Utah League of Cities and Towns members reviewed the state’s draft housing plan and an early proposal for a second-phase Moderate-Income Housing Program (MHP 2) during the Oct. 20 Legislative Policy Committee meeting, urging state leaders to clarify how new measures would be implemented and funded.

Members said they support elements of the draft plan — including emphasis on infrastructure funding, metrics and avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates — but repeatedly asked how the plan’s objectives would translate into bills and regulatory details. "We don't want political cover from the state without clarity on implementation," one caucus member told staff.

Why it matters: The governor’s housing plan and any successor to the current MHP carry potential funding, zoning and prioritization implications for state grants and infrastructure dollars. Local leaders want assurances that outcomes will be measured, that smaller and resort communities will not be disadvantaged, and that cities that have already taken action receive credit.

Key points from the meeting

- State housing plan: The 106-page draft went live the week before and will be presented to the Commission on Housing Affordability on Oct. 30. League staff and member caucuses praised the plan’s collaborative approach, focus on infrastructure and metrics but asked for clearer implementation language and assurances about flexibility for local governments.

- Organizational reorganization bill: Committee members were briefed on a bill under development to consolidate housing policy administration — moving some functions under the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO), transferring certain federal program administration to the Department of Workforce Services, creating a deputy director for housing policy at GOEO, and repealing the Commission on Housing Affordability. The bill aims to improve state line-of-sight over housing programs and reduce fragmentation.

- MHP 2 concept: League staff presented an early MHP 2 scorecard that would award points to jurisdictions for planning, zoning changes, use of public land or funds, and demonstrated private-sector outcomes (for example, approved projects that include affordable or owner-occupied units). Higher point totals would prioritize jurisdictions for state infrastructure grants or other incentives. The proposal would also include mechanisms to credit communities that have done prior planning or that face practical constraints on additional development.

Members’ concerns and clarifying questions

- Optional vs. mandatory: Several members urged that MHP 2 remain optional "extra credit," not a replacement for existing programs that trigger eligibility for funding today. One councilor warned that layered new requirements could make the goalposts move over time.

- Credits for built-out or resort communities: Elected officials from smaller or resort towns pressed for a way to credit past accomplishments and for recognition that market and land-cost realities limit what some jurisdictions can accomplish.

- Project completion risk: Local officials asked how points would account for projects that are approved but fail to secure financing (for instance, LIHTC) and therefore never get built. Staff said states are considering supplemental tax credits and other subsidies to improve the financing picture for deeply affordable projects, and that MHP 2 could track approvals and outcomes over time.

What officials said

Tara (Governor’s office representative) reminded members that the governor’s housing website includes the draft plan and a feedback portal. League staff said they will gather LPC feedback and present a consolidated response to the League board and to the Commission on Housing Affordability as the plan is finalized in December.

Ending

League staff will gather member feedback through the week and present it to the League board and the Commission on Housing Affordability; staff said they expect draft statutory changes to appear in the next few weeks and will return to LPC with bill language.