New needs assessment: Baltimore County faces shortfall of nearly 19,000 very‑low‑income rental units

Terry Hickey, director of Baltimore County’s Department of Housing and Community Development, presented a housing needs assessment to the Planning Board on Feb. 19 that found a substantial shortfall of units affordable at the lowest income levels and a broader mismatch between housing stock and household demand.

Hickey said the assessment — prepared with Guidehouse Consulting and the University of Pennsylvania Housing Initiative — uses 2025 AMI figures to map household size and affordability bands. He told the board the assessment identified roughly just under 24,000 existing renter households at or below 30% of area median income (AMI) but only about 4,900 units affordable and available at that level, leaving a gap of nearly 19,000 units.

"We have a housing challenge," Hickey said. "There's not enough housing to meet current need. There's certainly not enough housing to meet future need." He added: "That leaves us at that gap of just under 19,000." Hickey used the AMI examples to illustrate program thresholds (federal programs commonly target households at 80% AMI and below; supportive housing often targets 30% AMI or lower).

Beyond the lowest incomes, Hickey said cost‑burdening is widespread: 55% of county renters across income bands are cost‑burdened (more than one third of income on housing), and nearly 30,000 renter households are severely cost‑burdened (spending 50% or more of income on housing). He also reported that the county’s housing stock is aging (32% built before 1960; 85% at least 25 years old) and that the county has a disproportionate share of larger units while household sizes are trending smaller (about 65% of county households are one or two people, while only 37.5% of units are studios or 1–2 bedrooms).

Hickey said preservation is part of the response: the county has used investments, pilots and payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax agreements to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and has pursued low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects, but he flagged about 1,700 LIHTC units in the county that could be at risk when affordability restrictions expire.

On next steps, Hickey urged coordinated planning and direct engagement with developers and communities: pilots and clear developer guidance about expectations and available county tools, continued use of the housing opportunity fund and pursuit of state, federal and philanthropic resources. He said the county will need to prioritize where to target investments and consider preservation, small‑scale densification (townhomes, small multifamily, single‑staircase multifamily) and mixed‑affordability models near transit.

During Q&A board members asked about implementation, state coordination and methodology. Hickey acknowledged the county had baked recent out‑migration patterns into growth projections; staff projected about 8,400 additional residents and roughly 12,000 new households by 2037 under the chosen methodology, and said a reduction in out‑migration would raise future housing needs.

Board members and staff emphasized that the assessment is a data baseline rather than an implementation plan. Hickey invited board members to host localized conversations and follow‑ups with his team and said staff would continue to refine monitoring of aging and at‑risk units.