Policy Alternative Comparative Analysis: Affordable Housing in Yavapai County

Executive Summary

This analysis recommends a change to Yavapai County’s housing policy. The current

approach fails to address a critical shortage of affordable housing. This shortage harms the

county’s economic health and community stability. This document compares three policy

options. It identifies the best choice to increase the supply of affordable homes. It also outlines a

plan to communicate this new policy to the public.

Yavapai County is a diverse area in central Arizona. It includes cities like Prescott and

Sedona, as well as many rural towns. The county’s population is growing fast. This growth has

created a severe housing problem. The problem is a lack of affordable homes for the local

workforce, young families, and seniors. The current policy, found in the county’s main zoning

ordinance, favors low-density, single-family housing (Yavapai County, 2023). It does not have

good tools to encourage affordable housing development. This outdated policy is a major cause

of the problem.

The problem affects many groups. Key stakeholders include the Yavapai County Board of

Supervisors, who must approve any policy change. Local employers in service, healthcare, and

education struggle to hire and keep staff who cannot afford to live nearby. Real estate developers

face high land costs and complex rules. Most importantly, the target populations are low to

middle-income households. This includes teachers, first responders, and service workers who are

priced out of the community. Housing advocacy groups and long-term residents concerned about

community character are also key stakeholders.

housing at all price points. High land and construction costs make building affordable units

unprofitable without support. Water availability is a constant concern in Arizona and can limit

new development. Political views favoring minimal government rules also shape the debate. The

problem developed over the last two decades as the county became a popular place to live.

Market forces, combined with restrictive zoning, failed to produce enough housing for the local

workforce. The major cause is a gap between housing supply and the needs of the community’s

wage earners. This analysis will show a clear path forward.

Logic Model for Policy Alternatives

The logic model below shows the current policy and two alternatives. It outlines the

resources needed, the actions to be taken, and the expected results. This model helps compare the

options in a clear way.

Component Alternative 1: Status Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Land Use

Quo Inclusionary Zoning Incentives

Problem Lack of affordable Lack of affordable Lack of affordable

housing for the local housing for the local housing for the local

workforce and workforce and residents. workforce and residents.

residents.

Inputs - County staff time for - Staff time to draft and - Staff time to create

standard permit enforce new ordinance. incentive program.

review. - Legal review. - Updated zoning code.

- Existing zoning - Public hearing - Developer outreach

code. resources. materials.

zoning that favors requires developers to like increased density or

single-family homes. make 10-15% of new lower fees if they include

units affordable. affordable units.

Outputs - Few, if any, new - A specific number of - A certain number of

affordable units are new affordable units are developers use the

built. built in new projects. incentives.

- Housing prices - A new county - A number of new

continue to rise. ordinance is passed. affordable units are

created.

- A new incentive

program is live.

Short-Term - Workforce housing - Housing options for - Developers start

Outcomes shortage gets worse. low-income residents building mixed-income

- Local businesses increase slowly. projects.

face hiring challenges. - Possible legal - More housing options

challenges from become available for the

developers. workforce.

Long-Term A stable, healthy A stable, healthy A stable, healthy

Goal community where community where community where

residents can afford to residents can afford to residents can afford to

live and work. live and work. live and work.

The logic model provides a framework to compare three paths. The “Inputs” are the

resources the county will use. The “Activities” are the policies themselves. The “Outputs” are the

direct products of the policy, while “Outcomes” are the changes that result. All three alternatives

share the same long-term goal for the community.

The best alternative is Alternative 3: Land Use Incentives. This policy offers a voluntary,

market-based solution to the housing problem. It avoids the conflicts of a mandate and is more

proactive than the status quo. This choice is the strongest when measured against key criteria.

 Effective: This alternative is effective because it directly encourages the desired outcome:

more affordable housing. By making it profitable for developers to build these units, the

county uses market forces to meet a public need. Studies show that incentive programs

can be a very effective tool for housing production (Schuetz, 2022).

 Efficient: The incentive model is efficient. It does not require large public subsidies.

Instead, it offers regulatory relief, which has little direct cost to the county budget. It is

more efficient than the current policy, which produces no results, and less complex to

manage than a strict mandate.

 Equity: This policy promotes equity by creating housing for people at different income

levels. It helps ensure that essential workers can live in the community they serve. A

well-designed program can target units for specific income brackets, helping teachers,

nurses, and service workers. This approach helps create mixed-income neighborhoods,

which fosters social equity (Frederickson et al., 2016).

approach, not a "stick." It can be framed as a pro-business, pro-growth solution that helps

the community. It appeals to developers by offering flexibility and profit. It also appeals

to housing advocates by creating new units. This broad appeal makes it easier to pass.

 Political Feasibility: This option has high political feasibility. Mandates like inclusionary

zoning often face strong opposition and legal challenges from property rights advocates

and developers (Kettl, 2023). The status quo is not feasible because public pressure to

solve the problem is growing. The incentive program is a practical compromise that can

gain support from a majority of the Board of Supervisors and key stakeholders.

Implementation and Communication

To implement the Land Use Incentives policy, the county should follow a clear plan.

First, the county planning department will draft changes to the zoning code. These changes will

define the incentives, such as density bonuses or reduced parking requirements. They will also

state the eligibility rules for developers. Next, the proposed changes will go through public

hearings for feedback. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, the county will launch the

program. This includes creating simple application forms and training staff to help developers

use the new tools.

Communicating these changes to the community is vital for success. The communication

plan must be clear, consistent, and targeted to different groups.

First, the county should create a dedicated page on its website. This page will have all the

information about the new program. It should include a simple fact sheet, frequently asked

questions (FAQs), and contact information for county staff.

This can be done through workshops and meetings with the Chamber of Commerce and local

home builder associations. The message should focus on the financial benefits and streamlined

process of the new program.

Third, the county needs to inform the general public. This can be done through press

releases to local newspapers and radio stations. Simple, clear mailers sent to all households can

explain how the policy will help the community. Town hall meetings, both in person and online,

will give residents a chance to ask questions. The message to the public should focus on the

shared benefits: helping local workers, supporting businesses, and keeping the community

strong.

By choosing a smart policy and communicating it well, Yavapai County can take a major

step toward solving its affordable housing problem.

Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2016). The public

administration theory primer. Routledge.

Kettl, D. F. (2023). The politics of the administrative process. CQ Press.

Schuetz, J. (2022). Fixer-upper: How to repair America's broken housing systems. Brookings

Institution Press.

Yavapai County. (2023). Yavapai County planning and zoning ordinance.

[Link]

amp-regulations/documents/amended-ord-update-with-pla23-0000121-apprvd-10-18-

[Link]