Cost Burdened and Very Cost Burdened Market Revisions
Rationale for Action: The Affordability Threshold Requirement
For a property or portfolio to meet the framework’s minimum impact threshold for affordability, at least 50% of the units must be affordable to renter households who make:
- 80% AMI or less in standard markets
- 100% AMI or less in cost-burdened (CB) markets
- 120% AMI or less in very cost-burdened (VCB) markets.
In the past, we relied on the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) list of cost-burdened and very-cost burdened markets to help determine affordability exclusions to the GSE’s multifamily market cap. While this list is made available via the GSEs to their lender partners, FHFA no longer makes the list available to the broader public. This has made it difficult for organizations who use the Multifamily Impact Framework to know if they are meeting our minimum impact threshold, and it has impeded our ability to further enhance and expand the utility of the framework.
In response to these concerns, we have developed a list of cost-burdened and very cost-burdened markets that can be annually updated and made available to all organizations who use the Framework.
How the MIC Methodology Works
We developed our list using the most recent American Communities Survey (ACS) data and applied our own MIC methodology. This methodology was designed to a) identify only those counties with the highest percentage of cost-burdened and very cost-burdened renter households, while b) maintaining consistency with the existing FHFA designations that are used by the GSEs. Our four-step process is outlined below:
- We measured renter cost burden across three severity bands, each measuring the % of renter households in a county who were spending a given portion of their income on rent:
- Cost-Burdened renters: 30%+ of income on rent
- Very Cost-Burdened renters: 40%+ of income on rent
- Severely Cost-Burdened renters: 50%+ of income on rent
- We established a minimum floor of severity across each band to identify counties with the highest percentages of cost burdened and very cost-burdened renter households.
Cost-Burdened Renter Households 30%+ floor 40%+ floor 50%+ floor % Cost Burdened (CB) renters 45% 30% 20% % Very Cost Burdened (VCB) renters 50% 33% 25% - Using data from the most recent American Communities Survey (ACS), we identified only those counties that met or exceeded all three of these floors, and
- To maintain consistency with other market measures, we compared our results to the most recent list of counties designated by FHFA.
What We Found
Our methodology was very consistent with the existing FHFA designation and aligned with 41 of their 42 designated markets1. In addition, our approach also identified 38 additional markets.
What differentiated these markets was not the severity of their housing cost burden, but the size of their renter populations2. This is understandable given that FHFA’s methodology appears to be weighted toward identifying large metropolitan housing markets. While we believe that approach is reasonable, it tends to overlook smaller counties with genuinely severe rent burdens, especially resort areas, mid-sized markets in high-cost areas, and commuter counties near major metros.
Geographically, these additional counties are clustered in three groups:
- Mountain West Suburban Markets and Resort Communities (Boulder/Adams/Jefferson/Arapahoe Counties in the Denver area; Eagle, Lake, and Routt Counties in Colorado; and Teton County, Idaho)
- Central Coast and Northern California Counties (Ventura, Monterey, Sonoma, Napa, San Luis Obispo, Alameda, San Mateo, and San Benito Counties)
- East Coast Suburban Markets (Bergen and Ocean Counties in New Jersey; Fairfax City, Manassas City, Madison County, Spotsylvania County, and Clarke County in Virginia; Putnam and Dutchess Counties in New York; Calvert, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland).
To review our proposed list of Cost Burdened and Very Cost Burdened counties and view an interactive map, continue to the map and county lists below.
1 Worcester County, MA met two out of three of our minimum severity floors for VCB markets. Because they missed meeting the third severity floor by .01%, we chose to include them in our VCB list.
2 The median renter population in FHFA designated counties is ~105,000. By contrast, the median population in the 38 newly added MIC counties is ~34,000, and 14 of the 38 have a population that is less 10,000.
Interactive County Map
This interactive map shows the 80 counties that the Multifamily Impact Council has proposed to designate as Cost-Burdened or Very Cost-Burdened for 2026: 65 Very Cost-Burdened counties (shown in red) and 15 Cost-Burdened counties (shown in orange). The designations apply MIC’s methodology to renter cost-burden data from the 2019 to 2023 American Community Survey five-year estimates.
Hover over any county to see its name and designation. For a larger view, open the map in a new window.
Very Cost-Burdened (VCB) Counties
An asterisk (*) indicates the county also meets FHFA’s designation.
| County | State | Designation | Renter Households | % Cost Burdened (30%+) | % Very Cost Burdened (40%+) | % Extremely Cost Burdened (50%+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gilpin County | CO | VCB | 628 | 69.2% | 50.6% | 41.5% |
| Broward County* | FL | VCB | 275,320 | 64.2% | 45.8% | 33.9% |
| Miami-Dade County* | FL | VCB | 461,243 | 63.4% | 46.0% | 34.1% |
| Monroe County | FL | VCB | 12,678 | 62.0% | 42.6% | 33.3% |
| Palm Beach County* | FL | VCB | 179,932 | 60.9% | 43.5% | 32.7% |
| Eagle County | CO | VCB | 6,781 | 60.1% | 43.9% | 31.9% |
| Boulder County | CO | VCB | 50,769 | 59.8% | 43.4% | 33.9% |
| Bronx County* | NY | VCB | 422,628 | 59.7% | 43.7% | 34.7% |
| Rockland County* | NY | VCB | 32,788 | 59.6% | 43.5% | 34.5% |
| Ventura County | CA | VCB | 99,657 | 59.3% | 41.3% | 29.4% |
| Ocean County | NJ | VCB | 47,891 | 59.3% | 43.2% | 32.8% |
| Barnstable County* | MA | VCB | 20,027 | 58.9% | 41.4% | 31.8% |
| Suffolk County* | NY | VCB | 92,649 | 58.8% | 41.6% | 33.1% |
| San Bernardino County* | CA | VCB | 256,923 | 58.1% | 41.3% | 30.4% |
| Honolulu County | HI | VCB | 136,375 | 57.6% | 39.6% | 28.8% |
| Greater Bridgeport Planning Region* | CT | VCB | 40,973 | 57.6% | 41.9% | 31.7% |
| San Diego County* | CA | VCB | 527,628 | 57.4% | 39.8% | 29.4% |
| Los Angeles County* | CA | VCB | 1,828,047 | 57.4% | 41.0% | 30.7% |
| San Luis Obispo County | CA | VCB | 41,494 | 57.2% | 40.7% | 30.4% |
| Lake County | CO | VCB | 709 | 57.2% | 41.0% | 25.0% |
| Santa Barbara County* | CA | VCB | 70,206 | 56.8% | 39.7% | 29.9% |
| Clarke County | VA | VCB | 1,013 | 56.8% | 36.3% | 28.7% |
| Adams County | CO | VCB | 57,572 | 56.6% | 37.7% | 27.4% |
| Putnam County | NY | VCB | 5,949 | 56.5% | 40.3% | 29.0% |
| Orange County* | CA | VCB | 468,049 | 56.2% | 39.2% | 29.4% |
| Orange County* | NY | VCB | 43,352 | 56.2% | 40.5% | 31.4% |
| Essex County* | MA | VCB | 112,326 | 56.1% | 39.4% | 29.6% |
| Monterey County | CA | VCB | 63,013 | 56.0% | 37.9% | 26.4% |
| Richmond County* | NY | VCB | 54,513 | 55.6% | 40.0% | 31.6% |
| El Dorado County* | CA | VCB | 17,881 | 55.5% | 39.8% | 28.3% |
| Arapahoe County | CO | VCB | 88,547 | 55.4% | 37.1% | 26.8% |
| Passaic County* | NJ | VCB | 83,953 | 55.1% | 40.1% | 31.4% |
| Marin County* | CA | VCB | 37,274 | 55.0% | 38.7% | 29.2% |
| Contra Costa County* | CA | VCB | 133,153 | 55.0% | 37.9% | 27.1% |
| Nassau County* | NY | VCB | 82,411 | 54.8% | 39.1% | 29.2% |
| Plymouth County* | MA | VCB | 44,980 | 54.8% | 38.1% | 27.6% |
| Essex County* | NJ | VCB | 176,096 | 54.6% | 38.7% | 29.1% |
| Sonoma County | CA | VCB | 72,009 | 54.4% | 36.1% | 25.9% |
| Chittenden County* | VT | VCB | 25,672 | 53.1% | 36.0% | 26.7% |
| Napa County | CA | VCB | 17,678 | 53.0% | 35.6% | 24.6% |
| Snohomish County* | WA | VCB | 98,566 | 53.0% | 34.0% | 24.7% |
| Westchester County* | NY | VCB | 139,962 | 53.0% | 37.0% | 27.9% |
| Monmouth County* | NJ | VCB | 61,617 | 52.9% | 39.5% | 28.9% |
| Jefferson County | CO | VCB | 70,545 | 52.8% | 35.5% | 25.4% |
| Prince George's County | MD | VCB | 129,777 | 52.7% | 35.7% | 26.1% |
| Queens County* | NY | VCB | 456,452 | 52.4% | 36.2% | 27.6% |
| Routt County | CO | VCB | 2,561 | 52.4% | 38.4% | 26.5% |
| Sussex County | NJ | VCB | 8,650 | 52.4% | 37.2% | 25.5% |
| Naugatuck Valley Planning Region | CT | VCB | 57,710 | 52.4% | 36.9% | 28.1% |
| Dutchess County | NY | VCB | 35,900 | 52.0% | 35.9% | 25.5% |
| Philadelphia County* | PA | VCB | 319,081 | 52.0% | 37.6% | 28.8% |
| Montgomery County | MD | VCB | 134,433 | 51.7% | 35.1% | 25.4% |
| Davidson County | TN | VCB | 146,538 | 51.7% | 33.9% | 24.5% |
| Pike County | PA | VCB | 3,324 | 51.7% | 39.9% | 31.0% |
| Spotsylvania County | VA | VCB | 10,439 | 51.5% | 34.8% | 25.4% |
| Santa Cruz County* | CA | VCB | 38,771 | 51.3% | 37.6% | 29.1% |
| Norfolk County* | MA | VCB | 88,593 | 51.3% | 34.8% | 26.4% |
| Western Connecticut Planning Region* | CT | VCB | 78,519 | 51.2% | 35.6% | 25.9% |
| Suffolk County* | MA | VCB | 204,246 | 51.1% | 34.2% | 26.2% |
| Kings County* | NY | VCB | 709,570 | 51.0% | 35.7% | 27.5% |
| Washington County* | RI | VCB | 12,059 | 50.9% | 35.1% | 25.9% |
| Bristol County* | MA | VCB | 87,659 | 50.5% | 34.0% | 26.2% |
| Calvert County | MD | VCB | 4,301 | 50.1% | 37.8% | 25.4% |
| Alameda County | CA | VCB | 272,405 | 49.8% | 34.4% | 25.3% |
| Worcester County* | MA | VCB | 114,424 | 49.8% | 33.2% | 24.4% |
Click any column heading to sort. Click again to reverse the order.
Cost-Burdened (CB) Counties
An asterisk (*) indicates the county also meets FHFA’s designation.
| County | State | Designation | Renter Households | % Cost Burdened (30%+) | % Very Cost Burdened (40%+) | % Extremely Cost Burdened (50%+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pierce County | WA | CB | 122,063 | 52.2% | 33.8% | 23.8% |
| Union County* | NJ | CB | 85,475 | 50.6% | 34.4% | 24.3% |
| San Benito County | CA | CB | 6,575 | 49.8% | 34.1% | 23.5% |
| Bergen County | NJ | CB | 122,384 | 49.7% | 34.9% | 26.3% |
| Fairfax City | VA | CB | 2,808 | 49.4% | 40.4% | 31.8% |
| Teton County | ID | CB | 924 | 49.4% | 33.7% | 26.0% |
| San Mateo County | CA | CB | 108,180 | 48.6% | 35.2% | 25.7% |
| Strafford County | NH | CB | 17,065 | 48.6% | 33.4% | 24.0% |
| Cook County* | IL | CB | 885,744 | 48.0% | 33.2% | 25.0% |
| Somerset County | NJ | CB | 33,045 | 47.8% | 33.0% | 25.6% |
| Madison County | VA | CB | 1,102 | 47.8% | 41.8% | 24.7% |
| New York County* | NY | CB | 583,733 | 46.7% | 31.9% | 24.4% |
| Middlesex County* | MA | CB | 242,075 | 46.7% | 31.0% | 22.8% |
| Manassas City | VA | CB | 3,907 | 46.4% | 34.4% | 26.9% |
| Hudson County* | NJ | CB | 203,392 | 45.7% | 30.7% | 23.0% |
Click any column heading to sort. Click again to reverse the order.
This page is shared with MIC members by link and is not listed in the site navigation.