've been

[34:14] showing you the region numbers but if

[34:16] you come back up to the geography you

[34:19] can select um this is breakdown by our

[34:23] MO areas by county by these small areas

[34:26] that you've come to. If you've come to

[34:28] any of our workshops, these are their

[34:29] workshop areas

[34:31] as well as um individual cities.

[34:35] So I'll go down to Marriott Slaterville.

[34:39] I get down to M. There we go. So on this

[34:43] measure, so um the we have five key

[34:46] performance indicators and the intention

[34:48] here is that we will go in some more

[34:50] detail and provide um some more insights

[34:53] in a secondary measures that we're

[34:56] developing now and we'll update the this

[34:59] progress indicators to have those

[35:00] secondary measures. The reason that this

[35:02] is important is because this

[35:04] transportation choices which is

[35:05] measuring access to frequent transit in

[35:09] some areas you'll see that there isn't

[35:11] any information. So in Marriott

[35:12] Slaterville there's not frequent transit

[35:14] and there's not fixed guideway but that

[35:16] doesn't mean that there's not other

[35:17] options for people in Marriott

[35:19] Slaterville to get around by transit

[35:20] right there might be um all day bus

[35:22] there might be um on demand services

[35:26] which are not being shown in this

[35:27] particular measure but it does not mean

[35:29] that there's not other things. And so

[35:31] these um broader more detailed

[35:34] information will come in as a set of

[35:36] secondary measures. I just wanted to

[35:37] point that out as if you're going

[35:40] through this and you're like, "Oh, the

[35:41] data is not loading or there's an error

[35:43] here." Um in some cases it might just be

[35:45] that there's not that frequent transit

[35:46] that we're expecting in other areas. Um

[35:48] and that we're acknowledging that

[35:50] there's other types of transit that

[35:51] might be serving these areas and and we

[35:53] will have that as a secondary measure

[35:55] later on. The intention is to have these

[35:57] secondary measures for all of the key

[35:59] performance indicators, but we're

[36:00] starting small because this is a new um

[36:02] initiative here at WFRC.

[36:04] >> I mentioned that we're at 85%. This is

[36:07] the kind of thing that before we launch

[36:10] uh I would hope that you know Marriott

[36:12] Slaterville goes to this and they see

[36:15] information about their transit access,

[36:18] not necessarily for frequent but for

[36:20] other forms of transit and so that it's

[36:22] still there. Um, but we're looking for

[36:25] your feedback and guidance. And so if as

[36:27] you're as you consume this and explore

[36:30] it and the questions you've got or

[36:31] suggestions, that's that's part of what

[36:33] we're hoping for today.

[36:36] >> Um, yeah. So, I'll just put this up

[36:39] there. So, that's my contact information

[36:41] and my little picture from the website.

[36:43] If you can't um remember anyone's name

[36:46] or our emails on the new website, we

[36:48] have all of the staff and it looks like

[36:50] this with a picture, our role, and our

[36:52] email. Um, and I invite you as you

[36:54] explore this after this meeting, um,

[36:56] give us your feedback. If you feel like

[36:58] we're missing something or something

[36:59] could be added that would make this more

[37:01] useful, there's other resources. Um, we

[37:03] would love to hear about it as we're,

[37:06] um, finalizing this and then doing those

[37:08] secondary indicators as well.

[37:11] >> Thank you, Julie. Does anyone have

[37:12] questions or thoughts right now as you

[37:14] sort of maybe um, engaged your brain a

[37:17] little bit as you're thinking about

[37:18] this?

[37:18] >> I'm sorry. Can I get one more um, of a

[37:20] QR code up there? Yes, you can.

[37:22] >> Oh, yeah. That's great.

[37:24] >> There you go.

[37:28] » Mayor, can I interject? May I please?

[37:30] >> Thank you, Andrew.

[37:30] >> Um, Julie, thank you so much. This

[37:32] trying to pull together data. Um,

[37:36] there's so much data and there's so much

[37:37] information, you know, what are the

[37:40] right things to look at to understand

[37:42] how well are we doing as a region? Um,

[37:45] and so Julie, will you act will you go

[37:47] back to the slide that actually shows

[37:49] the numbers the the main dashboard.

[37:51] >> Um,

[37:52] >> yeah, I'm not showing any. Yeah. Um, you

[37:54] just have to click on that and go back

[37:55] to

[37:56] >> So, let me just say two two things

[37:58] quickly. First, you know, when you work

[38:00] with WFRC, we spend a lot of time

[38:03] planning for the future, right? The

[38:05] Wasatch Choice Vision looks out to the

[38:07] future to a desired state that we want

[38:10] collectively we want for our region and

[38:12] our individual communities.

[38:14] And that looks out to decades into the

[38:17] future. Now, it also says, what do we

[38:19] need to be doing now? What decisions do

[38:21] we make now to shape and have the future

[38:23] that we want? But it it's it's really important not only to be casting

[38:29] your eyes to the future, but to be

[38:31] looking at how are we doing, right? Are

[38:33] we are we pointing in the right

[38:35] direction? What's actually happening in

[38:37] our region and in your individual

[38:38] communities? And I feel like these

[38:41] indicators

[38:42] uh address that critical question. How

[38:46] are things going? Are we heading in the

[38:48] right direction or not in the right

[38:50] direction? And so just for example, the

[38:52] transportation choices that Julie talked

[38:54] about at a topline regional number. So

[38:58] that 23.7%

[39:00] is what, Julie?

[39:03] >> The percentage of residents that are

[39:05] have a choice of driving or using um

[39:07] frequent nearby transit. Okay. So, right

[39:09] now in the entirety of the Wasatch

[39:11] front, the majority of like we assume

[39:15] that everybody has the ability to drive.

[39:17] That doesn't mean everybody has a car,

[39:18] but who also has the ability to access,

[39:21] as Julie said, frequent bus rapid

[39:24] transit or tracks or frontr runner, you

[39:26] know, easily from their home. And it's a

[39:29] little bit less than a quarter of our

[39:31] region's residents. But it's going up.

[39:34] And that over the last what, five from

[39:36] 2019? Is that the time? horizon. It has

[39:39] gone up some. Why does that happen?

[39:42] Well, we expand transit service, right?

[39:45] Um, Mayor Overson, as we, you know, as

[39:47] the, uh, as the BRT comes online

[39:51] regionally, that'll go up and in your

[39:53] community, it'll it'll jump up

[39:55] significantly, right? We hope, right?

[39:57] And as as Ted was noting before, as

[40:00] stationary plans and development occurs

[40:03] around transit stations, that number

[40:05] also goes up. So it helps us to see if

[40:08] we want the Wasach's choice vision has

[40:10] this one of its core principles is and

[40:13] strategies is that our residents should

[40:15] have transportation choices. Are we

[40:17] going in the right direction? Are we

[40:19] improving that year by year by year? So

[40:22] this whole effort will help us to

[40:24] understand that and then as Julie noted

[40:27] not just regionally but in individually

[40:29] down to a a city level with the best

[40:31] data that we have. How are these things

[40:34] playing out for your individual

[40:35] communities? And we hope that this will

[40:37] help us understand what's at play in our

[40:39] region, but then also help us to shape

[40:42] decisions. If we do this strategy, if we

[40:45] do that strategy, if you know there's a

[40:49] b a bountiful uh uh uh uh Davis Salt

[40:52] Lake connector um enhanced transit, what

[40:56] impact will that have? If we do our

[40:57] development patterns in different ways,

[40:59] what impact will that have on these

[41:01] important uh measures? So that's what

[41:03] we're aiming at.

[41:04] >> Okay. And so the feedback that you're

[41:05] asking from us is whether or not we

[41:08] understand these indicators or or

[41:10] whether or not they're working for our

[41:11] communities. Help us understand so that

[41:13] we can give you better feedback.

[41:15] >> I and I can give you if if it would

[41:17] work. Okay. Um I could give a couple of

[41:19] examples. So we we've we've been

[41:22] previewing these also with partners and

[41:24] they've been posing great questions like

[41:26] how do we know if a number is a good

[41:28] number? Um can you give us some context?

[41:32] Uh should this be a percentage so that

[41:34] we understand uh how how many people in

[41:38] our community

[41:40] or should it be a raw number? Um you

[41:42] know it could be it could be looking at

[41:44] any of those details like that. But I I

[41:47] think maybe the threshold question is

[41:48] does it make sense? Is it

[41:50] understandable? Is it interesting? Is it

[41:52] compelling? But then it can be more like

[41:54] well how was this developed? um gosh

[41:58] that this number doesn't I need more

[42:01] information to understand how to h how

[42:03] to interpret the number whatever um and

[42:06] you know it's it's the kind of thing

[42:08] that um we're going to learn a little

[42:12] bit I believe after we launch it we'll

[42:15] launch it and we'll see how how it's

[42:17] being utilized and we'll be able to

[42:20] refine it a little bit over time what we

[42:22] don't want to refine is the methodology

[42:24] so that we can sort of keep track of

[42:26] things longitudinally.

[42:29] >> Yes. Go ahead.

[42:31] >> Sure. Mike Kim mic.

[42:32] >> Oh, your mic's not on. Thank you.

[42:35] >> Thank you. Yeah, I guess I was just

[42:37] thinking the same thing like what's the

[42:38] context of this and it's would probably

[42:41] be very difficult to compare to other

[42:44] regions of our size and density, but

[42:46] like

[42:47] kind of some comparison of other regions

[42:49] that are similar to ours might be

[42:51] helpful for some context at least to

[42:53] kind of pull out what are our values as

[42:55] far as transportation choices and how

[42:57] we're investing in those. I don't know

[42:59] that was I was just trying to think of

[43:00] how do we create that context.

[43:04] Thank you. That's very helpful. Anyone

[43:06] else?

[43:08] >> Do we have anyone online or

[43:09] >> I'm looking online for any comments. I'm

[43:11] not seeing any at the moment, but I will

[43:12] note that Weber County Commissioner

[43:14] Sharon Bolos joined us earlier as did

[43:16] Mary Katherine Perry from the Salt Lake

[43:18] Chamber. So, welcome friends.

[43:21] >> Thank you.

[43:22] >> All right. Thank you so much.

[43:25] >> Okay. Community planning updates. This

[43:27] item covers a lot of ground that relates

[43:29] to planning in communities across the

[43:30] region.

[43:32] The Utah housing capacity analysis. The

[43:34] first item looks at the new statewide

[43:35] housing analysis. The governor's office

[43:37] of economic development recently

[43:39] produced a statewide housing capacity

[43:41] constraints analysis with the help of

[43:43] envision Utah to help local leaders and

[43:45] infrastructure providers plan for Utah's

[43:47] growth. I know representatives from both

[43:50] god.

[43:52] Are you gonna me?

[43:54] >> We don't have goed. Oh, okay. So, we

[43:56] have envision Utah here though, right?

[43:58] Okay. So, first like to invite uh Ty

[44:01] Mcken

[44:02] >> McCutchen and Jason Brown from Envision

[44:05] Utah. Thank you.

[44:07] >> All right. Thank you. Uh thank you to

[44:10] our chair for putting this on the agenda today.

[44:15] I'm I'm happy to to be here to talk

[44:17] about this. Um as was mentioned, Ty, our

[44:20] chair is here uh to add some insight. Uh

[44:22] we also have uh our great planning team,

[44:25] Cody Lutz and Emma Clinton here. Uh so

[44:28] when we come to some Q&A and discussion,

[44:30] you're all of us are fair game uh to to

[44:33] jump in and or to answer questions or or

[44:35] have questions directed to us. Um I'm

[44:38] going to take a page out of some college

[44:41] journalism classes and I'm going to

[44:42] start with the headline and then I'm

[44:44] going to go back and give some context

[44:45] for this. So, the headline of this

[44:47] analysis and this study uh is that over

[44:50] the next 30 years, we expect that we're

[44:53] going to need in the state 840,000

[44:56] new homes in order to meet our demand.

[45:00] And when we look at the uh constraints

[45:03] that we have on the housing market, uh

[45:06] we are only going to be able to build

[45:08] about 600,000 of those uh based on the

[45:11] constraints as they stand today. In

[45:13] other words, we're going to come up

[45:14] short by about 235,000 homes. So,

[45:16] there's the headline. Let me give you

[45:18] just a little bit of uh background on

[45:20] this. Um, this is not the kind of

[45:22] analysis that can be done by just

[45:24] sitting in a room and staring at maps

[45:26] until you you come up with the answer.

[45:27] We had a lot of partners uh who helped.

[45:30] As was mentioned, uh the governor's

[45:32] office of economic uh development now I

[45:35] guess uh was uh over oversaw this. This

[45:38] uh is an idea that came out of the

[45:40] governor's uh or the commission for

[45:43] economic opportunity. Um and uh and the

[45:46] bit the real question that we were

[45:48] trying to answer was, you know, we know

[45:49] that we have a housing shortage. We've

[45:51] seen the the data around uh around the

[45:53] mismatch between new households per year

[45:55] and new housing units per year. Uh it's

[45:58] expected to get worse, but do we

[46:00] actually have the capacity to build the

[46:03] housing that we need uh to meet demand?

[46:06] And at this point, I do want to give a

[46:08] moment to Ty. Ty was on the Economic

[46:10] Opportunities Commission uh along with

[46:12] Andrew and helped uh create the idea for

[46:15] this, which was eventually funded by the

[46:17] legislature uh and and passed through

[46:19] Goyo and and we were able to bid on the

[46:21] project and get it. But Ty, do you want

[46:22] to add any insights into the impetus for

[46:24] this?

[46:25] >> Uh sure. Um it's good to be with you

[46:27] today. Um th this all started because

[46:30] and and this I'm a poster child for

[46:31] don't complain to the wrong person uh

[46:34] because you'll get tasked with work. Um

[46:36] I was at breakfast with the then speaker

[46:38] and I was grousing about how um we don't

[46:42] have enough infrastructure in the right

[46:44] places to attract the types of

[46:45] businesses the state really wants to

[46:47] draw. That that was sort of my point.

[46:50] And I used the example of the TSMC chip

[46:53] plant down in Phoenix. And I said why

[46:55] did they pick Phoenix for that chip

[46:57] plant? And I said, "Well, they they had

[46:58] a big loop freeway going through like

[47:00] 50,000 acres of desert, and that was why

[47:03] the chip plant went there." I mean,

[47:04] there were other reasons, but that was a

[47:06] big one. And he next thing I know, I got

[47:08] a call from somebody and said, "You've

[47:09] been appointed to this uh work group of

[47:12] the UEOC that's going to think about

[47:13] growth and infrastructure." And I said,

[47:15] "Oh, great." Um, so out of that, we we

[47:19] really thought hard about where are we

[47:22] going to put all of this growth? uh and

[47:24] do we actually have enough

[47:25] infrastructure to support it? That that

[47:27] was my sort of starting point question

[47:29] and it grew out of this this breakfast

[47:31] conversation. And so um Andrew will

[47:34] remember as we were conceptualizing how

[47:37] this might work. It's not an easy thing

[47:39] to to forecast not only the growth for

[47:42] the entire state but sort of where it's

[47:43] going to go. And so we went back to the

[47:45] beginnings of the original quality

[47:47] growth strategies that that were kind of

[47:49] put forward and agreed upon in large

[47:52] measure by uh residents of of then

[47:54] predominantly the Wasatch front uh back

[47:56] in the mid late 90s. The original

[47:58] quality growth strategy that Envision

[48:00] Utah put forward. You remember the

[48:01] little uh surveys in the newspaper and

[48:03] Governor Levit saying fill out the

[48:05] survey. Uh well that was what drove that

[48:07] first vision um for our region and it

[48:11] was updated again in 2014. But but we

[48:13] said if if we were to take the buckets

[48:16] and Jason's going to talk a lot about

[48:17] these buckets, but if we were to take

[48:18] the buckets that sort of drive how land

[48:21] can be developed and used, you know, we

[48:24] have transit nodes, ERT, light rail,

[48:28] heavy rail, so forth. We have infill,

[48:30] you know, places in our cities where

[48:32] there's some or a good deal of

[48:34] infrastructure already and we could add

[48:35] some units. And then there's the green

[48:37] field. And so the thought was if we if

[48:39] we took a demand model which we've done

[48:42] an amazing job and WFRC is I think one

[48:44] of the best in the country at this which

[48:46] is pulling in all of the inputs from the

[48:48] local jurisdictions and aggregating them

[48:50] but into a plan that we can then use to

[48:53] drive statewide planning for

[48:55] infrastructure primarily transportation

[48:57] in this context. But um what if we what

[49:00] if we spread the peanut butter so to

[49:02] speak across all these acres and then

[49:05] started to cut off the pieces of the

[49:07] bread that that don't really exist

[49:09] topographically

[49:11] because of infrastructure constraints

[49:13] because we run out of those acres to

[49:14] spread the peanut butter over. Uh how

[49:17] many units are we going to end up with?

[49:18] And so now we know. Uh I'll let Jason go

[49:21] into the details of but that was really

[49:23] the motivation behind doing the work and

[49:26] it was very unique in that we married

[49:28] not just the land plans that exist and

[49:31] the great planning work but with what

[49:33] the market will do with all that and so

[49:35] the nexus of those two things to me is

[49:38] what's really unique and

[49:39] transformational about what this is

[49:40] teaching us and where we go with it. So

[49:43] >> thank you Ty. Okay so uh yeah I'll give

[49:46] you a little bit of the details of this

[49:48] process. So we did start with creating

[49:50] that structural demand model and to

[49:52] create that we looked at uh where are

[49:54] market trends going and how do those

[49:56] interplay with our demographic

[49:58] forecasts. Uh oh I should also mention

[50:01] uh we used for the modeling work uh a

[50:04] really reputable national partner um RCL

[50:06] co- real estate uh consultants. They

[50:09] have a long history of doing a lot of

[50:10] great work here in Utah. Uh demographic

[50:12] forecasts of course came from the the

[50:14] gardener policy institute here. But um

[50:17] so you you you mix together the market

[50:18] trends and demographic forecasts and you

[50:20] get a sense of what the demand is going

[50:22] to be and then like Tai said you kind of

[50:24] spread the peanut butter so to speak you

[50:26] spread that out uh to create the

[50:28] distribution model uh which is where is

[50:31] the demand going to be uh based on a

[50:34] number of uh factors there. And then the

[50:36] constraints or the cutting is the of the

[50:38] bread uh that we looked at were um water

[50:41] availability of course um and uh planned

[50:44] sewer capacity, planned transportation

[50:46] infrastructure, uh land use planning and

[50:49] zoning uh and then uh of course you know

[50:52] what land is actually developable

[50:53] because we have a lot of uh natural

[50:56] difficult to change constraints here. Mo

[50:58] a lot of the other constraints there are

[51:00] things that we can do something with

[51:02] which is where I want to tee up uh the

[51:05] discussion and question after or at the

[51:07] end of going through the data is well

[51:09] where do we go from here what can we do

[51:11] about the constraints that that we've

[51:13] identified um okay so the first piece of

[51:17] this the statewide structural demand

[51:19] this is where the number came from I

[51:20] apologize if this is a little small but

[51:22] uh we have 842,000

[51:24] units that we expect uh we're going to

[51:27] need over the next uh 30 years. And you

[51:30] can see uh in the pie chart there how

[51:33] that breaks out. We have about 50% a

[51:36] little bit more than 50% I think that uh

[51:38] of the demand is going to be in single

[51:40] family detached housing. Uh 35% of the

[51:43] demand is going to be for multifamily or single family attached housing and

[51:48] then uh it's about 15ish%

[51:51] uh of the demand we expect to be for

[51:53] multifamily housing. Yeah. Ted

[51:55] >> Jason. And that demand forecast is is

[51:59] based on the combination of what people

[52:02] prefer and what they can afford.

[52:04] >> Yes. Yes. Uhhuh. Yeah.

[52:09] » Categories.

[52:10] >> Yeah. Uhhuh. So the big one is uh uh

[52:13] about 50% of of demand that is for um

[52:16] single family detached housing. Uh the

[52:19] next biggest one is about 35% or 34% and

[52:23] that is for uh single family attached

[52:26] housing and then the smallest uh piece

[52:28] of the pie is for multifamily housing.

[52:31] Okay, apologize for the size there.

[52:34] Really helpful to sort of wrap your

[52:35] brain around what is the big picture.

[52:39] What is the need for different types of

[52:42] housing in the decades to come in our in

[52:45] our state? Those three categories. Thank

[52:47] you. And one more question. When when

[52:49] you gave the headline, was that

[52:51] including the deficit that we already

[52:53] have? Because there's supposedly a big

[52:55] deficit right now.

[52:56] >> Yes. Yeah. So, uh I I'm not sure the the

[52:59] latest numbers, but uh we've hovered

[53:01] over the last 10 years or so, uh

[53:04] somewhere between, you know, I think the

[53:05] low was around 15,000 short or units

[53:08] short to 50,000. We've been last couple

[53:11] years, I think 20 or 30 or so units or

[53:13] thousand units short. And so it's just a cumulative deficit over time. So by

[53:19] the year 2055,

[53:21] how many units short are we going to be?

[53:22] And and the answer is about five to

[53:25] eight times worse than we are today.

[53:27] >> Jason, it's the new deficit that adds on

[53:29] to our existing deficit.

[53:31] >> So Oh, sorry. I I misspoke. It is the

[53:34] new deficit that adds on to our existing

[53:36] deficit.

[53:36] >> Yeah. Thank you. Because there's a giant

[53:38] deficit right now, right? We were

[53:40] concerned about the right now.

[53:42] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[53:42] >> And now that's that's kind of

[53:44] astounding. Yeah. I think

[53:45] >> can I add one thing, Jason, as well. Um

[53:47] we won't go into it today, but what was

[53:49] so interesting about the work is it it

[53:51] really built in each of the high growth

[53:54] areas of the state. So Cash Valley, you

[53:56] know, it's not just Salt Lake County,

[53:57] Utah County, Davis County, or Washington

[53:59] County. it added in some of these first

[54:01] ring high growth areas and and the

[54:04] modeling um took into account the the

[54:07] household quantity, the household

[54:09] composition, as Ted said, the budget.

[54:11] And so that's how these aggregated

[54:13] numbers were built up. And so they were

[54:16] built from the local neighborhoods and

[54:18] then aggregated up, not the other way

[54:20] around. Does that make sense? And I

[54:22] think that's an important piece of sort

[54:23] of how the framework was put together.

[54:25] And I think the staff did an amazing job

[54:27] with that.

[54:27] >> Thank you. That's a really really

[54:29] important insight. Um, okay. And then

[54:32] there we go. Oops. Okay. And and then,

[54:35] uh, as was mentioned, we kind of we

[54:37] looked at the different buckets. Uh,

[54:39] maybe actually I'll go to this next

[54:40] slide. Um, again, I'm worried this might

[54:43] be a little small. We have a map here

[54:44] that is only for illustrative purposes

[54:46] right now because it's uh difficult to

[54:48] read.

[54:48] >> Can I interrupt you really quick?

[54:49] >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. We have a we have a

[54:51] question.

[54:51] >> Oh, yeah. Professor Yuing.

[54:53] >> Yeah.

[54:57] Hi. I'm Could we go back to I've

[55:01] got dogs in the background here who've

[55:04] just been set off by something. Someone

[55:06] walking by. Um could we go back to the

[55:09] last slide, please? No, the one before

[55:12] that.

[55:14] >> No, the single family attached is

[55:18] missing. No.

[55:19] >> Oh, this one. Yeah. Yeah. single family

[55:22] attached includes the missing middle and

[55:25] I'm surprised that the uh slice pie

[55:29] slice is that large for single family

[55:33] attached. I would have expected

[55:36] multifamily to be about that size and

[55:39] single family attached to be the

[55:41] multifamily slice size. Could you

[55:44] elaborate on that?

[55:46] >> That's interesting.

[55:47] >> I'm gonna Cody, can we elaborate on

[55:49] that?

[55:51] Do you want do you want to come grab the

[55:52] mic here?

[55:58] » Good question, Reed. That's so so yeah,

[56:01] you're right. Our current trends are

[56:03] more multifamily than single family

[56:05] attached. Um but as as we looked at the

[56:08] demographics moving forward, we see a

[56:10] lot of um households aging into like key

[56:14] household formation stages, but families

[56:16] are a lot smaller. So there's an

[56:18] increasing demand for those um kind of

[56:21] small family type products, but people

[56:23] are kind of like aging out of their

[56:25] primary multifamily years basically.

[56:29] >> Great. Thank you.

[56:32] >> Thank you.

[56:33] >> Okay, so uh we looked at where housing

[56:36] could go based on uh several different

[56:38] market types. We we originally looked at

[56:40] six and then uh you'll see that we

[56:42] landed on about three of of real

[56:45] importance here. So the the six market

[56:47] types are greenfield development areas

[56:49] or greenfield markets where we you know

[56:51] currently vacant land uh where we don't

[56:53] have housing infill markets and that's

[56:56] obviously within our existing

[56:57] communities cities and towns. Uh we

[56:59] looked at transit adjacent markets and

[57:02] uh within a certain distance of our uh

[57:04] transit stops and for transit we were

[57:06] looking specifically at uh rail and BRT.

[57:09] Uh and then uh we also considered uh

[57:12] priority seasonal areas uh which is you

[57:15] know where we have non a lot of non-

[57:17] primary residents. We looked at uh uh

[57:20] excluded seasonal areas which are um

[57:22] also you know lots of non-primary

[57:24] residents and then and then commercial

[57:26] industrial areas that and what we found

[57:28] is those bottom three the seasonal and

[57:29] commercial industrial there's they're

[57:32] not going to play a significant role

[57:33] here. We don't expect a ton of change uh

[57:36] in in those areas I guess. So, uh, the

[57:38] main buckets, oops, going back here that

[57:40] we looked at were these three.

[57:42] Greenfield, transit adjacent, and

[57:43] infill. Uh, those are the main buckets

[57:45] that will receive or can receive the

[57:47] housing demand that we have.

[57:49] >> Jason, while you're on that, Council

[57:50] Member Stout asked a question. Is there

[57:52] a percentage of each of those groups

[57:54] that's estimated to be rental properties

[57:56] versus owner occupied?

[57:58] >> Oo, that is a good question. I'm going

[58:00] to defer to the planning team again. Do

[58:01] we have details on that one?

[58:04] Emma's looking that up.

[58:08] We need to come back to that one.

[58:13] The the So there's a full report which

[58:16] has a lot more detail. It's already been

[58:18] dropped in the chat and in the followup

[58:19] to this meeting, we'll send a link to

[58:22] that report so people can dig in. And

[58:25] yes, the question of rental versus owner

[58:27] occupied is a critical question. We

[58:30] already hit on that in this meeting. So,

[58:32] thank you, council member, for asking

[58:33] that question, and we'll make sure that

[58:35] we see what's in the report about that.

[58:37] >> Okay. All right. Sounds great. Um, okay.

[58:39] I'm going to go to this is where I think

[58:41] things get really exciting here. looking

[58:43] at uh the different market types or

[58:45] these three main market types. We also

[58:47] did divvy up transit adjacent uh markets

[58:50] in infill areas versus transit adjacent

[58:53] markets in green field areas because we

[58:55] have uh some transit adjacent or transit

[58:58] planned for areas that currently are

[59:00] essentially green field. They don't have

[59:01] a lot of uh housing that currently

[59:03] exists but they will in the future. So

[59:06] um if we were to when we looked at the

[59:09] visioning work that we've done at

[59:10] Envision Utah that that is part of the

[59:12] Wasatch Choice vision and the

[59:14] conversations around growth that have

[59:15] happened over the last uh two and a half

[59:17] decades or more uh we came up with a

[59:19] target distribution that that kind of

[59:22] aligns with um uh what what

[59:26] opportunities we also have available.

[59:28] And so if we were to try and meet what

[59:30] we expect demand to be, we are going to

[59:33] see about 50% of our uh new housing

[59:36] units land in Greenfield areas. Oh, I

[59:38] should say these numbers are only to for

[59:40] the Wasatch front. So this is not

[59:42] looking at the entire state, but just

[59:43] the Wasatch front. So we expect

[59:45] >> inclusive of Utah County, not just WFRC,

[59:48] right?

[59:48] >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Not the WRC, but the Yeah. the the Wasatch front there.

[59:52] So, we expect about 318,000 units to

[59:55] land in Greenfield in the Greenfield

[59:57] bucket. Uh about 191,000 units to land

[1:00:00] in the infill bucket and about 127,000

[1:00:04] units to land in the uh transit adjacent

[1:00:07] bucket. Just to give you an idea of what

[1:00:10] that looks like based on current project

[1:00:12] or current densities and and sort of

[1:00:14] trending that out. Uh that's about

[1:00:16] 64,000 acres in Greenfield, 26,000 acres

[1:00:19] of of new uh homes in infill and 9,000

[1:00:22] new acres of homes in transit adjacent.

[1:00:25] I'll just a side note, that's right now

[1:00:27] about twice what we have in uh in

[1:00:30] current uh transit adjacent acreage. Um

[1:00:33] so obviously you know acres can be

[1:00:35] variable depending on what densities end

[1:00:37] up looking like but uh just as a a

[1:00:39] reference point real quick. Okay now

[1:00:42] let's look at the constraints. Uh when

[1:00:44] we look at our green field areas the

[1:00:46] constraints on housing or the biggest

[1:00:49] constraints on housing are uh perhaps

[1:00:51] not surprisingly water uh but then also

[1:00:53] infrastructure and planning and zoning.

[1:00:56] And I want to put just a little bit of

[1:00:57] uh of commentary on the infrastructure

[1:01:00] piece. When we think about 318,000

[1:01:03] units, we are talking about a a scale of

[1:01:06] housing that needs to be developed over

[1:01:07] the next 30 years that is not going to

[1:01:11] really be handled by building uh roads

[1:01:14] out to you know small uh small you know

[1:01:17] 200 500 unit developments uh one little

[1:01:20] neighborhood at a time. This is a lot of

[1:01:23] housing that is going to have to be

[1:01:24] built and to serve that housing we're

[1:01:27] going to need some pretty massive

[1:01:29] infrastructure probably more

[1:01:30] infrastructure uh if I can uh add some of my own views on this probably

[1:01:35] more infrastructure than we can put uh or that that can be handled by a

[1:01:40] single city or a single developer. This

[1:01:42] is infrastructure that of a regional

[1:01:44] scale where we're going to have to think

[1:01:45] about where do we want uh major um

[1:01:49] transportation access to be. Where do we

[1:01:51] want major water uh availability to be

[1:01:54] created? Uh and then of course planning

[1:01:56] and zoning uh is is another constraint

[1:01:57] that we currently have on on some of the

[1:01:59] greenfield areas. Infill areas. The main

[1:02:01] constraints are again you know planning

[1:02:03] and zoning uh redevelopment potential uh

[1:02:06] which is also tied to infrastructure in a lot of our infill areas. And then

[1:02:11] uh transit adjacent uh when we look at

[1:02:14] our infill areas, redevelopment

[1:02:16] potential I think is one of the big

[1:02:18] constraints that we see there in our uh

[1:02:19] currently existing cities and towns. The number of transit nodes uh is

[1:02:25] another constraint. uh we can you can

[1:02:27] only have uh we only have so many

[1:02:30] currently identified and planned uh

[1:02:32] transit nodes and you know if we had

[1:02:34] more I think then we'd have more acreage

[1:02:37] uh available to uh to build around

[1:02:39] transit areas and then for the green

[1:02:41] field transit de or transit adjacent

[1:02:43] markets one of the biggest constraints

[1:02:45] and challenges is going to just be

[1:02:47] lining up the timing because it's going

[1:02:48] to be uh you know it's a little bit of a

[1:02:50] balancing act and and tricky to to uh

[1:02:53] time the market right to get the uh the

[1:02:56] densities that that we would expect or

[1:02:58] to or want to see uh around immediately

[1:03:00] around transit stops when they don't

[1:03:02] have a lot of existing infrastructure

[1:03:04] and and city around them already. And so

[1:03:06] that gives leads us to here's the math

[1:03:09] um the actual shortage along the Wasatch

[1:03:11] front. When we look at the constraints,

[1:03:13] greenfield areas come up 78,000 uh homes

[1:03:16] short. Infill areas come up 48,500

[1:03:20] homes short. and our transit adjacent

[1:03:23] areas come up uh just under 70,000 homes

[1:03:26] short by the time we reach uh 2055.

[1:03:30] So this is really I think the heart of what we found. Um for the sake of

[1:03:35] time I'm going to just go real quick.

[1:03:36] Oh. Oh then of course I should mention

[1:03:38] water is our constant uh constant

[1:03:41] constrained companion. uh that's going

[1:03:43] to need a lot of careful consideration

[1:03:45] there both in terms of the supply and

[1:03:47] managing the supply that we have and

[1:03:48] then treatment and of course

[1:03:50] distribution and making you know that's

[1:03:52] going to be a constant constraint that

[1:03:54] we're going to have to be working with.

[1:03:55] >> Jason just pause here for one sec. Okay.

[1:03:59] So

[1:04:00] >> what do you when I look at this and I've

[1:04:03] been looking at these numbers for a long

[1:04:05] time but when I look at this I see an

[1:04:07] all of the above strategy. What do we do

[1:04:10] as Utons to deal with the growth

[1:04:12] challenges that we face? And it's we

[1:04:15] need new green field development. We

[1:04:18] need suburban infill and we need transit

[1:04:20] adjacent. And you know that may look

[1:04:23] differently in Grantsville where you

[1:04:26] have, as we've discussed, lots and lots

[1:04:28] of development occurring in Greenfield

[1:04:30] areas than it will in Taylor'sville

[1:04:32] where it's suburban infill and and

[1:04:34] transit oriented development. It's going

[1:04:35] to be different community by community,

[1:04:37] but rit large, it's an all of the above.

[1:04:41] And it's actually, if you think about

[1:04:42] it, it's kind of remarkably balanced in

[1:04:45] terms of the shortfall as you as you

[1:04:48] look at it. And then you think about,

[1:04:49] well, what are and Tai was saying this,

[1:04:51] what are the uh constraints, the

[1:04:54] impediments that stand in the way? And

[1:04:57] infrastructure

[1:05:00] um is one of the the key elements. And

[1:05:03] as Jason, as you were presenting, I saw

[1:05:05] Mayor Tran grab her legislative summary

[1:05:09] uh postcard. Do you do you want to say

[1:05:11] why you grabbed your legislative summary

[1:05:12] postcard?

[1:05:13] >> Well, just because infrastructure is so

[1:05:15] important and we do have some funding.

[1:05:16] We had some good bills passed, so

[1:05:18] hopefully we'll see some good

[1:05:20] infrastructure developed in the next

[1:05:22] couple years.

[1:05:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And you know, um th

[1:05:26] this is by my saying what I'm about to

[1:05:28] say now, it'll shorten what I'm going to

[1:05:30] say later in legislative updates. So,

[1:05:32] you're welcome. Um,

[1:05:34] so sometimes I feel like we sit in these

[1:05:36] meetings and I think you know, Mayor

[1:05:39] Doherty, you're new to this committee

[1:05:41] and you're like, okay, this data is all

[1:05:44] really interesting and there's so much

[1:05:46] work that goes into it. Uh, how does

[1:05:48] this translate down into what's

[1:05:49] happening in my in my city, right? Well,

[1:05:53] if you take what Tai said before about

[1:05:55] the big picture challenges and we do

[1:05:57] this analysis and think about well what are the development patterns that

[1:06:01] we need and then you think what about

[1:06:03] what are the constraints and because we

[1:06:05] identify those constraints we know that

[1:06:08] infrastructure is one of the regional

[1:06:10] infrastructure needed to unlock housing

[1:06:12] development that as you said one city or

[1:06:14] one developer couldn't do on their own

[1:06:16] and then that all informs policym

[1:06:20] and mayor Bradshaw knows this because

[1:06:22] she was deeply involved in this every

[1:06:24] day of the session. That in many ways

[1:06:27] led directly to one of the most

[1:06:29] important pieces of legislation this

[1:06:31] past session, House Bill 492, sponsored

[1:06:34] by Representative Cal Roberts from

[1:06:36] Draper, which authorizes

[1:06:39] $250 million in state funding for

[1:06:43] regional infrastructure that's designed

[1:06:46] to unlock housing development. 150

[1:06:49] million of that is grant funds in Salt

[1:06:52] Lake County and a 100 million of that is

[1:06:55] loan funds at favorable interest terms

[1:06:58] around the state and that work emerges.

[1:07:01] So then mayor a city like Clinton can

[1:07:04] say working with developers we need help

[1:07:08] to put in you know the lift station the

[1:07:10] sewer line the water infrastructure the

[1:07:13] roadway infrastructure to enable

[1:07:15] development to occur. So you see this

[1:07:17] through line from conceiving a problem,

[1:07:20] analyzing it, understanding the data,

[1:07:22] identifying the stren constraints, and

[1:07:24] then having policym that addresses it.

[1:07:27] So I'm hoping that that ties together uh

[1:07:30] what we're what we're trying to do here.

[1:07:32] >> Yeah. Well, and I would like to say we

[1:07:34] like to think of this as this is our

[1:07:36] baseline scenario. This is this is a

[1:07:39] look at what the constraints are today.

[1:07:41] But the task that we all have as as a

[1:07:44] region, as a state, is to figure out how

[1:07:47] do we not land here? Because I don't

[1:07:49] think anyone wants to land with a

[1:07:50] shortage that's uh you know somewhere

[1:07:52] between five and eight times worse than

[1:07:54] it is today. That's not going to do much

[1:07:56] for quality of life, for affordability.

[1:07:58] And so so that's really the invitation

[1:08:00] that I think this gives all of us is to

[1:08:02] say all right how do we come up with the plans the policies the the visions

[1:08:08] the transportation infrastructure the uh

[1:08:11] the centers you know that that are going

[1:08:13] to help us address all of this and so

[1:08:15] that's sort of uh what I want to to pose

[1:08:18] as the question for us. One other quick

[1:08:20] thing I just want to jump to real quick

[1:08:21] here and then we can get into some more

[1:08:23] discussion on that is because we're at

[1:08:26] WFRC uh we wanted to just uh put put a

[1:08:29] plug in here as was mentioned uh

[1:08:31] centersbased development is is a big

[1:08:33] piece of the Wasatchet choice vision and

[1:08:35] we we think that that's an applicable

[1:08:37] and helpful strategy in all of these

[1:08:40] buckets. I mean I think the obvious ones

[1:08:42] that we can think of are the around

[1:08:44] transit adjacent especially the station

[1:08:46] area planning. Um but as we look at

[1:08:48] infill uh making sure that we have a

[1:08:50] centerbased uh approach in some new

[1:08:52] infill development that's going to help

[1:08:56] uh create the housing opportunities and

[1:08:58] quality of life aspects that we're

[1:08:59] looking for. Uh but also as we develop

[1:09:02] 318,000

[1:09:04] green fields homes along the Wasatch

[1:09:06] front. If we can uh incorporate centers

[1:09:09] within our planning there, we're going

[1:09:11] to uh make sure that we're building on

[1:09:13] less land and keeping more land

[1:09:14] available, but also facilitating uh the

[1:09:17] long-term access to transportation uh

[1:09:20] and uh and the quality of life aspects

[1:09:22] that we know are are part of what uh

[1:09:24] Utons are looking for.

[1:09:26] >> Jason, can I do a one quick add-on onto

[1:09:28] that,

[1:09:28] >> please? Yeah. So you talked about

[1:09:31] transit adjacent as having a green field

[1:09:34] aspect too and UTA knows this and we all

[1:09:40] know this. It's part of the Wasuch

[1:09:41] Choice challenge is if we want more

[1:09:43] transit, we have to have the development

[1:09:46] that get has people close enough to

[1:09:49] stations that they want to get on board

[1:09:51] and that then the funders of transit in

[1:09:54] turn say that's a good bet for us to

[1:09:56] build that transit line. And so

[1:09:58] Greenfield Centers is part of creating

[1:10:01] more stations in green field areas. I

[1:10:04] just wanted to make that connection.

[1:10:05] >> Yep.

[1:10:05] >> Yeah.

[1:10:06] >> Um in our last minute or two, I I want

[1:10:09] to suggest that that the next set of

[1:10:11] questions that this provokes is along

[1:10:14] the lines of where Andrew and Ted have

[1:10:16] just gone. So if we if we say, okay, we need to deliver this many hundred

[1:10:20] thousand homes or this many tens of

[1:10:22] thousands homes in the green field.

[1:10:24] Well, roll back 30 years and think about

[1:10:28] Salt Lake County and think about the

[1:10:31] opportunity that existed in the

[1:10:33] southwest corner of of Salt Lake County.

[1:10:36] And the state made significant

[1:10:38] investments to build out the Bangoder

[1:10:40] Highway and the Mountain View corridor.

[1:10:42] The state along with UTA and others uh

[1:10:45] funded the expansion of our light rail

[1:10:48] system uh including to Daybreak. uh

[1:10:53] where is that next place? Uh when we

[1:10:57] were meeting with Representative

[1:10:58] Roberts, he said, "Well, can you just

[1:10:59] draw a line on a map and show me where

[1:11:01] the road should go?" And I said, "Well,

[1:11:03] I don't know yet." Um but that's a

[1:11:06] question we should all start to think

[1:11:07] about. Where is that next opportunity to

[1:11:10] open up? But at then was, you know,

[1:11:13] between the lands that that Kennot owned

[1:11:16] that became Daybreak, between what the

[1:11:18] Sorenson's owned that became a couple of

[1:11:20] big master plans what the church owned,

[1:11:22] you know, we're talking about 20 30,000

[1:11:25] acres probably of land that were in that

[1:11:27] quadrant of the Salt Lake County that

[1:11:29] are now South Jordan, Haramman,

[1:11:32] Riverton, Bluffale. uh and the

[1:11:34] population went from very little to we

[1:11:37] all know a couple hundred thousand in in

[1:11:39] those set of communities. So that that's

[1:11:42] the question that I think we should be

[1:11:43] asking about the green field. Where are

[1:11:45] those places? This, you know, are they

[1:11:47] Twilla County? Are they southwest Utah

[1:11:49] County? Are they somewhere else? Um on

[1:11:52] the infill, you know, it's it's a little

[1:11:54] bit of everything uh to quote Andrew and taking instead of two houses on a

[1:12:00] lot, we put four houses on a lot. you

[1:12:02] know, what what are the infrastructure

[1:12:04] challenges with that and what are the

[1:12:06] public policy and zoning challenges with

[1:12:07] that? Because I know every time there's

[1:12:10] an applicant in front of your city, uh,

[1:12:12] everybody wants to add units to the

[1:12:14] proposal, right? Not really. Everybody

[1:12:18] says, "Could you just take four out?

[1:12:19] We'll be happy." Um, so that's a a big

[1:12:22] challenge for us. And then the the

[1:12:24] transit, it it's really where we were 30

[1:12:27] plus years ago. Where is that new

[1:12:29] system? And then what are the trade-offs

[1:12:31] that we need to make? Because the

[1:12:33] assumption that the model has is that

[1:12:35] the market can only build uh stick frame

[1:12:38] over podium. In most of the market, the

[1:12:41] denser construction typologies are too

[1:12:44] expensive to be supported. But maybe

[1:12:47] with study and and understanding, maybe

[1:12:49] it's a better investment to subsidize

[1:12:51] the construction of denser units than it

[1:12:53] is to build another 100 miles of rail. I

[1:12:56] don't know. It's a good question. Um or

[1:12:59] is it a mix of the two? You know, in

[1:13:00] some places we we subsidize

[1:13:03] densification at transit nodes with

[1:13:05] construction typologies that are more

[1:13:07] expensive because it's more economical

[1:13:09] than just expanding the system or is it

[1:13:12] no, we need to find green field places

[1:13:14] to expand the system to um allow the

[1:13:16] next set of daybreaks. So I think these

[1:13:19] are some really interesting questions

[1:13:20] that that we should all start to

[1:13:22] entertain and think about and that will

[1:13:24] lead us to a similar type of effort that

[1:13:27] was 30 years ago for the next 30 years.

[1:13:30] So it it is solvable. Uh it's our

[1:13:32] baseline only because it's what happens

[1:13:34] if we do nothing. I don't think it's our

[1:13:36] baseline because that's what we're going

[1:13:37] to choose to do and that's the

[1:13:39] opportunity. So

[1:13:42] >> I we post questions to the group. Madam

[1:13:44] Chair, I'm I'm going to assume that we

[1:13:45] don't have a lot of time to take

[1:13:46] questions. We do have a couple minutes.

[1:13:48] Great. Let's go ahead and take some

[1:13:50] questions. Thanks.

[1:13:51] >> Um, thank you all of you who've helped

[1:13:54] with this part of the

[1:13:57] agenda. It's fascinating and so

[1:13:59] important. And I this what you just

[1:14:01] barely said about the transit

[1:14:04] reinvestment zones. And that's what I

[1:14:06] was saying that last year when we had so

[1:14:08] many groups come and explain, they

[1:14:10] talked about the additional housing

[1:14:12] units as part of those plans. And and it

[1:14:15] was quite impressive, right? how much

[1:14:18] more housing there would be with those.

[1:14:20] So,

[1:14:21] >> 108,000

[1:14:23] new planned units in certified station

[1:14:26] areas around transit right now.

[1:14:28] >> Yeah. I mean, and that's just amazing,

[1:14:30] right? For so many reasons. Anyway, like

[1:14:34] we're kind of seeing this start to go in

[1:14:36] the right direction. I would say

[1:14:38] >> we just need to do a lot more of it. And

[1:14:40] that's so encouraging because I think

[1:14:42] the station area plan as a collaborative

[1:14:44] effort with local jurisdiction has been

[1:14:47] a great success. Um and we got to a

[1:14:50] point of consensus that said yeah we can

[1:14:53] do a lot of density in these locations

[1:14:56] and most most jurisdictions were

[1:14:58] comfortable with that idea. Now there

[1:15:00] was some proddding uh of course but but

[1:15:03] it was not a a cradown in the sense of

[1:15:06] you just have to meet a minimum

[1:15:07] threshold zoning across your whole city.

[1:15:09] It was and so I think it the question

[1:15:11] that that it gets me considering is well

[1:15:14] what's the correlary for infill at large

[1:15:17] and and what is the sort of

[1:15:19] collaborative uh consensus solution for

[1:15:23] that I don't know but we did it with the

[1:15:26] transit station area plans and so could

[1:15:29] we do it again?

[1:15:35] So, one of the questions I have is like

[1:15:36] when you said put four houses on a lot,

[1:15:39] one of the biggest problems that we have

[1:15:41] out in Magna is we uh have no parking

[1:15:45] and uh the Little Valley Gateway where

[1:15:47] the new high school is where we had that

[1:15:49] incident two weeks ago where that

[1:15:51] 14-year-old girl got killed up there. Um

[1:15:54] we're continuing to write lots of

[1:15:56] parking tickets up there. So, I'm not

[1:15:58] too wellliked up in that area.

[1:16:02] >> That's difficult. Yeah.

[1:16:06] Any other comments or

[1:16:09] no? Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

[1:16:11] That was interesting. You've given us a

[1:16:13] lot of good information

[1:16:14] >> and happy to chat afterwards or or sit

[1:16:17] down with with any of your cities or or

[1:16:20] talk to you about this more. Thank you.

[1:16:21] >> Okay. Thank you so much. Have

[1:16:24] >> Okay,

[1:16:24] >> Professor Ying, popped his hand up

[1:16:26] again.

[1:16:26] >> Oh, okay. Professor Yuing.

[1:16:29] >> Yeah. Thank you. Transit adjacent

[1:16:32] development for a planner actually has

[1:16:35] sort of a negative connotation.

[1:16:38] Transit oriented development has a very

[1:16:41] positive

[1:16:43] uh

[1:16:46] kind of reputation among planners. you

[1:16:49] can you can have uh

[1:16:53] development near transit that doesn't in

[1:16:57] essence generate transit demand.

[1:17:01] Um one one example is station park where

[1:17:05] it's it's adjacent to a frontr runner

[1:17:08] station but it's uh not oriented that

[1:17:12] way. Is is that something we are are

[1:17:16] wrestling with now?

[1:17:18] Compare that to fire clay where the uh

[1:17:22] transit station and the multifamily

[1:17:24] housing is together and one complements

[1:17:28] the other. Uh could someone comment on

[1:17:31] that?

[1:17:34] Uh, Madam Chair, I I could note and and

[1:17:36] Reed, I think that's a perfect segue in

[1:17:39] a way to the next two items, which are

[1:17:43] the transit and land use transportation,

[1:17:45] pardon me, and land use connection

[1:17:47] program and the certification of a of a

[1:17:51] plan in Midvil because that's the level

[1:17:53] of detail where you get into that, where

[1:17:55] you get into this question of um what's

[1:17:58] the land use mix, what's the, you know,

[1:18:00] the urban design, what's the place that

[1:18:02] we're going to create and how does that

[1:18:05] place then relate to transportation

[1:18:08] infrastructure? I I don't think it's as

[1:18:10] much in the in sort of in the regional

[1:18:12] analysis

[1:18:14] uh side or in the you know was choice

[1:18:16] map side but they these two things are

[1:18:20] linked and so if you'll allow it I think

[1:18:23] it's a really great tea up actually into

[1:18:25] the next agenda item.

[1:18:26] >> Sure. Sure. Thank you.

[1:18:29] >> Thank you. All right. Yes. The next

[1:18:30] agenda item is transportation and land

[1:18:32] use connection program 2026 awarded

[1:18:34] projects. So part of what RGC does is

[1:18:38] helps is is help guide the WFRC's local

[1:18:41] technical assistance efforts. Once a

[1:18:43] year we announce the communities and

[1:18:44] projects that will receive

[1:18:45] transportation and land use connection

[1:18:47] TLC technical assistance um help. So

[1:18:51] I'll turn to Meg now to present this for

[1:18:53] us um the community and economic

[1:18:56] development director for WFRC. Thank you

[1:18:58] Meg.

[1:18:59] Thank you, mayor. The March meeting is

[1:19:02] an exciting one for the community and

[1:19:03] economic development team every year

[1:19:05] because we get to show you all of these

[1:19:06] new wonderful projects that we'll be

[1:19:07] working with your communities, your

[1:19:09] staff um to get done over the next um

[1:19:12] year or two. So, that these are our

[1:19:13] transportation and land use connection

[1:19:15] program awards for 2026.

[1:19:19] A little reminder for some and maybe new

[1:19:22] information for others about what is the

[1:19:23] transportation and land use connection.

[1:19:25] Ted talked about our various planning

[1:19:27] technical ex uh assistance activities.

[1:19:30] This is kind of our core program. So

[1:19:32] this is an an a program that cities

[1:19:34] apply to annually. Um cities all over

[1:19:37] our region that includes our association

[1:19:39] of governments area and our no area. So

[1:19:42] all of the cities that are part of the

[1:19:43] Wasach Front Regional Council are

[1:19:44] eligible. Projects can um always are

[1:19:48] some connection between land use and

[1:19:49] transportation. Some have an eye toward

[1:19:52] economic development and they always

[1:19:53] meet um some subset of these these four

[1:19:56] goals. So the goals of T TLC are to

[1:19:58] maximize the value of investment in

[1:20:00] public infrastructure, enhance access to

[1:20:03] opportunities, increase travel options

[1:20:05] to optimize mobility, and to create

[1:20:07] communities with opportunities to live,

[1:20:09] work, and play. And so this is what

[1:20:10] we're helping your communities with,

[1:20:12] right? Um read to your comment, you

[1:20:14] know, it's it's one thing to say we want

[1:20:15] this many units around our transit

[1:20:17] station. It's another to go in and think

[1:20:19] about how that's going to function, how

[1:20:21] those people are going to um park, get

[1:20:23] around, whether or not they have a car,

[1:20:25] right? The kind of lifestyle they can

[1:20:26] have there at that transit station. So,

[1:20:28] we help communities to think through all

[1:20:30] of those details through projects within

[1:20:32] um TLC as well as our station area

[1:20:33] planning work, right? Some some of these

[1:20:35] projects are near transit and many are

[1:20:37] not. And so, u there's considerations

[1:20:40] either way, whether you have transit or

[1:20:41] not in um these plans that we do. This

[1:20:44] program is a partnership with UD do and

[1:20:46] UTA. And then some of our in-house work

[1:20:49] that we're able to provide assistance

[1:20:51] for your cities um with is funded by the

[1:20:54] governor's office of planning and

[1:20:55] budget. So we have lots of partners in

[1:20:56] this work.

[1:20:59] Ted showed this slide, but this is

[1:21:01] essentially what TLC can fund. We can

[1:21:03] fund planning design, getting a little

[1:21:05] deeper into those details. Um somewhat

[1:21:08] like what Reed mentioned, ordinances. we

[1:21:10] can fund development and zoning

[1:21:11] ordinances in your community and

[1:21:13] implementation strategies beyond all of

[1:21:15] this. What is it going to take to make

[1:21:17] this neighborhood um start to come to

[1:21:18] life and tick? So, just get creative

[1:21:20] when you're thinking about what TLC

[1:21:22] might be able to help with um as you're

[1:21:24] thinking about your planning and your

[1:21:25] needs in your city.

[1:21:28] This is what we have this year. So,

[1:21:30] we're excited to announce 15 new

[1:21:31] projects. Um that's that's on the high

[1:21:34] end for us. That's really wonderful. um

[1:21:37] in total project funds. That's just

[1:21:39] under two million. We have 1.78 million

[1:21:41] in um project funds this year being

[1:21:44] awarded. Uh most of that comes from the

[1:21:46] TLC program and 300,000 of that is local

[1:21:48] match from your cities. So that helps

[1:21:50] the money go a lot um further when we

[1:21:53] have some match from your communities.

[1:21:54] Um but we hope that this is assistance

[1:21:57] that's welcomed by everybody. I'm

[1:21:59] showing a little screenshot of our map

[1:22:00] up here. Um, mostly to say that I'm

[1:22:04] going to go through these projects

[1:22:05] really quickly, but all of the

[1:22:07] information about them, descriptions of

[1:22:09] them, the the funding amounts, all of

[1:22:10] that is going to be available in that

[1:22:12] map along with all of the other projects

[1:22:14] we've ever funded. So, um, if you are

[1:22:16] wondering if your community has ever

[1:22:18] been supported by TLC, open up that map,

[1:22:20] put your city's name in, and you'll see

[1:22:22] everything that your city has ever

[1:22:23] worked on with us. Um, and maybe it'll

[1:22:25] generate some ideas for um, some

[1:22:26] follow-up planning as well.

[1:22:31] Maybe we can drop a link to that map in

[1:22:33] the chat if someone's on Zoom. Okay,

[1:22:36] here are the projects we funded this

[1:22:37] year in Salt Lake County. There are

[1:22:38] seven. The Copperton project is multiple

[1:22:41] small area plans throughout Copperton,

[1:22:43] kind of looking at the city's land use

[1:22:45] as a whole and then zooming in on some

[1:22:46] specific areas to do some more detailed

[1:22:48] planning.

[1:22:50] the Draper transportation master plan in

[1:22:53] Holiday. We're funding a citywide zoning

[1:22:55] ordinance as well as a deep dive in

[1:22:57] their northwest commercial district area

[1:23:00] um to kind of think through what that

[1:23:01] area should become prior to writing the

[1:23:03] ordinance for it. In Magna, we're

[1:23:06] funding a 2011 corridor research park

[1:23:08] and lifestyle center plan for a small

[1:23:11] area in Magna.

[1:23:13] In Midvale, a general plan land use

[1:23:15] amendment that will actually be done in

[1:23:16] house by our staff. So we'll get to work

[1:23:18] really closely with Midvail this year.

[1:23:20] In Mil Creek, a Parley's trail fe

[1:23:22] feasibility study. This is to connect

[1:23:24] kind of the urban portion of Mil Creek

[1:23:25] across 215, sorry, um Parley's across

[1:23:28] 215.

[1:23:30] And then in the town of Ela, we're

[1:23:31] funding their general plan update.

[1:23:35] In Davis and Weber counties, we have the

[1:23:36] Davis County Regional Trails Wayfinding

[1:23:38] Signage Plan. So Davis County will work

[1:23:40] with all the communities in Davis to try

[1:23:42] to think through how can um we help

[1:23:45] bicycle and pedestrian users of those

[1:23:47] that trail system get around and know

[1:23:49] where they're going. Um Far West general

[1:23:51] plan in Ogden, the Five Points area

[1:23:54] master plan. Another deep dive into a

[1:23:56] neighborhood in Ogden. In Pleasant View,

[1:23:59] a general plan in West Haven,

[1:24:01] transportation master plan, kind of

[1:24:02] phase two of some of the planning work

[1:24:04] we're doing with West Haven right now.

[1:24:06] And then in Ogden Valley, a new

[1:24:08] community in our region, uh general

[1:24:10] plan, transportation plan, zoning road

[1:24:12] map, recently incorporated city, right?

[1:24:14] So, lots of work to do there in planning

[1:24:16] and we're happy to support.

[1:24:18] And then this year, we have a couple of

[1:24:20] projects in Tilla County. So, that

[1:24:22] includes the Grantsville general plan

[1:24:24] and a general plan for Rush Valley along

[1:24:26] with some code work there, too. So,

[1:24:28] there's the 15 projects. It's like um

[1:24:31] it's like a party for us when we get all

[1:24:33] this this wonderful new work to work

[1:24:35] with you on. Um go look at that map.

[1:24:37] Take a look if you have questions about

[1:24:38] these projects. Um let us know. Some of

[1:24:41] these uh these applications started last

[1:24:43] year, right? So you may be um a new

[1:24:45] mayor with a a new fun project in your

[1:24:48] lap. Um your staff is all wonderful and

[1:24:50] they know about these awards. Um but

[1:24:52] give us a call if you want to talk

[1:24:53] through any of these

[1:24:56] and I'm happy to take any questions if

[1:24:58] there are any.

[1:24:59] >> Thank you. That's so exciting. I hope

[1:25:00] everybody is super excited. Quite a few

[1:25:03] projects and I know how much work is

[1:25:04] involved in just preparing the

[1:25:06] application for the project. So, thank

[1:25:08] you.

[1:25:09] >> Congratulations. Did you have anything?

[1:25:10] >> And I want to say thank you very much.

[1:25:12] Very impressive.

[1:25:15] Exciting.

[1:25:17] >> Madam Chair, question.

[1:25:18] >> Yes.

[1:25:18] >> Um, where does the money come from

[1:25:20] originally?

[1:25:21] >> Sure. So, this is uh it's a little bit

[1:25:22] of a mixed pot. A lot of the funds are

[1:25:24] surface transportation planning dollars.

[1:25:26] We call it an ounce of prevention. And

[1:25:28] it's a really small carve out of that

[1:25:29] money um that hopefully allows

[1:25:32] >> Excuse me.

[1:25:33] >> That's a federal bot. Keep going.

[1:25:34] >> Yes. Uh that allows for some better

[1:25:36] investment going forward. In addition,

[1:25:38] our partners UTA and UD do put some

[1:25:40] money into this program, too.

[1:25:43] >> Great question. Local match,

[1:25:47] >> sorry, there's local match money in each

[1:25:48] project. Yeah, I'll just note um we are

[1:25:52] we're so happy to be able to provide

[1:25:55] this type of assistance to all of our

[1:25:58] communities and I think I mean if not

[1:26:01] every almost every community in the WFRC

[1:26:04] region has received assistance through

[1:26:07] this program, you know, over the years

[1:26:09] that that we've been doing it. And I'm

[1:26:11] just I can't help but think I'm mindful

[1:26:13] of what uh Jason and Tai presented and

[1:26:17] me emphasized this this balance that we

[1:26:20] need to do um a mix of green field

[1:26:23] development, suburban infill and transit

[1:26:25] oriented development. And as you look at

[1:26:27] that list that Meg just went through,

[1:26:30] all of those are represented in there,

[1:26:33] right? from the new city of Ogden Valley

[1:26:36] to the you know the rapid development

[1:26:38] mayor that we noted before that

[1:26:40] Grantsville uh is having to some um you

[1:26:44] know more focus around transit stations.

[1:26:46] We're we're trying to help you figure

[1:26:48] these things out. Uh and the last thing

[1:26:51] I'll say is that in none of this work do

[1:26:55] Meg and Byron and the team and the

[1:26:57] consultants that we engage we never come

[1:27:00] in and say here's what you should do. We

[1:27:03] are not trying to tell you how to

[1:27:05] develop in your communities. Right,

[1:27:08] Mayor? You know Magna better than any of

[1:27:11] us. And so you you identify the

[1:27:13] challenges that you're facing and we

[1:27:15] want to help you with resources and

[1:27:17] technical assistance to figure out the

[1:27:19] best path forward and we're just

[1:27:21] thrilled to be able to do it.

[1:27:24] >> Well, and I I'm glad you added that

[1:27:25] because I wanted to make sure anyone

[1:27:26] who's newer or listening, these are asks

[1:27:29] from these cities, these communities.

[1:27:30] This is not any organization coming in

[1:27:32] and saying this is what you need to do

[1:27:34] or we expect you to do. They're wanting

[1:27:36] the help and they're able to get this

[1:27:38] assistance which is huge because it's

[1:27:40] expensive to plan for these things. So

[1:27:42] thank you.

[1:27:43] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you Meg. All

[1:27:46] right. Stationary plan certification of

[1:27:48] Midville Fashion Place West. We'll now

[1:27:50] consider certification of a request for

[1:27:52] the station area in Midville in

[1:27:54] accordance with the station area

[1:27:56] planning program. We have the

[1:27:57] development director Adam Olsen from

[1:27:59] Midville here, but I'm going to first

[1:28:01] turn to Byron Head with WF WFRC to

[1:28:05] introduce this item. Thanks, Byron.

[1:28:06] >> Great.

[1:28:07] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, good a or good

[1:28:09] morning, everyone. Um, I apologize my

[1:28:11] slides a little sparse today. The last

[1:28:13] couple times it's been a laundry list of

[1:28:14] cities and today we only have one, but

[1:28:17] um, yeah, station area planning. Um,

[1:28:20] you're all likely familiar with this.

[1:28:22] It's been around for a few years now,

[1:28:23] but for the benefit of our newer

[1:28:25] members, I'll provide a brief um summary

[1:28:28] of what the requirements are. These are

[1:28:30] for the areas that are a half mile

[1:28:33] around a rail station or a quarter mile

[1:28:35] around a BRT station that need to uh

[1:28:38] create a planning document that

[1:28:39] addresses housing access to

[1:28:41] opportunities, transportation options,

[1:28:43] and environmental conditions. Uh

[1:28:45] basically as we've been talking about

[1:28:47] all morning here, colllocating housing

[1:28:49] and services and opportunities with our

[1:28:50] transit infrastructure.

[1:28:53] Um

[1:28:54] to date, we've certified between us and

[1:28:57] um Mountainland Association of

[1:28:58] Governments to the South, we've

[1:28:59] certified 98 of the 127 plans that uh

[1:29:04] are required by the legislation. We've

[1:29:06] got one more to consider today. Uh this

[1:29:09] is for the Midvail portion of the

[1:29:11] Fashion Place West station area. The

[1:29:13] station is actually in Murray. Um, but

[1:29:15] the city has done a joint project with

[1:29:18] Murray to create a plan for the whole

[1:29:20] area. Murray had their portion of the

[1:29:22] plan uh certified at this uh at our at

[1:29:25] our council back in January. And so now

[1:29:27] Midvail is uh seeking their

[1:29:30] certification.

[1:29:31] Um and as Andrew mentioned earlier, uh

[1:29:35] and actually yeah, this number is uh out

[1:29:37] of date. um certified plans would now

[1:29:39] support over 108,000 homes in these

[1:29:42] stationaries all across the Wasatch

[1:29:44] front. Um so we're excited to have hit

[1:29:46] that threshold over uh getting to six

[1:29:49] digits. Um so yeah about the plan a

[1:29:52] little bit. Uh this is the whole station

[1:29:54] area uh in most predominantly in Murray.

[1:29:57] The only portion that is in Midvail is

[1:29:59] this little piece in the the bottom kind

[1:30:02] of center there. Um but it is

[1:30:05] interesting that this is almost an

[1:30:06] extension of the um Midville Fort Union

[1:30:10] Station which the city did a plan for a

[1:30:12] couple years ago and has already been

[1:30:14] certified by this uh body. Um and that

[1:30:20] plan that Midvil did, you know, was

[1:30:22] focused on housing. And here in the the

[1:30:25] Murray uh or sorry the Fashion Place

[1:30:27] West station area, again, this is an

[1:30:30] area that they're focusing on jobs and

[1:30:31] housing balance. Uh and then also the

[1:30:34] city is finishing up a uh Porter

[1:30:36] Rockwell Trail alignment um extension

[1:30:40] alignment study. And so this plan will

[1:30:42] also accommodate whatever that eventual

[1:30:45] alignment will be to bring the trail up

[1:30:47] uh from Sandy along presumably along the

[1:30:50] tracks line. Um, so that's all I have.

[1:30:53] U, Adam is here if you would like to

[1:30:56] come up and provide a comment or two

[1:30:58] about the the planning process and the

[1:31:00] outcomes.

[1:31:04] » Uh, thank you for having me here. I just

[1:31:06] wanted to say on behalf of Midville, our

[1:31:08] mayor and council, uh, thank you to WFRC

[1:31:12] for all of the support that we've

[1:31:13] received um, through the years. we have

[1:31:16] really we really appreciate working with

[1:31:18] you and look forward to working with you

[1:31:20] even more um in the future. So that said

[1:31:24] um our council has been very supportive

[1:31:26] of these station area plans. Uh we also

[1:31:29] partnered with West Jordan City a few

[1:31:31] years ago for the um Bingham Junction

[1:31:33] Station. Uh that station and the

[1:31:35] historic gardener station kind of

[1:31:37] overlap and so uh we partnered with West

[1:31:40] Jordan to do a study for both of those.

[1:31:43] Um, we also have the Fort Union station

[1:31:45] which is on the screen here and then we

[1:31:47] also have our center street station

[1:31:49] which is a little further south that

[1:31:51] overlaps a little with uh the Fort Union

[1:31:53] and then the small portion of the

[1:31:55] fashion place west. Uh, one of the

[1:31:57] things that our council has done since

[1:31:59] we've um approved or adopted these

[1:32:01] station area plans is we've gone through

[1:32:03] and we've amended our zoning um to

[1:32:05] provide incentives for development

[1:32:07] within um these uh transit adjacent

[1:32:11] areas, if you will. Uh one of the major

[1:32:13] things the council did was they did uh

[1:32:15] designate some areas that um rather than

[1:32:18] have a cap of density, they basically uh

[1:32:22] raised the cap on that to say that um

[1:32:25] the density that you can have there is

[1:32:28] basically what um what it can support.

[1:32:31] Um we've also lowered some parking

[1:32:33] requirements. So between basically uh

[1:32:37] having an almost unlimited density if

[1:32:38] you will and lower parking requirements,

[1:32:40] we're hoping that um you know

[1:32:44] development is spurred in these areas

[1:32:46] and especially in the center street

[1:32:48] area. Uh we've had some interest as of

[1:32:51] late and so I just want to say that the

[1:32:53] station area plans we feel are doing

[1:32:55] what they're intended to do. Uh they are

[1:32:57] spurring those discussions. The council

[1:32:59] is very supportive of density within

[1:33:01] these areas and we're looking forward to

[1:33:03] what we hope is the first um development

[1:33:07] to um occur in the station just south of

[1:33:10] this Fort Union one at Center Street. So

[1:33:12] again, thank you.

[1:33:16] » Thank you.

[1:33:17] >> Thanks, Adam. All right. Um so we have a suggested motion um for for the

[1:33:24] committee here um basically recommending

[1:33:27] certification of this to the council

[1:33:29] which will meet next week. Um staff has

[1:33:32] reviewed the plan and uh consulted with

[1:33:34] UTA and are supportive of certification.

[1:33:37] Um so I'll now turn it back to the chair

[1:33:39] for any discussion.

[1:33:40] >> Thank you. Would someone like to make a

[1:33:41] motion to approve this or to recommend

[1:33:44] this? I'll move.

[1:33:46] >> Okay. Thank you, mayor. Uh do we have a

[1:33:48] second?

[1:33:50] I'll second.

[1:33:51] >> Okay. Thank you. All in favor? I. Any

[1:33:54] opposed? Okay. Thank you. That will be

[1:33:56] recommended to the board. Appreciate

[1:33:58] your presentation on that.

[1:34:03] » All right, Andrew. Legislative update.

[1:34:07] >> Mayor, um I'm thinking that in the

[1:34:10] interest of time, I won't do a full

[1:34:14] legislative update. Um, oh, Mayor

[1:34:18] Overson is upset about that. Um, oh, uh,

[1:34:22] let me make a just a few brief comments.

[1:34:24] A lot happened. More bills introduced

[1:34:27] this past session than any previous

[1:34:29] year. Uh, former Representative Benian

[1:34:32] knows that. Maybe you were glad to not

[1:34:34] be part of that. Um, uh, but, uh, you, uh, somebody once a long time ago

[1:34:41] said, you don't judge a legislature, a

[1:34:43] legislative session by what's

[1:34:44] introduced. you judge it by what's

[1:34:46] passed. Um, and I think a lot of

[1:34:49] positive things happened this session

[1:34:51] and put another way, a lot of um,

[1:34:55] potentially problematic things did not

[1:34:57] pass. Okay. And I'm looking at Mayor

[1:35:00] Bradshaw. I'm going to put her on the

[1:35:01] spot and turn to her in just a moment

[1:35:03] here. There were notable pieces of

[1:35:06] legislation in transportation, in

[1:35:09] housing, in economic development. We at

[1:35:12] WFRC have provided uh a a lot of

[1:35:16] information to you. We will send that

[1:35:18] out to you again in the followup to this

[1:35:20] meeting. Um Mir Oh, and Miranda Jones

[1:35:23] Cox, our government affairs manager, is not here today. She's taking a little

[1:35:28] bit of very welldeserved and well needed

[1:35:30] time. Uh uh next week at our full

[1:35:34] council meeting, which is Thursday

[1:35:35] afternoon, we will do a legislative

[1:35:37] update. We've produced this uh

[1:35:40] legislative summary card that you all

[1:35:42] have around the table here. We've

[1:35:44] produced a very thorough full

[1:35:48] legislative wrapup that's all we've sent

[1:35:51] out and is also on our website so you

[1:35:53] can dig in as much as you want about the

[1:35:56] governance changes for UTA and the

[1:35:58] transit funding um modifications or

[1:36:01] increases uh the funding restorations

[1:36:04] for the local administrative advisor

[1:36:06] program. uh the reductions or transfers

[1:36:10] in funding from transportation

[1:36:14] to support uh infrastructure that helps

[1:36:17] housing. That's a notable funding

[1:36:20] shifted away from UD do

[1:36:24] fund grant or loans and grants for

[1:36:26] infrastructure. Funding shifted away

[1:36:28] from some of the local option

[1:36:29] transportation sales taxes in Salt Lake

[1:36:31] County to fund uh infrastructure to

[1:36:34] unlock housing. So, how do you feel

[1:36:36] about that? It's an interesting uh

[1:36:38] interesting dynamic, but lots and lots

[1:36:40] of bills um that I won't go into now

[1:36:42] unless anybody wants to ask me about

[1:36:44] something in particular. Having said all

[1:36:46] that, uh Mayor Bradshaw, League

[1:36:49] President Bradshaw, government affairs

[1:36:51] professional Bradshaw, would you like to

[1:36:53] offer any comments wearing any of your

[1:36:54] hats?

[1:36:56] >> Sure, Andrew. U this this was a a very

[1:37:00] robust legislative session. Um it so

[1:37:03] many bills were introduced and I think

[1:37:04] you're right to guide us to only judge

[1:37:06] it on what passed because there were

[1:37:07] some doozies introduced.

[1:37:09] >> Um

[1:37:12] I really enjoy that I get to have the uh

[1:37:14] interaction from my ULCT role with other

[1:37:17] groups. I've gotten to spend a lot of

[1:37:18] time uh with with Andrew this year and in sessions past. Um, I would maybe

[1:37:24] highlight just a couple bills that that

[1:37:27] I'm particularly um proud of and proud

[1:37:29] of when the process does the process the

[1:37:32] way we could be proud of instead of the

[1:37:35] opposite when we're not proud of the

[1:37:36] process. Um, HB425, this is the tough

[1:37:40] bill. This is Karen Peterson who worked

[1:37:42] for three straight sessions.

[1:37:44] >> Transportation utility fee.

[1:37:46] >> Yes. Sorry, should have uh said the

[1:37:49] whole name, not just the acronym. three

[1:37:51] whole sessions to then have that go

[1:37:53] through uh unanimously. Um I think this

[1:37:56] is a good and transparent process and

[1:37:59] codify is an important court win and is

[1:38:02] important for uh a lot of cities as we

[1:38:05] face um increased costs uh for

[1:38:08] transportation needs. Um the next one I

[1:38:11] would mention 492. We've already talked

[1:38:13] about this one a little bit in earlier

[1:38:16] presentations. Um, this bill, it's

[1:38:20] important as a standalone piece of

[1:38:22] legislation because of the funding it

[1:38:24] brings and unlocking so many

[1:38:26] opportunities uh for different housing

[1:38:29] projects. Um,

[1:38:32] but frankly, it was also important for

[1:38:34] helping us defeat many many bad pieces

[1:38:36] of legislation um that would have

[1:38:38] attacked and and eroded city's um land

[1:38:42] use authority. Uh often, um when

[1:38:46] legislators hear frustrations in the in

[1:38:48] the housing space, um their their first

[1:38:52] idea is to to go in and try and attack

[1:38:54] some land use authority that that cities

[1:38:57] or counties have instead of taking the

[1:38:59] time to understand kind of the

[1:39:01] underpinnings of how we how we get to

[1:39:03] building projects and all of the stuff

[1:39:05] that you don't see under the ground that

[1:39:06] makes those projects possible. So, um,

[1:39:09] the work that Representative Roberts was

[1:39:11] willing to do on this bill, um, thanks

[1:39:14] to having served on a city council, uh,

[1:39:17] and swinging big for this money and then

[1:39:20] the partnership from from many different

[1:39:22] groups, this group along with the

[1:39:24] league, um, helped us then hold that up

[1:39:27] as, as advances great, um, housing and

[1:39:31] infrastructure policy, uh, while

[1:39:34] knocking down some of the really bad

[1:39:35] ideas. Um, and then the last one, um,

[1:39:38] would would probably just be SB 242.

[1:39:41] That's Senator Harper. And this is the,

[1:39:44] um, uh, sorry, that may not be the one I

[1:39:47] wanted. The UTA one. No, that was 242.

[1:39:50] 197.

[1:39:52] >> Um, I think that one is going, uh, UTA

[1:39:57] 3.0 I know is going to be an interesting

[1:39:58] animal that I look forward to

[1:40:00] understanding

[1:40:01] um more and ensuring that it's um

[1:40:04] working uh with all of us to to do these

[1:40:07] important connections. So, those are

[1:40:09] three bills from uh just a a number of

[1:40:12] different bills that I thought were were

[1:40:14] particularly important and really took a

[1:40:16] lot of um dedicated groups working

[1:40:19] together to advance all the way through

[1:40:21] the the gauntlet that is the 45day Utah

[1:40:24] session.

[1:40:26] Mayor, thank you. Mayor, do you want to

[1:40:28] add anything about the session? I just

[1:40:30] want to spend a lot of time there.

[1:40:31] >> Well, just my appreciation. It takes I

[1:40:33] had no idea how involved these bills are

[1:40:36] and and how many people it takes on your

[1:40:38] weekly your weekly meetings and updates

[1:40:40] were so helpful. I super appreciate Kate

[1:40:42] and the ULC team. They're fantastic. The

[1:40:45] engagement from the mayors for the LPC

[1:40:47] meetings and the city council members. I

[1:40:48] mean, it just takes everybody to make

[1:40:50] everything happen. So, I'm very grateful

[1:40:51] for that. So, thank you.

[1:40:52] >> Mayor, quick uh quick one. I was I had

[1:40:56] the pleasure of attending the Urban Land

[1:40:58] Institutees um legislative

[1:41:02] summary

[1:41:03] meeting earlier this week and partly I

[1:41:06] just want everybody to know that this

[1:41:08] group is predominantly local government

[1:41:11] and sort of transportation agency but we

[1:41:13] do have some private sector and

[1:41:15] nonprofit people around the table and I

[1:41:18] just wanted to note the Kristen and her

[1:41:21] role with the urban land institute and

[1:41:24] you know love having you here and it's

[1:41:26] an interesting sort of different story

[1:41:28] you get when you hear from different groups and um wanted to just

[1:41:33] highlight uh highlight that aspect about

[1:41:35] our committee

[1:41:36] >> and to that agreed and to that point we

[1:41:39] partner a lot with the private sector um

[1:41:42] uh not least of which the the uh Salt

[1:41:45] Lake or Utah Chamber of Commerce who

[1:41:47] were really in is really involved up at

[1:41:49] the up at the capital and of course uh

[1:41:52] the counties in Utah Association of

[1:41:54] Counties. So it um it takes a real uh

[1:41:57] team. Mar let me take one minute to look

[1:42:00] at the at what's happening in Washington

[1:42:02] DC.

[1:42:03] >> Yes.

[1:42:03] >> Okay. When it comes to uh transportation

[1:42:06] related issues,

[1:42:08] uh I'm tempted to say there's a lot

[1:42:11] happening and there's also not very much

[1:42:13] happening at the same time. What I mean

[1:42:15] by that is that uh federal

[1:42:18] transportation policy and funding is

[1:42:22] developed through what's called a

[1:42:24] surface transportation authorization

[1:42:27] bill. And that happens roughly every 5

[1:42:30] years. The current bill, the

[1:42:33] infrastructure investment and jobs act,

[1:42:35] expires this year, September 30th of

[1:42:38] 2026.

[1:42:40] Um, I was just in DC for the last few

[1:42:42] days, not for the National League of

[1:42:44] Cities, uh, conference, but for the

[1:42:47] Association of Metropolitan Planning

[1:42:49] Organizations Policy Committee, and

[1:42:50] spent time on the Hill, etc. And here's the short story. Uh there's a lot

[1:42:55] of work happening on the next

[1:42:56] reauthorization bill, but uh it is less

[1:43:01] likely to happen actually happen this

[1:43:03] year by the time of the expiration than

[1:43:06] we might have thought earlier than are

[1:43:07] the intentions of Congress. It's more

[1:43:09] likely to get the can will be kicked

[1:43:12] down the road. There'll be a a temporary

[1:43:15] extension which means the policy and

[1:43:16] funding levels would stay in place. uh

[1:43:19] as we look ahead there's so much to say

[1:43:21] there but I'm just going to say we're we

[1:43:23] all WFRC all of our transportation

[1:43:26] partners the cities and the counties we

[1:43:28] come together as Utons identify shared

[1:43:32] principles for federal transportation

[1:43:35] policy and funding and then policy

[1:43:38] priorities and we do um it's actually

[1:43:41] fair to say that we Utah is known around

[1:43:44] the nation for being a model of

[1:43:47] collaboration we have Utah's unified

[1:43:49] transportation plan and also the fact

[1:43:51] that we work together to develop shared

[1:43:53] principles for what we want and our

[1:43:55] delegation so wellplaced. They're

[1:43:58] involved in the key committees and they

[1:43:59] are so appreciative of the way that we

[1:44:02] do this that we work together. We don't

[1:44:04] bring them something that another Utah

[1:44:06] stakeholder says, "Wait, we don't like

[1:44:07] that we we um we all row in the same uh

[1:44:10] direction." I do last thing I'll say. I

[1:44:14] do have one really cool thing to report

[1:44:16] to you. Um, one of the things that came

[1:44:19] out of the infrastructure investment and

[1:44:20] jobs act is lots and lots of grant

[1:44:23] programs, discretionary grant programs.

[1:44:27] And those of you that pay attention to

[1:44:29] these things will know that many grants

[1:44:32] that were awarded

[1:44:34] uh in previous years but had not

[1:44:37] actually moved forward yet. Like they

[1:44:39] make the awards and then there's a

[1:44:40] extended process for entering into

[1:44:42] contracts, grant agreements, etc.

[1:44:44] When the um presidential administration

[1:44:46] turned over, US DOT said, "Time out.

[1:44:50] We're pausing on many of those grants um

[1:44:54] to review them." Some got cancelled. Uh

[1:44:58] an $87 million

[1:45:01] uh grant um for uh reconnecting um under

[1:45:05] the uh expressway in St. George,

[1:45:07] reconnecting communities actually got

[1:45:09] cancelled. Um, one that was awarded

[1:45:13] earlier and that we have been waiting on

[1:45:16] uh is a $25 million grant from the for

[1:45:21] first last mile improvements around our

[1:45:25] region. So, this is making enhancements

[1:45:28] around transit stations uh to make this

[1:45:31] the sidewalks more safer, easier points

[1:45:34] of connection so that people have the

[1:45:35] ability to get to the transit station

[1:45:37] and then use it. We were awarded

[1:45:39] collectively. This was UD do was the

[1:45:41] applicant. We all worked on this

[1:45:42] together. We were awarded this. Gosh,

[1:45:45] where's Hugh? Uh, a while ago, over a

[1:45:48] year ago, we were awarded this funding.

[1:45:50] Um, two years ago, two years ago, and

[1:45:52] then it was paused and we were afraid

[1:45:54] that this $25 million grant was going to

[1:45:57] be rescended. We just got word yesterday

[1:46:00] that we're back in action and this is

[1:46:02] moving forward. We've been clear to

[1:46:04] proceed and and develop the grant

[1:46:06] agreement. So, that is going to move

[1:46:08] forward. And I it's like I don't know

[1:46:10] it's like Christmas again. Like we were

[1:46:12] super excited when we when the grant was

[1:46:14] award was announced and then we felt

[1:46:16] like it wasn't going to happen and now

[1:46:17] we get to unwrap the president again. So

[1:46:19] we're really we're really excited. So

[1:46:20] that's going to move forward. Thank you.

[1:46:22] >> Thank you. Thank you. That's fantastic.

[1:46:24] I know we are short on time but in um

[1:46:26] Commissioner Kamalu has a comment.

[1:46:28] >> Actually this is the other other

[1:46:30] business. Davis County's general plan

[1:46:33] update openhouse is this evening. So,

[1:46:36] for those who live and work and have

[1:46:38] interest in in this update, um there's

[1:46:41] very little unincorporated county left

[1:46:44] in Davis County, um just keep that in

[1:46:47] mind. And it um that's because as

[1:46:51] development occurs, it is incorporated

[1:46:53] into our cities. Nonetheless, this

[1:46:55] general plan update, as you all know, it tends to be a big deal. So, an open

[1:46:59] house for all invited from 5:30 to 7 in

[1:47:03] the county building in um on the main

[1:47:05] level down in an auditorium room. So,

[1:47:09] that is tonight. All are welcome.

[1:47:11] >> Thank you, Commissioner. All right. We

[1:47:13] have a webinar that was mentioned May

[1:47:15] 26th, so participate in that if you'd

[1:47:17] like to. And then

[1:47:18] >> we'll send details out on that in the

[1:47:20] follow-up email.

[1:47:21] >> Okay. Thank you. And then the next

[1:47:22] meeting is May 21st, and we just need a

[1:47:24] motion to adjurnn.

[1:47:26] >> All right. All in favor?

[1:47:28] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:47:30] >> Thanks everybody.

[1:47:33] » Thank you. How are you doing?

Regional Growth Committee Meeting - March 19, 2026

Transcript