HOUSING POLICY MATRIX
'At a Glance' summary of key regulatory and financial tools that impact affordable housing production in each jurisdiction.
To view the Matrix for your jurisdiction, please select it from the drop-down menu below.

Housing Policy Matrix for Arlington County

November 2018

POLICY JURISDICTION POSITION NEEDS CLARIFICATION/ EXPANSION ACTIONS
Dedicated Source of Revenue Small percentage of the real estate recordation fee dedicated to Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF). There is a policy commitment for a minimum $12.5M annual allocation to AHIF AHIF is funded annually through tax revenue, developer contributions and loan repayments, but there are no dedicated sources of funding for housing Ensure that allocation of funding for housing in neither reduced nor eliminated, and that it is adequate to fund projected development and meet annual housing goals
Developer Contributions to Housing Fund Contributions tied to FAR and vary with commercial and residential development (defined in the Zoning Ordinance) One of three sources of income for AHIF. Developer contributions can vary considerably based on market activity and cycles
Bonding Authority Industrial Development Authority Better understanding of how IDA might be used to support housing production
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Included in Columbia Pike Implementation Plan Administered through a Community Development Authority. Can TIFs be established in other areas of the county? Review state enabling legislation for limitations to use
Density Bonus for Affordable Units 25 percent density bonus and 6-story height bonus when specific conditions are met; or monetary contribution to AHIF Should this policy be reviewed; updated?
Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Ordinance requirements: 5 percent on-site affordable units; 7.5% nearby; 10% if located elsewhere in the county; buy-out contribution. Special districts (revitalization, conservation) have additional tools. Do an analysis of buy-out contributions vs on-site units Does the analysis show one option used more frequently than another? What are the pros and cons?
Vacant/Underutilized Property for Housing One partnership to co-locate housing with a community center No defined process for site identification; community input; policy is effectively suspended Develop a transparent process for site selection; seek community input throughout the process; streamline development process
Parking Policies Guidelines for reduction of parking requirements in new multifamily development in the metro corridors Guidance provides a percentage reduction of minimum parking ratios based on the type of multifamily residential development Review annually; assess whether parking reduction policies can be expanded to other areas

Housing Policy Matrix for City of Alexandria

November, 2018

 

POLICY JURISDICTION POSITION NEEDS CLARIFICATION/ EXPANSION ACTIONS
Dedicated Source of Revenue $.06 real estate tax for debt service on housing bonds; 1% of meals tax dedicated to Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Explore options for additional funding; $20M shortfall thru 2025 to fund projects in the pipeline. Advocate for additional dedicated funding source of revenue to address pipeline projects.
Developer Contributions to Housing Fund $2.00/sq ft for non-res dev $2.65/sq ft for Tier 1 res dev (by-right) $5.35/sq ft for Tier 2 res development to AHF Current contributions are voluntary, negotiated guidelines with developer community. Examine developer contributions in surrounding jurisdictions to ensure Alexandria contribution rates are sufficient.
Bonding Authority Municipal bonds, Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority, Industrial Development Authority Bonds for housing have been used in a limited capacity on the past
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Implementation tool approved for (but not yet used) in Beauregard Redevelopment plan How can TIFs be used to support housing in other areas of the City proposed for redevelopment? Review state enabling legislation for eligible uses, limitations
Density Bonus for Affordable Units Sec7-700 Zoning Code permits up to 30 percent density bonus and/or an height increase by up to 25% in exchange for affordable housing Adopted in May 2017
Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance City does not have an ADU ordinance Adopting an ordinance would eliminate site-by-site negotiation for affordable units; provide predictability for developer and City toward achieving housing goals Study pros/cons of seeking legislative authority from the General Assembly to adopt ordinance
Parking Policies Parking reductions allowed in affordable housing developments near TOD areas; major transit routes with bus service Adopted in 2016

Housing Policy Matrix for Fairfax County, VA

November 2018

POLICY JURISDICTION POSITION NEEDS CLARIFICATION/ EXPANSION ACTIONS
Dedicated Source of Revenue $.05 of real estate tax for debt service on bond to purchase Wedgewood and Crescent apartments Current funds only pay debt service. Dedicated source for Affordable Housing Fund needed to support new construction and preservation Advocate for a dedicated source of revenue for affordable housing
Developer Contributions to Housing Fund $3/sq ft from commercial development in Tysons Current policy limited to Tysons. Consider adopting policy for all TOD/business districts/activity centers in the County
Bonding Authority Fx Co Redevelopment & Housing Authority; Industrial Development Authority, Economic Development Authority Better understanding of the provisions; limitations of each authority Advocate for issuance of bonds for housing construction and preservation
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Used in one redevelopment district (Mosaic) How did a TIF policy work in Mosaic? Can it be used to support affordable housing development? Review state enabling authority on TIFs; advocacy
Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance (ADU) Adopted in 1991 The ADU is 28 years old; needs clarification, updates and streamlining Support ADU review; participate in advisory review effort
Workforce Housing Policy (WDU) WDUs serve households from 70-120% of the area median income Units serving household incomes above 80% of the area median income are difficult to fill; that demand is met by market-rate units Policy should be changed to cap WDUs at 80% of the area median income
Parking Policies Parking reductions are allowed in TOD areas Can parking reductions be expanded to other kinds of development like affordable housing near major bus routes? Advocate for analysis of low-income household car ownership and parking utilization.
Underutilized Public Land Solicited or unsolicited proposal to develop on county-owned land (PPEA) No process for identifying potential sites; establishing priority uses; PPEA process is too lengthy, lacks transparency Develop a site selection process, prioritize uses, consider alternative to PPEA for proposal selection

Housing Policy Matrix for Loudoun County

November 2018

POLICY JURISDICTION POSITION NEEDS CLARIFICATION/ EXPANSION ACTIONS
Dedicated Source of Revenue Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is replenished through shared equity from sale and cash buy-out of ADUs No mechanism beyond expiring ADUs to fund HTF Advocate for a dedicated source of revenue
Developer Contributions to Housing Fund No position/no policy Clarification needed on possible restrictions to contributions as a result of recently passed proffer legislation at the state level Review developer contribution policies of neighboring jurisdictions; build recommendations for adoption
Bonding Authority The Economic Development Authority has provided financing for specific housing developments Examine any funding limitations Build recommendations for increasing financing for affordable housing
Tax Increment Financing no position/no policy but TIFs have been used for metro stations and transportation issues
Workforce Housing Policy County policies and programs focus on the unmet housing needs of households earning up to 100% AMI
Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Adopted in 1993 Ordinance is 25 years old; only applied in specific areas in Loudoun; in need of updates to reflect changing land uses Comprehensive reviw of Article 7 (the ADU Ordinance) currently under consideration by the Board
Vacant/Underutilized Public Land no position/no policy This strategy is under consideration by the Board
Density Bonus for Affordable Units Per Article 7 of the County's Zoning Ordinance (ADU Ordinance)