HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Work Session
* Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice.
David Katz, Chair Hybrid Meeting
Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar
Michelle Haefele
Adam Sass
Ted Shepard
Samantha Stenger
York
Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2023 in City Hall Chambers or online.
Planning and Zoning Special Meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 26, 2023 in City Hall Chambers or
online.
Regular Work Session
April 14, 2023
Virtual Meeting
Noon – 5:00 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Work Session Agenda
Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Commission work session will be available online or by phone.
Commission members and staff may be present in-person but interested members of the public and applicant
teams are strongly encouraged to participate via Zoom. No public comment is accepted during work sessions.
Public Attendance (Online): Individuals who wish to attend the Planning and Zoning work session via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/91938157769. Individuals participating in
the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 11:45 a.m. on April 14, 2023. Attendees should try to sign in prior
to 12:00 p.m. if possible.
In order to attend:
Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly
improve your audio).
You need to have access to the internet.
Keep yourself on muted status.
If you have any technical difficulties during the work session, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com.
Public Attendance (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the work session via phone.
Please dial: 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 919 3815 7769.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg. 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2
TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES:
Consent:
1. February 16, 2023 Hearing Draft Minutes
2. Northside Aztlan Center MA (Baty)
12:00 – 12:10
Discussion:
3. Prospect Sports Standalone Modification Requests (Mapes)
4. Enclave at Redwood MJA (Mapes)
5. Water Adequacy Determination Code Update (Axmacher) – to be
heard at the April 26, 2023 Hearing.
12:10 – 2:30
Policy and Legislation:
• Land Use Code Update (Beals)
• East Mulberry Plan Progress (Keith/Mounce)
• Occupancy (Yoder/Overton/Valliere)
2:30 – 4:00
Commission Topics:
• APA Planning Officials Training Series Part 10
• Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore)
• Commission Updates (Sizemore)
• Public Engagement Updates (Myler)
• Transportation Board Liaison Update (Owen)
4:00 – 5:00
The meeting will be available beginning at 11:45 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 12:00 p.m., if possible.
Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the
meeting, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com.
The April 20 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting and April 26 special meeting will be held with both
remote and in-person participation options. Information on remotely participating in the April 20 Planning and
Zoning regular meeting and April 26 special meeting is contained in the agendas for the April 20 and April 26
meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php.
Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the
Commission to consider regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to smanno@fcgov.com at least 24
hours prior to the April 20 or April 26 meetings.
Packet pg. 2
Land Use Code Phase 1 Updates: Process Next StepsApril 14, 2023Noah Beals | Development Review ManagerPacket pg. 3
OutlineIntroduction: Overview and Policy Alignment (3 min presentation)Part 1: Engagement Approach and Timeline (5 min presentation; 20 min discussion)Part 2: Themes and Topics to Address (15 min presentation; 40 min discussion)Part 3: Approach to Potential Alternatives and Revisions (5 min presentation; 30 min discussion)Conclusion: Next Steps (2 min presentation)Packet pg. 4
Questions1. Are Councilmembers comfortable with the overall engagement approach and timeline?2. Are there specific engagement topics missing that Councilmembers would like to see included?3. Do Councilmembers support the proposed approach to exploration of potential alternatives and revisions?3Packet pg. 5
Purpose of the Land Use Code Updates:To Align the LUC with Adopted City Plans and Policies with a focus on: •Housing-related changes •Code Organization•Equity4Packet pg. 6
FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLESRevisions to the code will continue to support the five guiding principles confirmed by City Council in November 2021 with an emphasis on Equity.1.Increase overall housing capacity(market rate and affordable) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for deed restricted affordable housing2.Enable more affordability especially near high frequencytransit and growth areas 3.Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context 4.Make the code easier to use and understand5.Improve predictability of the development permit review process, especially for housingPacket pg. 7
6TimelineStage 1 (Mar-Apr)• Begin outreach to all• Identify areas for engagement and potential adjustmentStage 2 (Apr-Jun)• Gather feedback• Educate, Inform & ConsultStage 3 (Jun-Jul)• Draft Code Revisions• Testing & Legal ReviewStage 4 (Aug-Sept)• Recommendations & AdoptionPacket pg. 8
7Upcoming Engagement Opportunities•Early April –Postcards arrived in mailboxes•April 12th, 6:00-9:00 p.m. –CityWorks 101 presentation on LUC updates•Earth Day 4/22, Open Streets 6/4, Bike to Work Day 6/28, etc. –Tabling•April 24th, 6:00-7:30 p.m. –Virtual Information Session•April 26th, 5:30-8:00 p.m. –Forum with Center for Public Deliberation•Late April –Next Level Neighborhood Walking Tours •Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays in May –Neighborhood Walking Tours•May 8th, 2:00-7:00 p.m. –In Person Community Open House•June (dates TBD) –Overflow Neighborhood Walking Tours as neededPacket pg. 9
Questions1. Are Councilmembers comfortable with the overall engagement approach and timeline?8Packet pg. 10
Themes andTopics to AddressPacket pg. 11
10Engagement Summary - TopicsAnalysis of Recent Inquiries•August 2, 2022, through February 27, 2023, roughly corresponding to the release of the public draft of the Land Development Code (LDC) through the repeal of the LDC. •369 inquiries - 140 emails from 111 people; additional 166 inquiries from around 60 participants in the November 29, 2022, community information session. •7 main themes identifiedPacket pg. 12
11Specific topics for additional engagementIncreased menu of housing choices and associated regulationsAffordable housing comments, questions, and suggestionsSize, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing typesNotification, community input, and review procedures for residential developmentInteraction between the code and private covenantsInfrastructure and utilitiesPacket pg. 13
12Increased menu of housing choices (ADUs)CURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESWhere: NCL, NCM, NCB (“Old Town” zones)Review: Public Hearing (Type 1)Setbacks: Same as house; no separation required from houseHeight: 24 ft maxSize: 1,000 sf max floor areaParking: 1 per bedroomUtilities: Can extend water from primary house, separate electric meterOther: no internal ADU permitted; 10,000 sf minimum lot size in NCM, 12,000 sf in NCLWhere: All residential and mixed-use zones Review: Administrative (BDR)Setbacks: Same as house; 5 ft separation required from houseHeight: 28 ft max, 24 ft in OTSize: 1,000 sf max floor area Parking: none required Utilities: Can extend water from primary house, separate electric meterOther: internal ADU permitted; no minimum lot sizeAmount of parking requiredPotential impact on neighborhood, especially if many ADUs are builtPotential to impact shading and privacy of adjacent propertiesADUs as short-term rentalsCost and feasibility to buildIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextImprove predictability of the development review processPacket pg. 14
13Increased menu of housing choices (2-5 plexes)CURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESWhere: UE (up to 2 units), NCM (2-4 units)Review: Public Hearing (Type 1) in UE; Administrative (BDR) in NCM* Height: 2-3 storiesParking: 1-3 spaces per unit depending on number of bedroomsDesign Requirements: YesOther: Administrative approval in NCM only if no structural change to an existing houseWhere: Add NCL and RL (up to 2 units); Increase NCM (+1 unit)Review: Administrative (BDR)Height: 3 stories or 35 ft maxParking: 1-3 spaces per unit depending on number of bedroomsDesign Requirements: YesOther: Affordable housing incentives allow additional 1-2 units and reduced parking requirementsConcern about demolition of existing structuresAvailability of street parkingPotential impact on neighborhoodPotential to impact shading and privacy of adjacent propertiesMulti-unit buildings as short-term rentalsIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextImprove predictability of the development review processPacket pg. 15
Where: All zonesType: Voluntary incentivesReview:Administrative (BDR)Requirements: 99 year deed restriction; 10-20% of units must be affordable to access incentivesIncentives: Citywide density bonus of additional units, density, or height depending on zone; ~50% reduction in parking requirements for all affordable projects; reduced tree sizes14Affordable HousingWhere: All zonesType: Voluntary incentivesReview:Administrative (BDR)Requirements: 99 year deed restriction; 10-20% of units must be affordable to access incentivesIncentives: Citywide density bonus of additional units, density, or height depending on zone; ~50% reduction in parking requirements for all affordable projects; reduced tree sizesCURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESWhere: All zonesType: Voluntary incentivesReview: Varies by district Requirements: 20 year deed restriction; 10% of units must be affordable to access incentivesIncentives:Limited density bonus of 3 dwelling units per acre in LMN (from 9 to 12); 50% parking reduction in Transit-Oriented Development Overlay; reduced tree sizesUpdates do not do enough to ensure affordable housing for residentsUpdates will not make housing more affordableClarification about how the updates will increase housing affordabilityTechnical questions related to enforcement, deed restrictions, definitions and income level requirementsIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextImprove predictability of the development review processRentalFor Sale10% at 60% AMI or10% at 80% AMI or20% at 80% AMI 20% at 100% AMIRental and For Sale10% at 80% AMIPacket pg. 16
15Size, height, form, and allowed densityCURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESGeneral concern about additional housing, especially in existing neighborhoodsImpacts of additional housing on built environment and neighborhood Impacts to traffic, parking, utility capacity, gentrification, sprawl, and other topicsQuestions about new housing types, particularly the cottage courtIncrease overall housing capacityAllow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextWhere: Residential and mixed-use zonesReview: Administrative (BDR)Design Requirements: Defines a menu of “housing types” with specific design requirements including (but not limited to):• Urban detached house• Suburban detached house• Cottage court• Rowhouse• Apartment buildingOther: Detached house limited to 2,400 sf floor area in OT zone; overall “form based” approach including façade, articulation, height, massing, entry, and other requirementsWhere: Residential and mixed-use zonesReview: Public Hearing (Type 1)Design Requirements: Specific to each zone district. Code defines a range of “dwellings”:• Single-family detached• Single-family attached• Two-family• Two-family attached• Multi-familyOther: Detached house floor area limited by lot size and rear coverage in Old Town zones; overall “use based” approach with design requirements for carriage houses, single unit houses, and multi-unit buildingsPacket pg. 17
16Notification, Community Input, and Review ProceduresREVIEW TYPES: OVERVIEWReview Levels: Overview Conceptual Design Review includes notification on website/electronic newsletter Neighborhood Meeting includes website/electronic newsletter, mailing, and sign postingApplication Submittal includes website/electronic newsletter, mailing, and sign postingRounds of Review (Average of 3 rounds)Public Hearing includes mailing, sign posting and website/electronic newsletterNotification a Decision is pending includes website/electronic newletter and mailing Decision includes appeal periodFinal Plan Submittal includes sign posting and website/electronic newletter Rounds of Review (Average of 3 rounds)Recording of Plans and Development AgreementType 2 (Planning and Zoning Commission)Type 1 (Hearing Officer)Basic Development Review (Director)City Staff availble to receive comments and answer questionsCOMPARISON OF REVIEW TYPESPacket pg. 18
17Notification, Community Input, and Review ProceduresRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTSMIXED-USE DISTRICTSRUL UE RF RL OT-A OT-B MH LMN MMN HMN OT-C NCUSES LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDC LUC LDCSingle Unit DwellingʆɂʆɂɊɂʆɂɂɂɂɂ ʆɂʆɂɂɂTwo Unit Dwelling (duplex)ʆʆXɂXɂɂɂ ʆɂʆɂʆɂʆʆSingle Unit Attached (2-4 units)ʆʆX▲X▲XɂʆɂʆɂɂɂʆʆMulti-Unit (4+ units)ʆɂʆɂʆɂʆɂʆɂMixed-Use DwellingʆɂʆɂɊɂʆɂAccessory Dwelling UnitXɂXɂXɂXɂʆɂʆɂXɂXɂXɂXɂXɂXɂX - Not Permitted in LUC■- Administrative (BDR)▲- Only if Affordable in LDCᵬ- Public Hearing (Type 1) ᵺ- Public Hearing and Neighborhood Meeting (Type 2)Packet pg. 19
18CONCERNSPRINCIPLESNotification requirements were not changed in the repealed code, but many had concerns about notification processesConcern about removing requirements for neighborhood meetings in housing developmentsConcern that fewer neighborhood meetings and public hearings could result in decreased opportunities for community inputQuestions about Development Review processIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Improve predictability of the development review processMake the code easier to use and understandNotification, Community Input, and Review ProceduresPacket pg. 20
19Interaction between the code and private covenants (HOAs)CURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESHOAs are currently prohibited from creating or enforcing provisions thatProhibit or limit:- The installation or use of xeriscape landscaping- The installation or use of solar/photovoltaic collectors on roofs- The installation or use of clothes lines in back yards- The installation or use of odor controlled compost binsOr requiring:- Turf grass yards/lotsAdds language that prohibits HOAs from creating or enforcing provisions thatProhibit or limit:-The City’s regulations to implement its housing policies, as supported by the Housing Strategic Plan-Including but not limited to provisions for increased density, height and occupancyQuestions asking whether someone could now build an ADU even if it is against their HOA rulesConcern about legality of preempting HOA restrictionsConcern that the code updates improperly disregard HOA rulesIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextImprove predictability of the development review processPacket pg. 21
20Infrastructure and utilities (including parking)CURRENT CODEREPEALED CODECONCERNSPRINCIPLESIncrease overall housing capacityEnable more affordability Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing contextCondition of and costs associated with water, sewer, roads, electricity, and schools Availability of street parking if more people live in Fort CollinsQuestions about how the code intersects with transportation planning/trafficAbility to accommodate more people, particularly with regard to water availabilityAdequate public facilities (APF) management system ensures that public facilities and services are available concurrently with the impacts of developmentIncludes:• Transportation• Water Utilities• Electric Facilities• Fire and Emergency responsePublic streets are constructed to allow on-street parking, and development is required to meet minimum parking standards• No changes to APF criteria and regulations• Public streets designed to allow on-street parking• Development required to meet minimum parking standardsoReduction for studio, one, and two bedroom unitsoAdditional reduction for affordable housingPacket pg. 22
21Specific topics for additional engagementIncreased menu of housing choices and associated regulationsAffordable housing comments, questions, and suggestionsSize, height, form, and allowed density of specific housing typesNotification, community input, and review procedures for residential developmentInteraction between the code and private covenantsInfrastructure and utilitiesPacket pg. 23
Questions2. Are there specific engagement topics missing that Councilmembers would like to see included?22Packet pg. 24
Approach to Potential Alternatives and RevisionsPacket pg. 25
24Approach to Revisions/AlternativesDraft Code OptionsCouncil DirectionConcerns and Suggestions from EngagementAlignment with Guiding PrinciplesAnalysis of TradeoffsPacket pg. 26
25Approach to Revisions/AlternativesExample: Increased menu of housing choices and associated regulations (ADUs)Concerns from Engagement Potential Alternative Examples Analysis RequiredNot enough parking to accommodate more residentsPotential impact on neighborhood, especially if many ADUs are builtPotential to impact shading and privacy of adjacent propertiesADUs as short-term rentals (STR)Cost and feasibility to buildConsider requiring an off-street parking space for ADUsReview design requirements to evaluate for compatibility with neighborhood settingReview design requirements to evaluate for potential privacy and shading issuesExplore limiting use of ADUs as STRInvestigate possibility of pre-approved ADU plans Economic feasibility/tradeoffs of additional parking requirementsAdditional research into design requirements and graphics/visualizationAdditional research into design requirements and graphics/visualizationPeer communities research; legal reviewPeer communities researchPacket pg. 27
Questions3. Do Councilmembers support the proposed approach to exploration of potential alternatives and revisions?26Packet pg. 28
Next StepsPacket pg. 29
Next Steps28xApril and May: Community engagement eventsxMay 23rdWork Session: Present feedback received so far and explore potential code revisions and analysis of alternativesxJuly 25thWork Session: Present engagement summary, discuss code revisionsxAugust 22ndWork Session: Present draft code amendmentsPacket pg. 30
East Mulberry Plan – Land Use Framework UpdatesApril 14, 2023E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 31
Purpose & BackgroundPurposeShare updates on potential land-use changes as part of the East Mulberry Plan updateDiscussion & feedback on proposed changes and additional ideas to exploreEast Mulberry Framework Plan BackgroundSets direction for future land use, transportation, and infrastructure in the corridorLand use guidance typically sought from framework plan when properties annex or propose rezoningSubarea plan changes and recommendations influence City Plan Structure Plan Map2E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 32
2002 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Plan3E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 33
Transition Land Use Framework to City Plan Place Types49THMatch land use guidance in City PlanPlace types can be more flexible than a framework plan based on zone districts – also less predictable.Key land-use philosophy in the corridor remains:Commercial frontage along MulberryHighlight buffers & resource protection (Poudre River, Cooper Slough, ditches)Maintain existing industrial zoning & corridor as a place for industrial businessesTimberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 34
Reflect Ownership Changes & Recent Projects59TH1) Landings at Lemay Rezone (Industrial to Mixed Neighborhood)2) Bloom PUD (Boundary adjustments; no new place types)3) City-purchased properties / natural areas (Public Open Lands)1233Timberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 35
Place Types – Mobile Home Parks69THIndicate existing mobile home parks as Mixed Neighborhood1) Nueva Vida2) Collins Aire3) Mountain View4) Cloverleaf1234Timberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 36
Place Types – Other Minor Changes79TH1) Increase slightly commercial designations fronting I-25 Interchange to reflect existing (Industrial to Suburban Mixed Use)2) Reflect missing middle housing in Sunrise Acres (LMN to Mixed Neighborhood)3) Reflect existing single-family detached housing of Countryside Acres (Mixed Neighborhood to Suburban Neighborhood) 1123Timberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 37
Place Types – Large Changes89THChange area NE of Airpark to R&D Flex:Mix of Industrial, Employment, Commercial DesignationsUncertainty about timing of future development (sensitive natural features, floodplain, lack of infrastructure & road network)Flexibility for E / I / CG zoning?Potential new Zone District combining (E) & (I). City Plan recommendationTimberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 38
Place Types – Large Changes99THNonconforming Uses Encourage preservation of existing historical land uses in portions of the corridor.Potential Options:Add new uses to (I) zone district?Policy to support nonconforming use expansion beyond 25%Proximity based standards – use allowed within 500-ft of I-25/Mulberry interchange?Special overlay district or new (Heavy) Industrial zone district?Timberline Rd
International BlvdJohn Deere Dr
Link Ln Mulberry StreetE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 39
10Summary of Potential ChangesMinor Changes:• Reflect Ownership Changes and Recent Projects (Landings at Lemay, Bloom, Natural Areas)• Indicate existing Mobile Home Parks as Mixed Neighborhood• Other Minor Changes:• Increase slightly commercial designations fronting I-25 Interchange to reflect existing use • Reflect missing middle housing in Sunrise Acres (LMN to Mixed Neighborhood)• Reflect existing single-family detached housing of Countryside Acres (Mixed Neighborhood to Suburban Neighborhood) Large Changes:• Alternate designations for the area NE of Airpark? Potential use of the new R&D Flex Place Type?• Accommodation of non-conforming uses and potential associated optionsWhat comments do P&Z Commissioners have about these potential changes? Are there other potential changes to consider as additional work is performed to update the East Mulberry Framework Plan map? E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 40
11RESOURCESE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 41
12E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - LAND USEPacket pg. 42
Occupancy Update
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 14, 2023
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
SUBJECT
Occupancy Update for P&Z April Work Session
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capstone Project – Myler
2. Corona Insights – Rental Market Report to Fort Collins
3. Fort Collins Bedroom & Capacity Memo
4. Occupancy Code Data Analysis
5. Staff Presentation – 5.9.23 – Council Work Session
Packet pg. 43
Myler
PPA 670
Opp
8 August 2022
Rental Housing Strategies Community Engagement
Executive Summary
Background
With nearly half of all housing in Fort Collins occupied by renters (Housing Strategic
Plan, 2021), the City must support both renter and homeowners living next door to each
other, even when their values may have tensions between them. Nowhere is this
discrepancy starker than on the issue of occupancy limits. The City of Fort Collins has
been enforcing rental occupancy since the 1960’s and the ordinance known as U+2
since 2007. The language of the ordinance is in Article 3, Division 8.16 of the City’s
Municipal Code (City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 2006). The City’s website describes
the purpose of occupancy limits as “to help ensure health and safety of residents, and to
help protect the quality and character of neighborhoods” ("Occupancy”). Historically,
occupancy limits have been a space where residents are often polarized.
The City has also had multiple conversations about how to support both renters and
landlords through rental licensing and/or registration over more than 10 years. The goal
of these strategies would be to make it easier to both rent and landlord in the city, with
health and safety protections for tenants and support for small landlords. In October
Packet pg. 44
2021, the City Council reviewed an evaluation of rental strategies and directed staff to
conduct community engagement on the topic.
In March 2021, the City released its new Housing Strategic Plan, a document
which used expert analysis and public input to define the challenges in housing facing
Fort Collin and outline strategies to combat them and help housing become more
healthy, stable and affordable for all residents. The seventh challenge listed in the Plan
is that “Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy
housing, especially for those who rent.” Seven strategies are listed under this challenge
as tools the City would like to use to help renters and others. Strategy 20 is related to a
rental licensing and/or registration program and Strategy 21 concerns revisions to the
current occupancy limits (Image 1).
Image 1: Strategies 20 and 21 (Housing Strategic Plan, 2021).
Community Engagement
In order to get direction and better understand the public’s tolerance of changes
to occupancy limits and rental regulations, Neighborhood Services staff began a public
Packet pg. 45
engagement campaign which included convening a resident taskforce and deploying a
community questionnaire.
Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce
In March, 2022, a Taskforce of 19 residents including housing tenants, property owners,
property managers and more was selected by staff and convened to discuss occupancy
and rental strategies. “The Rental Housing Task Force was convened to support deeper
exploration of the three strategies and work collaboratively to propose modifications to
current housing policy over the course of ten biweekly meetings. Modifications proposed
by the Task Force will be considered by City staff, the broader public, and City Council
moving forward” (Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force July 6, 2022 Agenda). The
taskforce met monthly for ten months, overseen by City staff and a third-party facilitator.
Participants worked to diverge and then reconverge on recommendations to present to
City Council.
Community Questionnaire
In order to better support the Taskforce and help them expand their viewpoint to the
broader Fort Collins population, staff also conducted a Rental Housing Strategies
Community Questionnaire. The results were presented to the Taskforce and will also be
included in the report to City Council along with the Taskforce’s recommendations. The
survey was deployed online and sent to staff contacts at Colorado State University, The
Coloradoan, and The Collegian. Staff also used the Neighborhood Services pop up
lemonade stand to table at strategic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were chosen
Packet pg. 46
because of their high quantity of both renters and homeowners living next door to one
another. They survey was also available in Spanish.
Demographics
Overall, the survey had 1,739 responses. 64.8% said they own their home and 30.8%
said they rented. They survey also asked respondents to self-identify as a renter,
homeowner, student, real estate agent, homeowners’ association member, property
manager, landlord or other, with the option to select multiple to capture the
intersectionality of identities at play. On average, renters reported lower household
income, age, and length of residency in Fort Collin than owners, although some of the
demographic questions such as household income also had larger numbers of
participants refuse to answer so the trends may be skewed. The survey captured
representative percentages of most racial identities except that only 4.3% of
respondents identified as Hispanic/Latinx while the larger population has a higher
percentage of people in this category.
Results
The results are presented through various cross-sections of the respondents. All the
questions will show how the entire pool or respondents answered, and then a
comparison of only renters and only homeowners. The occupancy questions were
further filtered by respondents who identified as homeowners but NOT rental housing
industry professionals such as landlords, property managers or real estate agents. The
rental occupancy questions were filtered for respondents who identified as an industry
professional. This shows an interesting impact of working in the rental housing industry.
Packet pg. 47
Occupancy All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners
Non Industry
Professionals
Agree or disagree to the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
0BShould Fort Collins occupancy
limit stay as they are? 31% 69% 22% 78% 36% 64% 45% 55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in
more places around the city 62% 35% 72% 23% 50% 41% 43% 49%
Ma ke the process to approve extra
occupancy easier 59% 33% 74% 21% 51% 39% 43% 46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match
number of bedrooms in a home 51% 50% 59% 33% 47% 44% 38% 51%
Regulate occupancy based on
household function, not family
relatedness 48% 41% 51% 31% 21% 47% 28% 52%
Re gulate occupancy based on
number of parking spaces 22% 61% 12% 69% 27% 57% 24% 63%
Focus on regulating nuisances
instead of occupancy 56% 32% 61% 26% 54% 36% 44% 44%
Increase occupancy limits to more
than 3 unrelated residents 56% 37% 73% 23% 47% 45% 39% 52%
Eliminate occupancy limits
completely 36% 54% 52% 36% 27% 63% 24% 67%
Rental Strategies All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners Landlords
Agree or disagree with the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins rental
strategies stay as they are? 40% 60% 25% 75% 46% 54% 53% 47%
Require that all landlords obtain
a license to rent property in the
City
50% 40% 63% 21% 45% 48% 13% 78%
Re quire that all landlords register
their rental properties with the
City
56% 34% 69% 17% 52% 40% 21% 69%
Proactively inspect rental
properties on a regular basis for
health and safety violations
47% 37% 62% 20% 42% 44% 15% 72%
In spect rental properties only
when a complaint is filed 56% 26% 60% 22% 53% 28% 56% 23%
Analysis
Packet pg. 48
The results show divides in opinions between subgroups of the population. Overall,
renters were more likely to say that they wanted to see changes in both occupancy and
rental strategies. Homeowners as a single group without filtration of profession were
more moderate or split more evenly between those who disagreed with strategies and
those who agreed. It was helpful then to filter out subsections of the homeowners by
profession in the rental housing industry. Homeowners who were NOT industry
professionals were less likely to approve of changes to U+2. However, Homeowners
who WERE in the industry themselves were less likely to approve of rental strategies
which would regulate their business. An interesting pattern to point out is the dual
inspection questions. Many respondents disagreed with one type of inspection and
agreed with the other, but there were also many respondents who agreed with both
types, indicating that inspections in general are needed, but there were differing
opinions on whether to perform them preemptively or case-by-case.
Conclusions and Next Steps
However divided individual groups were in the questionnaire, the majority of
respondents said they would tolerate or even welcome changes in both U+2 and rental
strategies. There are some other clear directives from the survey, including that most
people thought restricting occupancy based on parking spaces is a bad idea, or that
offering increased landlord/tenant mediation services would be a good one. The survey
was presented to the Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce, and after discussion they
agreed to recommend rental registration over licensing and case-by-case inspections
over preemptive ones. For occupancy, the Taskforce recommended basing occupancy
limits on the number of bedrooms in a house, removing the definitions of family from the
Packet pg. 49
ordinance language, as well as making the extra occupancy application process easier
by removing occupancy from the Land Use Code.
The survey results and Taskforce recommendation will go to City Council on August 26,
2022 where staff will receive direction on which of the recommendations to implement.
The next steps will be deciding on the many small details of the new policies and
determining how they will be enforced and administrated. As the City progresses, it
should continue to engage the public in order to build rental strategies which
successfully address the greatest challenges in the Housing Strategic Plan.
Resources
City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 3.8.16, 2006.
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDE
ST_DIV3.8SURE_3.8.16OCLIINNUPEAL
Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force August 3, 2022 Agenda. (n.d.). City of Fort
Collins. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/august-3-agenda_website-
edits.pdf?1659717450
Housing Strategic Plan. (2021). City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/20-22913-housing-strategic-plan-no-
appendices.pdf?1618855189
Occupancy. (n.d.). Fcgov.Com.
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy
Packet pg. 50
Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Market Study
Packet pg. 51
Contents
2Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 28
Section 1: Rental Market Trends 33
Section 2: Ordinance Violators 88
Section 3: Short-Term Rentals 126
Section 4: Neighborhood Quality 150
Appendix 170
Packet pg. 52
Executive Summary Packet pg. 53
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2005 to 2010
Market forces 10 to 15 years ago conspired against the rental market.
In 2007, the City began actively enforcing the Occupancy Ordinance, which was expected to create new
rental demand as larger households disbanded to form a higher number of smaller households. This
occurred at a time when the city’s rental market was healthy, with a slight surplus of vacant rental units, so the
expectation of resulting decreases in vacancy rates was not of major concern.
However, in December of 2007, the Great Recession began, resulting in a major slowdown of new home
construction. The population of Fort Collins continued to grow, creating more demand for housing than the
construction market could meet.
In addition, several market forces specifically increased demand in the rental market. In addition to the
ordinance enforcement and general population growth, the economy likely created new renters due to
foreclosures, and the new Condo Defects Law likely stunted the development of condominiums that are a
traditional path from renting to home ownership. The result was a steep decline in rental vacancy rates that
created a very challenging market for renters in the 2010 to 2012 time frame, as shown on the following page.
We conclude that the ordinance was one of several forces that led to the decrease in vacancy rates during this
period, which would have contributed to increasing rental prices.
4Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 54
Executive Summary: Snapshot –2005 to
2012
5Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2005 to 2007 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
5.4%
Excess Rental Units
Above Ideal Vacancies
+100 units
1,200 violator
households
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Rental Unit Shortage
Below Ideal Vacancies
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
Intervening Events
The Great Recession
•Slowdown in construction
•Increased rental demand due to
foreclosures, lack of supply, financial issues
•“Lost renters” due to lower household
formation or other issues
Ordinance Enforcement
Increased rental demand as households reformed
Population Growth
Increased natural rental demand
3.9 percent per year rental cost increases
Packet pg. 55
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2010 to 2018
A slow recovery over the past several years
As the recession ended, Fort Collins’ rental market was more or less gridlocked, with a very low vacancy rate.
In the light of this supply shortage, construction surged. However, the population was still growing and
prices were on the rise quickly, creating new challenges. While construction began making headway in
moving the market back toward a healthy level, it barely outpaced increased demand. In addition, pent -up
demand from the recession was released, bringing new households into the market.
Likely a result of housing affordability and other issues, home ownership rates continued to drop, albeit at a
slower rate than they had in the recession. Additionally, a new market phenomenon arrived on the scene to
siphon off the rental housing supply. Short-term rentals are a relatively small force, but nonetheless diverted
some of the housing supply from long-term rentals to short-term rentals.
In response to this, some households began doubling up for different reasons than we saw in the recession.
The result is more households that violate the occupancy ordinance, but they are not so much the college
students who used to represent that population. A majority are now non-students, often with children.
The result has been a slow movement toward a healthy rental market, but not yet enough. The market has
improved, but remains unbalanced in favor of landlords and against tenants, as shown on the following page.
6Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 56
Executive Summary: Snapshot –2010 to
2017
7Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Excess Rental Units
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
2015 to 2017 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
2.4%
Excess Rental Units
-800 units
1,200 violator
households
Intervening Events
Construction Boom
Tripling of home construction rates
Affordability
Slower road to home ownership,
more ordinance violators
Population Growth
Continued population growth
Short-Term Rentals
New demands on housing stock (though
small compared to other forces)
4.2 percent per year rental cost increases
Ordinance
Compliance continued to increase rental demand and
contribute to low vacancy rates (and thus cost increases)
Packet pg. 57
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
The population has grown faster than the housing supply
8Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
A comparison of population growth
to housing supply growth shows that
Fort Collins is an outlier compared to
a number of similar communities
around the United States. Fort
Collins’ population has grown faster
than the change in housing supply,
with nearly 7 new people joining the
population for each new housing unit
being built. This is primarily due to
the shortfall of new supply in the 2005
to 2010 time period, which is still
affecting the market today.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North
Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North
Carolina
Winston-Salem, North …
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
Packet pg. 58
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins has lower vacancy rates than other comparable markets in
Colorado*
9Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
While other standalone Colorado metro areas
faced many of the same market forces as Fort
Collins, they were generally starting at a
higher vacancy rate, so the declines in vacancy
rates moved them from an unhealthy (high)
vacancy rate to a generally healthy vacancy
rate. In contrast, these forces pushed Fort
Collins from a generally healthy vacancy rate
to an unhealthy (low) vacancy rate. The Fort
Collins market has been slowly moving back
to a healthy level since 2011, but is still a
challenging market for renters.
* Yearly data were not available for the fourth
standalone metro area of Grand Junction
Packet pg. 59
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins’ rental costs have increased faster than other comparable markets
in Colorado*
10Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of
2005 RentIn the face of low vacancy rates, market
competition will push prices higher. While
this has driven prices upward in other
Colorado markets as well (with the exception
of Grand Junction), the impact has been
largest for Fort Collins.
(The graph at right is a rental cost index that
controls for base differences in rent. It
measures each metro area at a 2005 value of
100.) Rents in Fort Collins are 78 percent
higher in 2017 than they were in 2005.
Packet pg. 60
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Dynamics
Rental households are getting larger, and owner occupancy is declining
11Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people. This is a notable increase in size, and means that nearly 8,000 additional
people are living in rental units solely due to this increase. The result is that rental properties are more
densely occupied now than they have been in the past.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in
past years would have owned their homes. This places more demand on the rental market.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
Households Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
Packet pg. 61
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Occupancy Ordinance Compliance
The number of households not in compliance with the Occupancy Ordinance
has increased
12Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Three studies have been conducted over the past 15
years to estimate the number of households that are
violating the occupancy ordinance. Prior to active
enforcement of the ordinance, the number was
estimated at slightly more than 1,200. The figure
declined by nearly 50 percent after enforcement
began, but has since risen back to roughly the
original number.*
However, as described on the following pages, the
types of households that are in violation have
evolved since 2005.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.Packet pg. 62
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
College students are no longer the most common type of violator
13Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
In the initial 2005 study, it was estimated that 71
percent of ordinance violators were college students.
In the 2018 study, the proportion has shifted
dramatically. Only 47 percent of violators are now
estimated to be college students, with 53 percent
estimated to be non-students.
This is a notable change because it implies that
affordability may be an issue among non-student
populations that is leading to larger households.
45%Undergraduate Students
2% Graduate Students
42%Adult non-students
10 % Pre-K to 12th grade students*
* These are minor school-age children of other segments.
Packet pg. 63
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households are mobile, generally unrelated, and live in houses
14Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Violator households tend to either form quickly or
be mobile, as nearly half moved into their home
within the past year. This mobility may increase the
likelihood of conflict if they are new to a
neighborhood.
Of particular note is the age profile. While 40
percent are 18-21 year old adults, 47 percent are
older, and 13 percent are children. This influx of
adults with children represents a change in the
profile over time.
47%have moved into their home in the past 12
months
40%are age 18 to 21
73%live in single-family homes or duplexes
25%of households have children
13%are children
61%have no related people (all roommates)
Packet pg. 64
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households tend to have numerous vehicles
15Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
When residents were surveyed about the prevalence
of eight different neighborhood issues, the most
commonly seen issue was inappropriate parking of
vehicles. Violator households are vulnerable to this
issue because they tend to have numerous vehicles.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.Packet pg. 65
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Support outweighs opposition, though many are neutral
16Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The ordinance is well known, with 89 percent of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards
it, but more residents support the ordinance (42 percent) than oppose it (24 percent). The biggest split
is that homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while
homes without a student have the opposite stance.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42%38%44%43%45%37%53%30%19%47%43%28%
Neutral 31%34%26%31%29%34%25%38%31%31%29%40%
Oppose 24%26%25%23%22%27%19%29%44%19%24%27%
No opinion 3%3%4%3%4%3%3%4%7%2%3%5%
Packet pg. 66
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Most residents don’t see the ordinance impacting their neighborhood and are
split on enforcement
.
17Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Nearly 4 in 5 residents don’t believe that the
ordinance has an impact on their neighborhood.
Among those who do see an impact, it’s more positive
than negative. The one exception is that residents in
homes that contain college students are more likely to
see a negative impact than a positive impact (17
percent negative versus 11 percent positive).
Residents generally prefer the current level of
enforcement over more/less strict enforcement.
Again, the exception is residents in homes with
college students, who strongly prefer less strict
enforcement (8 percent more strict, 34 percent less
strict.
78%don’t believe that ordinance has an impact
on their neighborhood.
•15% see a positive impact
•8% see a negative impact
38%like the current level of enforcement
•17% want more strict enforcement
•18% want less strict enforcement
•28% have no opinion
Packet pg. 67
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) are a growing market
18Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
STRs have consistently grown in number over the past three years. The figures below represent the
number of listed units each month for the time period for which data were available at the time of this
report.
Revenues for proprietors have risen from an estimated $500,000 citywide in 2014 (annualized estimate)
to roughly $9.6 million citywide in 2018 (annualized estimate).
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
Packet pg. 68
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) partially cannibalize units from the rental supply
19Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
In a tight rental housing market, a concern might arise that STRs
are removing long-term rentals from the market. While this is
true to some extent, not all STRs do so. Approximately 40
percent of STRs are units that would not otherwise be on the
market if they weren’t STRs. (For example, they might be a
spare bedroom that would just be used as a spare bedroom.)
Another 30 percent of STRs are estimated to be directly
converted from long-term rentals, and the remaining 30 percent
are removed from the housing market, but it cannot be
determined if they would have been rental units or owned units.
As such, STRs to date do negatively impact rental vacancy rates,
but they are currently a smaller force than other market forces.
Pulled Directly
From Long-
Term Rental
Market
30%
Pulled From
Housing
Market, Either
Rental or
Ownership
30%
Would Not Be
In the Rental
Market If Not
Short-Term
Rental
40%
Packet pg. 69
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of STR Licensing Rules
Support generally outweighs opposition, though many aren’t aware of the rules
20Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Only 31 percent of residents were aware of STR
licensing rules. However, when asked about
support or opposition, residents were more likely
to support the current rules than oppose them. 41%support current STR rules
39%have no opinion
19%oppose current STR rules
Packet pg. 70
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality -Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
21Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Four measures of neighborhood quality were tested, and all received positive ratings. Peace and quiet,
lawn maintenance, and home maintenance received particularly high ratings, while sense of community
was lower (but still positive). The neighborhood west of campus is rated lower by its residents than
other parts of the city, and renters tend to rate their neighborhood lower than owners.
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Packet pg. 71
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower
neighborhood quality ratings
22Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Even within neighborhoods, proximity to suspected ordinance violators tends to correlate with lower
ratings on neighborhood quality.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
Packet pg. 72
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs in areas where they are not allowed is correlated
with lower neighborhood quality ratings
23Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Overall, there is a negative correlation between perceived neighborhood quality and proximity to STRs.
However, this is an issue only in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Packet pg. 73
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues -Citywide
Residents generally observe few problems amongst their neighbors
24Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Among the tested issues, the most common are parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises other
than parties. The latter is reported much more commonly by renters than by owners.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose 0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately 0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Packet pg. 74
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Trends in Neighborhood Quality-Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
25Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Neighborhood quality
ratings rose from 2004
through 2008 for single-
family homes, and have
declined since. While this
appears to correlate with the
increases and decreases in
violator households, the
pattern was also reported by
residents who did not live in
proximity to ordinance
violators.
84%81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
Packet pg. 75
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with more incidents of
neighborhood issues
26Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Loud noise and inappropriately parked vehicles stand out as issues that seem associated with proximity,
particularly in the area west of campus.
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.Packet pg. 76
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs is correlated with more incidents of neighborhood
issues
27Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The impact is smaller than that seen for ordinance violators, but nonetheless negative impacts are
reported, particularly in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Packet pg. 77
Introduction
Packet pg. 78
Introduction: Background
In 2018, the City of Fort Collins retained Corona Insights to conduct an examination of rental market
conditions in Fort Collins, particularly with respect to the City’s occupancy ordinance. The initial research
questions were:
>Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood quality?
Our conclusions are shown on Page 4 and 7 of the Executive Summary.
>Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
Our conclusions are shown on Page 22 and 26 of the Executive Summary.
This report is a followup to two previous studies conducted for the city in 2005 and 2009. The previous
studies contained some common elements to this study, but generally had somewhat different emphases.
>The 2005 study focused primarily (but not exclusively) on estimating the impacts of the ordinance on the rental
market if it were fully enforced, but also included measures of neighborhood quality among single -family home
residents.
>The 2009 study focused primarily on the impacts of the ordinance enforcement on various constituency groups. It
also included a tracking survey of neighborhood quality.
>This 2018 report steps back and takes a larger view of the rental market, updates the tracking survey, and provides
the first examination of the impact of Short -Term Rentals on the market and on neighborhood quality. The 2018
report also expanded the survey to include all households rather than just single -family home residents.
29Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 79
Introduction: Occupancy Ordinance
The occupancy ordinance states that
"Occupancy in a residential dwelling unit (single -family, duplex, and multifamily) is
restricted to:
one family as defined below (Section 5.1.2) and not more than one additional
person;
OR
one adult and their dependents (if any), a second adult and their dependents
(if any), and not more than one additional person.“
The ordinance has existed for many years, but was enforced actively beginning in 2007.
30Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 80
Introduction: Geographical Analysis Areas
Because the occupancy ordinance
has been of particular focus in
areas near the Colorado State
University campus, several
analyses in this report break down
citywide results into three areas, as
shown here.
31Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 81
Introduction: Report Layout
The report addresses housing in terms of overall market trends as well as specific topics. The
layout follows the order below. Each sub-section includes unique key findings.
32Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1. Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Section 2. Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number
Profile of Violators
Investigation Outcomes
Public Sentiment Toward Ordinance
Section 3. Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
Rental Hosts and Properties
Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
Section 4. Neighborhood Quality
Citywide Quality Measures
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Packet pg. 82
Section 1: Rental Market Trends
Packet pg. 83
34Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Other Colorado Metro Areas
1.1.1 Change in Demand
1.1.2 Change in Supply
1.1.3 Change in Vacancies
1.1.4 Change in Average Rent
Packet pg. 84
Key Findings: Colorado Comparisons
While population growth in Fort Collins is higher than most comparable areas, the highest
rates in the city were concentrated pre-ordinance.
The average size of rental households increased over the long term.
The proportion of homes that were renter-occupied increased over the long term.
Housing supply trends in Fort Collins are largely consistent with other Colorado markets
across time periods. The city had a significant decrease in new residential building permits
between 2004-2009 that has since rebounded.
While the entire state has seen a decrease in rental vacancy rates over the last two decades,
Fort Collins has had a significantly lower (in relative and absolute terms) vacancy rate in the
post-ordinance era.
While trends in the cost of rent in Fort Collins were similar to comparable cities pre -
ordinance, the rate of increase has been much higher (in relative and absolute terms) in the
post-ordinance era. Nonetheless, most comparable Colorado cities have seen a steep increase
in rent between 2013-2017.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
35Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 85
36Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.1
Change in Demand
Packet pg. 86
Population growth in Fort Collins is fairly consistent with
similar metro areas
37Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Population from State Demographer
Average Population
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 169,179 188,187 202,794 217,593 236,169
Fort Collins 118,195 129,874 138,852 148,360 161,421
Loveland 50,985 58,313 63,942 69,233 74,749
Colorado Springs 359,794 379,203 400,872 430,156 455,163
Grand Junction 45,188 49,417 55,839 61,029 63,677
Greeley 76,804 84,062 89,758 94,571 101,572
Pueblo 140,737 148,286 155,100 160,084 163,532
Population Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 11%19,008 8%14,607 7%14,800 9%18,576 40%66,990
Fort Collins 10%11,679 7%8,978 7%9,508 9%13,061 37%43,226
Loveland 14%7,329 10%5,629 8%5,291 8%5,516 47%23,764
Colorado Springs 5%19,409 6%21,669 7%29,285 6%25,007 27%95,369
Grand Junction 9%4,229 13%6,422 9%5,190 4%2,648 41%18,489
Greeley 9%7,258 7%5,696 5%4,813 7%7,001 32%24,767
Pueblo 5%7,548 5%6,814 3%4,984 2%3,448 16%22,795
Packet pg. 87
Fort Collins’ population has converged with Pueblo
38Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Population from State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction
Greeley Pueblo city Loveland city
The last 20 years has seen
Fort Collins’ population
increase by around 51%.
While at the higher end of
these similar metro areas,
this growth is fairly similar
to Grand Junction and
Greely, which have both
seen an increase of 48%
during the same time
period.
Fort Collins’ convergence
with Pueblo is largely the
product of a smaller
increase of only 23% in
the latter.
Packet pg. 88
Population growth rate in Fort Collins is consistent with
similar metro areas
39Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Yearly population growth
in Fort Collins is similar
to comparable state
metro areas.
The city’s annual
population growth rate
was the highest between
1998 and 2001, averaging
3.25%. While the last
four years have seen
higher rates, Fort Collins’
annual population
growth rate has not been
above 3% since 2001.
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%Percent Population Change From State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
Packet pg. 89
The renter population is growing, and so is the average
number of people living in rented homes
40Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Because Fort Collins is a growing community, we would expect the number of rental households to increase,
along with number of people living in rental households. However, the more interesting analysis is how
rental households are changing within the housing landscape.
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people per household. This is a notable increase in size, and essentially means that
nearly 8,000 additional people are living in rental unit solely due to this increase in household size. There
could be many reasons for this, but affordability is a likely suspect, potentially forcing more roommate
situations or delaying home buying for families.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in past
years would have owned their homes.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
Households Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
Packet pg. 90
41Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.2
Change in Supply
Packet pg. 91
Growth in housing unit supply has increased significantly
since 2013
42Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
This graph normalizes
housing supply growth
as a percentage of each
city's 2006 value,
allowing for a more
effective comparison.
While housing supply
in Fort Collins was
fairly stagnant between
2005 and 2010 the last
five years has seen a
higher rate of
expansion in housing
units.
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Housing Units as a Percentage of 2006 Value (Three
Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Packet pg. 92
Housing development in Fort Collins bottomed out in
2009
43Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The US Census’
Building Permits Survey
shows that the creation
of new housing units in
Fort Collins was in
decline before the 2008
housing crisis and
reached its nadir in
2009.
The increase seen in
overall housing units
after 2013 is mirrored in
the growth of newly
authorized units. 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized in Fort
Collins Metro Area
Total Single Family Units
Packet pg. 93
Growth in renter occupied units is consistent with similar
metro areas
44Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Renter Occupied Units as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
All four Colorado metro
areas have seen a steady
increase in renter
occupied units.
The increase in renter
occupied units is coming
from both increases in
housing units and a
decrease in home
ownership rate.
Packet pg. 94
45Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.3
Change in Vacancies
Packet pg. 95
Colorado Springs and Greeley are converging to Fort
Collins’ high occupancy rate
46Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Housing Units Occupied
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
These Census data, which
combine the rental and
owner housing markets,
show that occupancy rates
in Fort Collins have
historically been higher
than similar metro areas.
More than 95% of all Fort
Collins’ housing units have
been occupied since 2010
Packet pg. 96
Renters are making up a higher percentage of occupied
units in Fort Collins
47Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Compared to similar
metro areas in the state,
Fort Collins has had a
high percentage of
renters in occupied units.
The state-wide increase
in renting could be
attributed to the 2008
financial crisis and
increasing costs of home
ownership post-recession
Packet pg. 97
Colorado has seen a steep increase in home values over
the last six years
48Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
While median home values
in Fort Collins were largely
stagnant between 2005 and
2011, the next six years
saw about a 50% increase.
While all four metro areas
had significant increases in
home values between 2005
and 2017, Fort Collins
demonstrated the largest
percentage with the
median home value
increasing from $229,700
to $366,500 80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Median Home Value as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Packet pg. 98
Sale-to -list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
49Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
101%
102%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Sale-to-List Price for Residential Homes
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Detailed home sale data is
only available after 2011
for Fort Collins.
The last few years have
seen home buyers paying a
higher percentage of list
price.
While the sale-to-list price
for neighborhoods east of
campus appear lower than
others, it is important to
note that this data is based
exclusively on the
“University Park” area.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).Packet pg. 99
Sale-to -list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
50Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average monthly home
sales west of campus are
very similar to those in
neighborhoods away from
campus over the last few
years.
Sales in the University Park
area have converged with
average rates in other areas
of Fort Collins over time.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average Monthly Home Sales Per Neighborhood
West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Packet pg. 100
Multifamily vacancy rates in Fort Collins are low across
unit types
51Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fort Collins Multifamily Unit Rental Vacancy Rate by Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom All
Rental vacancy rates in
Fort Collins steadily
decreased across all unit
types between 2004 and
2012 and have remained
consistently below 5%
since.
While three bedroom
units experienced
significantly higher
vacancy rates in the mid
2000s, they have
converged to the average
rate in the city.
Packet pg. 101
Vacancy rates in Fort Collins follow a similar trend to
comparable metro areas, but are lower in the post-
ordinance era
52Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rates (One Year Average)
Fort Collins/Loveland Average of Four Comparable Markets
The four comparable
metro areas have
demonstrated a similar,
but less extreme, decline
in rental vacancy rates.
Fort Collins has spent
most of the post-
ordinance era having a
significantly lower rental
vacancy rate than similar
Colorado markets,
although appear to be
converging lately.
Packet pg. 102
Recent vacancy rates in Fort Collins have been lower
than similar cities
53Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Vacancy Rates -Multi-Family Units
Average Vacancy Rate
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 3%12%7%4%3%
Colorado Springs 5%11%10%6%5%
Grand Junction 5%7%4%9%4%
Greeley 3%10%7%4%3%
Pueblo 5%8%8%10%5%
Average Vacancy Rate Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-IV I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 8.6 -5.1 -3.0 -1.2 -0.7
Colorado Springs 6.3 -0.6 -3.9 -0.8 0.9
Grand Junction 2.1 -3.5 5.0 -4.9 -1.3
Greeley 7.0 -3.0 -3.1 -1.4 -0.5
Pueblo 3.6 -0.4 1.8 -5.2 -0.3
Packet pg. 103
Total renter vacancy rates in Fort Collins are very low
54Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining the total rental
vacancy rate (single and
multifamily homes) from
the Census confirms the
trends observed in the
Colorado Department of
Housing data.
Fort Collins has had a
lower rental vacancy rate
than similar markets in the
post-ordinance era. The
decrease between 2008 and
2011 has led to an
extremely tight rental
market with few vacant
rental units.
Packet pg. 104
55Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.4
Change in Average Rent
Packet pg. 105
Across unit types, average rent in Fort Collins has nearly
doubled over the last 20 years
56Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Fort Collins Rent by Multifamily Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom
Rent in Fort Collins is
increasing across all unit
types. Efficiencies and
three bedroom units have
seen the largest
percentage increase over
the last two decades.
2009-2018 saw a 56%
increase in the average
rent of all unit types.
This is significantly
higher than the 18%
increase observed
between 1999-2008.
Packet pg. 106
Average rent increased in Fort Collins at a higher rate
than similar metro areas, especially between 2006-2013
57Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Rental Prices -Multi-Family Units
Average Rent
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland $656.90 $733.22 $799.85 $956.93 $1,237.35
Colorado Springs $613.51 $665.32 $700.37 $768.00 $970.91
Grand Junction $465.27 $486.76 $620.62 $626.14 $514.95
Greeley $537.49 $606.97 $630.59 $680.35 $942.25
Pueblo $434.08 $479.29 $513.34 $567.87 $655.00
Rental Price Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V Total Change I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 12%$76.33 9%$66.63 20%$157.08 29%$280.41 88%$580.45
Colorado Springs 8%$51.80 5%$35.05 10%$67.63 26%$202.92 58%$357.40
Grand Junction 5%$21.49 28%$133.86 1%$5.52 -18%-$111.19 11%$49.68
Greeley 13%$69.48 4%$23.62 8%$49.76 38%$261.90 75%$404.76
Pueblo 10%$45.20 7%$34.05 11%$54.54 15%$87.13 51%$220.92
Breaking down the change in average rent across four year segments illustrates how Fort Collins’ rent
compares to similar metro areas in the state. The percentage change from era I to II shows that Fort
Collins followed a similar pattern of steady increase seen across the state. More recently, the change
between IV and V shows most metro areas experiencing a steep increase in rental prices. The main
period where the Fort Collins’ market appears to be unique is the change between III and IV. Here the
rate of change is double that of comparable cities.
Packet pg. 107
Average rent in Fort Collins increased at a higher rate
than similar metro areas
58Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Average Rent of Multifamily Units by Market Area
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
While rent in Fort Collins
has always been higher
than comparable metro
areas, the last decade has
seen rent in the city
increase at a faster rate.
All metro areas, except for
Grand Junction, have seen
steep increases in multi-
family unit rent in recent
years.
Packet pg. 108
Post 2005 rent has increased in Fort Collins at a higher
rate than similar metro areas
59Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of 2005 Rent
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
Examining average rent
as a percentage of each
city’s 2005 value
confirms the previously
identified pattern.
While recent years have
brought increased rents
across the state, Fort
Collins has experienced
the most significant rise
in rental costs.
Packet pg. 109
Calculating total median rent from the Census confirms
the trend
60Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Median Gross Rent by Market Area From Census
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining total median
rent (single and multifamily
homes) from the Census
confirms the trends
observed in the Colorado
Department of Housing
data.
Fort Collins has historically
had higher rental costs
than comparable metro
areas, but has also seen the
largest increase during this
period -68% compared to
an average of 48% for the
three comparable cities.
Packet pg. 110
Despite similar population trends, rent in Fort Collins
increased at a higher rate than similar areas post-
ordinance
61Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Population and Multifamily Unit Rent Change Pre and Post-Ordinance
Average Yearly Change in Rent Average Yearly Change in Population
1997-2005 2006-14 Difference 1997-2005 2006-14 Difference
Fort Collins/Loveland 2.76%5.28%2.51%2.70%1.92%-0.77%
Colorado Springs 2.73%2.60%-0.14%1.45%1.49%0.04%
Grand Junction 1.52%-0.89%-2.42%2.01%1.88%-0.12%
Greeley 2.63%3.54%0.91%2.53%1.39%-1.14%
Pueblo 1.34%2.49%1.15%1.34%0.72%-0.62%
Average change calculated: (last year/first year)^(1/# years in period)
The geographic and temporal coverage of the Colorado Department of Housing’s data allow for an
assessment of pre and post-ordinance trends. The table below shows average yearly changes in
population and multifamily rent in two eight year periods before and after the ordinance. In its 2009
report, Corona Insights identified 2006 as the first year that ordinance affected the rental market
due to the start of education and registration efforts.
The table demonstrates that rental costs in Fort Collins grew at a very similar rate to comparable
metro areas pre-ordinance. However, rent increased at a much faster rate post-ordinance. A
decrease in the average yearly change in population shows that this change is not likely due to a
increase in housing demand unique to Fort Collins.
Packet pg. 111
62Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.2
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Selected Nationwide Cities
Packet pg. 112
Key Findings: Nationwide Comparisons
While population growth in Fort Collins was higher than comparable national cities in the
1990s, it has regressed toward the mean in the post-ordinance era.
Fort Collins’ housing supply increased at a relatively high rate in the 1990s, but is near average
in the post-ordinance era. Housing stock growth is lower across all comparable cities.
The rate that renters have occupied housing units in Fort Collins is higher in absolute and
relative terms post-ordinance.
Fort Collins’ rental vacancy rates are lower (in relative and absolute terms) than similar cities
in the post ordinance era.
Fort Collins’ expansion in demand (population growth) has exceeded supply (housing units).
Rental costs in Fort Collins have increased at a faster rate than similar national cities in the
post-ordinance era. Fort Collins also had a high increase in rent in the 1990s.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
63Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 113
How to read a box plot
64Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
outlier
maximum
third quartile
median
first quartile
mean
minimum
Box plots offer a quick and effective way to
identify differences between groups of
populations.
They show the median value of each
population (marked with a line) and a
surrounding box that stretches from the 25th
to 75th percentile. The “middle half” of
observations are contained in the box.
The “whiskers” show the range of the top
and bottom 25% of observations respectively.
If an observation has a value that is more
than 1.5 times the interquartile range (the
distance between the 75th and 25th percentile
value), it is deemed an outlier.
The City of Fort Collins logo shows where
the city falls on the distribution.
Packet pg. 114
Fort Collins’ population growth has regressed toward the
mean
65Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
3.06%, 2.33%
Average population growth has
generally declined across the case
study cities.
Fort Collins’ population growth
rate has decreased in absolute
relative terms. While the city’s
rate was previously at the higher
end of the distribution in the
1990s, it is well within the middle
half in the modern era.
Packet pg. 115
The rate of Fort Collins’ housing stock growth has
significantly decreased
66Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
3.05%, 0.84%
While Fort Collins had the
highest rate of housing unit
change in the 1990s, this value
has decreased in absolute and
relative terms.
Given the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession, there is a
significantly lower rate of
housing unit change between
2005-2017 for the entire sample.
Nonetheless, Fort Collins went
from pacing this group in the
first time period to the median in
the second.
Packet pg. 116
Fort Collins’ housing growth lags population growth
67Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North
Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South
Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Change in Population 2005-2017Change in Housing Units 2005-2017
Supply and Demand Trends in the Housing Market
This graph plots the change in
population and housing units
between 2005-2017. The
Colorado markets from the
previous section are added for
reference.
The trendline shows the
average relationship between
supply and demand. Fort
Collins and Columbia are
notable outliers in that their
population growth (demand)
exceeds growth in housing
units (supply).
Packet pg. 117
In general, the percentage of renters is on the rise
68Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
-4.39%, 2.43%
As a group, the percentage of
occupied units by renters is on
the rise amongst the comparison
cities.
Fort Collins has seen both an
absolute and relative increase in
the rate of renters in occupied
units in the modern era.
This dynamic has the potential
to lower rental vacancy rates and
raise the cost of rent, but does
not appear to be unique to Fort
Collins.
Packet pg. 118
Change in Fort Collin’s rental vacancy rates appears
average.
69Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyNote: Data limitations reduce sample by six cities.
As in the previous state analysis,
this comparison demonstrates a
general trend in decreasing rental
vacancy rates across markets.
While Fort Collins appears to be
at the center of each distribution,
it is important to remember that
these plots are reporting a
measurement of change. Unlike
population and housing units,
vacancy rates are subject to
ceiling and floor effects. Once
value approaches the floor (0%
rental vacancy rate), change
becomes less likely.
Fort Collins Values:
-0.4% , -3.24%
Packet pg. 119
However, Fort Collins’ vacancy rates are subject to a
“floor effect”
70Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Comparing the 2007 and 2017
rental vacancy rates demonstrates
that, while the change in these
rates is average for this sample,
the absolute values are toward the
bottom of the distribution.
Again, data show that Fort
Collins rental market has been
extremely tight in recent years
with very few vacant rental units.
Fort Collins Values:
5.96%, 2.72%
Note: Data limitations reduce sample by six cities.
Packet pg. 120
Rent continues to grow at a relatively high rate in Fort
Collins
71Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
5.02% 4.06% As with the state analysis, Fort
Collins’ rate of rent increase is at
the high end of the distribution
in the modern era. However, this
is not necessarily out of the
ordinary for this sample as the
city was also at the high end of
the distribution in the 1990s.
Overall, the rate of change in
median rent is lower in the
modern era. This trend may be
attributed to the great recession.
Packet pg. 121
Fort Collins’ rent increase is unmatched by comparable
national cities
72Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2006 Value
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana Lincoln, Nebraska Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina Winston-Salem North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon Salem, Oregon Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Mesquite, Texas Provo, Utah
The dramatic increase of
rent in Fort Collins
between 2005-2017 is
unique in the sample of
comparable cities.
The previously observed
increase in rent amongst
Colorado cities post 2013
is exhibited by Lakewood
having a significant
increase in rent over the
last few years as well.
Packet pg. 122
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand
73Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
ColoradoGreeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Demand/Supply and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017The X axis of this plot
calculates the increase in
population divided by the
increase in housing units
between 2005-2017. During
this time period, Fort Collins
has had 6.6 new individuals for
every new housing unit.
Lakewood is a notable outlier
due to a very small (1%)
increase in housing units.
The trendline demonstrates a
relationship between excess
demand and higher median
rents.
Colorado market analysis cities
are included for reference.
Packet pg. 123
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand (removing Lakewood as an outlier)
74Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017The main conclusions of the
previous plot are preserved
when Lakewood is removed.
Fort Collins’ 6.6 new
individuals per new housing
unit is significantly higher than
the remaining sample’s average
of 4.4.
However, it is notable that Fort
Collins lies substantially above
the trendline in this plot. This
location suggests that
demand/supply is only one
cause, amongst others, of the
high rents in the city.
Packet pg. 124
Increase in rent has been mirrored by home values
75Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
92%, 60%
In general, the home values in the
modern era increased at a lower
rate than they did in the 1990s.
The lower rate is likely a product
of the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession.
While the rate in Fort Collins
decreased in absolute terms, it
has increased relatively toward
the high end of the distribution.
Packet pg. 125
Fort Collins and Lakewood follow similar trajectories in
home values
76Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percent of 2005 Median Home Values
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Average of 13 other cities
The recent trend of
increasing rent in Colorado
has also been present in
median home values.
While Fort Collins and
Lakewood show a distinct
and drastic increase in
median home values after
2011, they previously lagged
comparable cities.
Packet pg. 126
77Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.3
Rental Market Trends
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Packet pg. 127
Key Findings: Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Across the last six years, around 12% of rented homes have had four or more occupants.
These households could have related occupants or otherwise not be in violation of the
occupancy ordinance, so this does not indicate that 12% of rented homes are occupancy
ordinance violators.
Rented homes with four or more bedrooms is relatively uncommon, typically around 12%.
A typical rented home has about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit structures stayed about the same
78Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 128
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
occupants hovered around 12%
The proportion of
rented homes with four
or more occupants varied
around 12%, but did not
steadily increase.
79
3,201 4,488 2,440 3,049 3,781 3,180
22,345
23,733
22,182 23,939 24,918 26,572
13%16%
10%11%13%11%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Occupants Per Household
# rented homes with
1 to 3 people
# rented homes with
4+ people
% rented homes with
4+ people (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 129
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
bedrooms dipped slightly in 2016
The proportion of rented
homes with four or more
bedrooms bounced around
12% but did not steadily
increase. The pattern of
rented home with four or
more bedrooms was
similar to the proportion
of rented homes with four
or more occupants.
80
3,352 3,969 2,963 3,623 3,405 2,493
22,194
24,252
21,659 23,365 25,294 27,259
13%14%12%13%12%8%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Bedrooms Per Household
# rented homes with
0 to 3 bedrooms
# rented homes with
4+ bedrooms
% rented homes
with 4+ bedrooms
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 130
The proportion of homes rented by non-families
increased very slightly from 2011
In 2016, about 66% of
rented homes were rented
by nonfamilies, which is
typically defined as no one
in the household is related.
This proportion was
slightly larger than
estimates from 2011 (62%)
and 2012 (63%) but similar
to estimates from 2013 to
2015. Based on 3-year
running averages, there
was a very slight increasing
trend in the percentage of
nonfamily rentals.
81
9,656 10,301 7,697 8,525 9,201 10,203
15,890
17,920
16,925
18,463 19,498 19,549
62%63%
69%68%68%66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Household Family Status
Nonfamily rentals
Family rentals
% nonfamily (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 131
There have been about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available per
rented household since 2011
The number of cars
available per rented
household bounced
around 1.6 and 1.7, but it
did not substantially
change in a sustained
pattern between 2011 and
2016.
82
40,568
46,368 42,233 45,155 48,156 48,490
1.6
1.6
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cars Available to Renters and Cars Per Rented Household
Total Cars Available to
Renters
Cars Per Rented Household
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 132
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit
structures stayed about the same
Since pre-2010, the
proportion of all
homes in multi-unit
structures (e.g.,
apartments, duplexes,
etc.) stayed about the
same throughout Fort
Collins and by region.
83
46%48%
35%39%35%35%32%31%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2005-2009 2008-2012 2012-2016
Proportion of Homes that are Multi-Unit
West of Campus
East of Campus
Fort Collins
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 133
School children (nursery -12) make up a smaller
percentage of population in the areas around campus
post-ordinance
84Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Due to changing geographic boundaries, Census tract 2 is treated as
“Away from Campus” in these calculations. It was split into two
areas (one away and one West) in the 2010 census.
17%16%
11%8%
14%12%
20%19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
Nursery School -12th Grade
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
21%23%
42%
51%
18%21%
12%13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
College -Graduate School
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Enforcement of the ordinance has not particularly changed the composition of neighborhoods
around campus, as measured by the population of children. The areas around campus have seen
a small increase in college students and a small decrease in school children (nursery -12th grade)
over the past 15 years, though most of that change occurred pre-enforcement.
Packet pg. 134
The price of median home sales has been significantly
increasing across neighborhoods in Fort Collins
85Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The median home in Fort
Collins sold for $155,000
more in 2018 than it did in
2012, a 67% increase.
While home values east of
campus appear to increase
dramatically after 2015,
this is based exclusively on
data available from the
University Park
neighborhood.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Median Home Sale Price in Thousands
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Packet pg. 135
Renters have been filling occupied units at higher rates
across neighborhoods
86Report Name/Customer/Project
60%63%
53%57%
44%46%
41%42%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Occupied Units by Renters
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort Collins
Away from
Campus
While the percentage of
renters in occupied units
has been increasing across
all neighborhoods, the
largest increase has been
seen around campus.
Packet pg. 136
The percentage of four or more person rental households
has decreased around campus
87Report Name/Customer/Project
15%
10%
14%
6%
13%
13%
12%
13%
0%
25%
50%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Renter Occupied Units that are Four or
More Person Households
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort
Collins
Away
from
Campus
While the percentage of
occupied rental households
with four or more people
has remained constant in
the City at large, it has
decreased in the areas
around campus.
The areas around campus
have seen a decrease of
renters in one person
households and an increase
of renters in two person
households.
Packet pg. 137
Section 3. Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Packet pg. 138
89Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.1
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number of Violator Households
Packet pg. 139
Key Findings: Number of Violator Households
The number of violator households is estimated at slightly more than 1,200 households. This
is notably higher than the figure estimated in 2009, and approximately the same number that
was estimated in 2005.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
90Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 140
Estimating the Number of Violator Households
Two approaches were used to estimate the number of households that are living in violation of the
occupancy ordinance. The first estimate examined data reported by respondents in the public survey when
asked how many of the four houses nearest to their home were in violation of the ordinance. The figures
were then multiplied by the current rate at which occupancy violation investigations found such violations.
(In other words, 38% of occupancy ordinance complaints were found to be valid.) A high estimate counted
every home that was reported in the survey (scaled up to the population of homes), and a low estimates
assumed that any reported number greater than one was equal to one.
A second estimate was developed using self-reported data from the census documents. These figures include
a high estimate that assumed that all violator households lived within the city of Fort Collins, and a low
estimate that assumed that violator households were equally likely inside the city and in the rural areas outside
the city. (The particular census source extends beyond the city limits to include much of rural northern
Larimer County.)
The four estimates were then averaged to develop an overall estimate of the number of violator households
at 1,234. See the next page for the figures.)
91Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 141
Slightly more than 1,200 households are in violation of
the occupancy ordinance
Using these two methods, the estimated number of violator households is 1,234, with an average household
size of 5.06 people.
92Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Survey Data Census Data
High Range 4,291 x Violator Households
Low Range 2,727 x Violator Households
Substantiation Rate 38%x Occupancy Investigations
High Range 1,630 1,285 Estimated Violator Housholds
Low Range 1,036 986 Estimated Violator Housholds
Estimate 1,234
Average Household Size -5.06 people
Packet pg. 142
The number of violators has fluctuated over time
In comparing the last three studies
(completed in 2005, 2009, and 2018), the
number of violators has fluctuated.
Prior to active enforcement of the
ordinance, the 2005 study estimated that
slightly more than 1,200 households were in
violation.
After the ordinance enforcement began, the
figures dropped to approximately 650.
However, since that time period, the
number has risen again, back to the pre-
enforcement levels. (Note that the
population has grown, so the overall
incidence rate is lower now.)
As is discussed elsewhere, a strong theory is
that affordability issues may be causing
more households to violate the ordinance.
93Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 143
94Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.2
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Profile of Violator Households
Packet pg. 144
Key Findings: Profile of Violator Households
The makeup of residents in violator households has changed notably, going from 71% college
students to 44% college students since 2005. Children under 18 now make up roughly 13%
of these households, despite being a negligible population in 2005.
The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%). However, 78% say that it has no impact on their
neighborhood.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
95Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 145
A slight majority of violator households are rentals
Violator households are nearly evenly split between single family and multi-family homes. Violators who
own their home are nearly all in single-family homes, while violators who rent their homes are evenly split
between single-family and multi-family units..
96Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 560 343
Multi-Family Home 6 326
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 45%28%
Multi-Family Home 1%26%
Packet pg. 146
Violator households tend to share larger homes
Most violator households live in 4-bedroom units. This implies that most violator households are not living
in overcrowded conditions inside the home.
97Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 147
Violator households tend to live in single family homes
As might be expected from the finding on the previous page about the sizes of violator households’ homes,
most violator households live in single family homes (meaning houses that are detached from other houses).
Among those who live in apartments, most live in smaller developments.
98Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 148
Violator households are higher on the rent spectrum
Because they tend to live in larger housing unit, violator households also tend to pay higher rents. However,
the rent is split between more independent payers.
99Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 149
Violator households tend to have more vehicles.
Violator households have notably more vehicles than other types of households. This is an important
distinction because, as seen elsewhere in this report, inappropriately parked vehicles tend to be a common
complaint by Fort Collins residents with respect to neighborhood quality, and it would be a consistent issue
to observe by residents.
100Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 150
Tenant relationships are generally non-blood
Violator households are usually groups of unrelated people.* Less than 40% consist of groups where at least
two people are related to each other. This would imply that nuances to the definition of the ordinance might
have an impact on some households, but not the majority.
101Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* -Relationships are for the person filling out the census form. Others in the household could possibly be related.
Packet pg. 151
Relationships
When there are related people in the household, the related person is often a child. Children are present in
violator households at a very similar rate to their presence in non-violator households (27%). This may
suggest younger families that are bringing in others to help with housing costs.
102Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 152
Violator households generally form quickly or move
frequently
Nearly half of all violator households have lived in their home for less than a year. This is an important item
to consider, because conflicts may be more likely to occur with new residents who haven’t yet integrated into
a neighborhood or who introduce change to a neighborhood.
103Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 153
There is no relationship of household income to violator
status
Violator households fall into three main income groups: one-third fall into lower household income
segments (which is the combined income of all residents of the home), while slightly more than one -third
have combined incomes of $100,000 or more. The remainder fall into the income bank in between.
104Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 154
Violator households are often young adults
Forty percent of the residents living in violator households are young adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
Conversely, very few residents of violator households are age 50 or older. As is discussed later in this section
of the report, non-students tend to be older than college students. A new population that is emerging in the
violator population is children under the age of 18, who were negligible in the 2005 study and now represent
1 in 8 violators.
105Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
50-50 split
of males
and females
Packet pg. 155
College students represent nearly half the violator
population
A slight majority of residents in violator households are college students, with the bulk being undergraduates.
This represents a notable change from the initial 2005 study, which showed that 71% of residents in violator
households were college students.
106Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Ten percent of
residents are
enrolled in primary
or secondary
school. This figure
is lower than the
number of
children in those
households
because some
children are not yet
of school age.
Packet pg. 156
College students are younger, while non-students are
older
If we examine violator household members by both age and college student status, we see the that most
common segment is college students age 18 to 21. However, the next two largest segments are non -students
over the age of 25, with a particular concentration of non-students between the ages of 25 and 34.
107Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 157
Residents of violator households are generally working
This analysis was intended to assess whether significant numbers of residents in violator households were
unable to work. Recognizing that many college students may not be in the work force, we see that a majority
of residents are working, and relatively few are disabled or receiving any type of public assistance.
108Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
5% are
disabled
4% receive
SNAP
0% receive
public
assistance
payments
Packet pg. 158
109Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Investigation Outcomes
•2.3.1 Citywide Trends
•2.3.2 Neighborhood Trends
Packet pg. 159
Key Findings: Investigation Outcomes
There was notable year to year variation in the number of over occupancy investigations.
Citywide, the number of investigations trended upward, while the number of violations
remained about the same; thus, the percentage of investigations with unfounded outcomes
increased.
The greatest number of violations were in the West of Campus region.
The highest violation per home ratio was in the West of Campus region.
>Two-thirds of occupancy violations occur in the area west of campus, despite the fact that
the area represents only 23% of homes in the city.
The proportion of violations increased in the West of Campus region, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of all violations in 2017.
The greatest number of unfounded cases were in the Away from Campus region.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
110Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 160
111Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3.1
Citywide Trends
Packet pg. 161
The number of over occupancy investigations increased,
but the number of violations did not change
The number of investigations
varied substantially from year
to year, with a low of 84
investigations in 2011 and a
high of 204 investigations in
2016. Based on a two-year
running average (the average
of the current and prior
years), there was an increase
in the number of
investigations between 2012
and 2017. However, there
was not a trending increase in
violations, based on a two-
year running average, which is
represented in the chart below
with dotted lines.
112
46
88
42
74 62 76
47
38
69
46
73
76
128
9784
157
88
147 138
204
144
0
50
100
150
200
250
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Over Occupancy Investigations by Outcome
Total
Unfounded
Violation
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Violation)
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 162
The percentage of unfounded investigations increased
Among all investigations, the
proportion of violations
decreased from 55% in 2011
to 33% in 2017.
113
55%56%48%50%45%37%33%
45%44%52%50%55%63%67%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Outcomes from Over Occupancy Investigations
Unfounded
Violation
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 163
114Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3.2
Neighborhood Trends
Packet pg. 164
Neighborhood Summary
Neighborhood Percentage of occupied
homes that are rented
Percentage of occupied homes that are
multi-unit (more than one unit in
structure)
Away from Campus 35%31%
East of Campus 57%39%
West of Campus 70%48%
Fort Collins 46%35%
115Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 165
The greatest number of violations were always west of
campus
The neighborhoods west,
north, and south of campus
(labeled as “West of campus”
in this report) consistently had
the highest number of
violations per year since 2011,
with total of 286 violations
since 2011 and an average of
41 violations per year. The
neighborhoods east of
campus had a total 38
violations with an average of 5
per year, while the rest of the
city had a total of 111
violations with an average of
16 per year.
116
17
22
12 14 17 19
10
3
12
3 4 5 6 5
26
54
27
56
40
51
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Violations by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 166
The area west of campus has the highest violation per
home ratio
The area west of campus
comprises about 23% of all
occupied homes within Fort
Collins, but this is where 66%
of violations occurred from
2011 to 2017. Therefore, the
ratio of violations per
household was very high.
The share of violations in the
area east of campus was about
the same as the share of
homes. Violations in the
remainder of the city were less
common than the percentage
of homes in this area.
117
66%
26%
11%
9%
23%
66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Homes
(2012-2016 avg.)
Violations
(2011 to 2017)
Homes Compared to Violations
West of Campus
East of Campus
Remained of City
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 167
Over time, violations became more likely west of campus
The proportion of violations
increased in the
neighborhoods West of
campus, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of
all violations in 2017.
118
37%
25%29%
19%27%25%21%
7%
14%7%
5%
8%8%11%
57%61%64%
76%
65%67%68%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Violations by Study Area
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 168
The greatest number of unfounded cases were typically
away from campus
The greatest number of
unfounded cases were in
neighborhoods away from
campus, where there were 229
unfounded cases since 2011
with an average of 33
unfounded cases per year.
There were 214 unfounded
cases west of campus with an
average of 31 per year, and
there were 83 unfounded
cases east of campus, for an
average of 12 per year.
119
18
27
20
28
33
50 53
7
18
8 8
15
11
1613
24
18
36
28
67
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unfounded Cases by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 169
120Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.4
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Public Sentiment Towards Occupancy Ordinance
Packet pg. 170
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%).
However, 78% say that it has no impact on their neighborhood. Among those impacted by
the ordinance, more residents said it had a positive impact (15%) than a negative impact (8%).
Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement of the ordinance or didn’t
know enough to have a preference. The remaining 35% were about evenly split, with 17%
preferring enforcement more strict than now and 18% preferring enforcement less strict than
now.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
121Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 171
Most residents were aware of the occupancy ordinance
Most residents (89%) were aware of the ordinance There was little variation across different segments of the
population, other than slightly more awareness among residents of single-family homes versus multi-family
homes. Nonetheless, awareness is high even among multi-family home dwellers.
122Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Dwelling Type College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder of
city
Single
family
Multi-
family Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1323 350 495 478 1029 294 205 1061 620 323 304 43
Weighted 1329 318 142 868 836 493 241 1030 539 394 311 45
Aware of Occupancy
Ordinance
Yes 89%90%88%89%91%85%91%88%93%86%88%85%
No 11%10%12%11%9%15%9%12%7%14%12%15%
Packet pg. 172
Student homes and non-student homes oppose each
other on the ordinance
Overall, residents are more likely to support the ordinance than oppose it, though a significant number are
neutral or undecided. Support outweighs opposition by a level of 42% versus 24%. The largest observed
difference in support is homes containing college students versus those without. Homes with college
students are more than twice as likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, but the opposite is true for
homes without students. We also see that homeowners strongly support the ordinance while renters are
evenly split between support and opposition.
123Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42%38%44%43%45%37%53%30%19%47%43%28%
Neutral 31%34%26%31%29%34%25%38%31%31%29%40%
Oppose 24%26%25%23%22%27%19%29%44%19%24%27%
No opinion 3%3%4%3%4%3%3%4%7%2%3%5%
Packet pg. 173
The ordinance does not impact most residents
Only 23% of residents say that the ordinance impacts their neighborhood. Among these, positive impacts
outweigh negative impacts by a margin to 15% to 8%. Every segment saw more positives than negatives,
other than homes with college students.
The most common reasons cited for positive impacts were simply that the ordinance is effective in its goal,
that the ordinance enhances peace and quiet, and that the ordinance leads to fewer cars nearby. The most
common reasons cited for negative impacts were affordability and general comments about obtaining
housing.
124Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1283 342 477 464 1018 257 196 1029
Weighted 1266 301 128 837 700 560 226 983
Positive impact 15%23%17%11%15%14%11%15%
No significant impact 78%61%76%84%79%77%72%79%
Negative impact 8%16%7%5%7%9%17%6%
Packet pg. 174
Support for ordinance changes is split
Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement or didn’t know enough to have a preference.
The other 35% was evenly split on preferring more or less enforcement. Residents in homes with college
students preferred less strict enforcement.
125Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1319 354 491 474 200 1058 640 327 306 42
Weighted 1314 316 139 859 236 1021 554 405 311 41
More strictly than now 17%20%18%15%8%19%33%4%5%5%
Same as now 38%40%33%37%31%38%49%46%9%19%
Less strictly than now 18%20%27%16%34%14%0%9%63%6%
Don’t know 28%21%21%32%27%29%18%41%23%70%
Packet pg. 175
126Section 3 -Short Term Rentals
Packet pg. 176
127Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.1
Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
Packet pg. 177
Key Findings: Profile of Units and Revenue
The number of STRs increased strongly between 2015 and 2017. The number is still
growing, though the growth rate has slowed into 2018.
A majority of STRs are full-time rentals. They are increasingly entire homes, as opposed to
rooms in primary residences.
Revenues from STRs are growing rapidly, with nearly $10 million in citywide revenues
estimated for 2018.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
128Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 178
The supply of short-term rentals (STRs) has increased
quickly
The accompanying table shows the number of properties listed each month from late 2014
through mid-2018. The number of properties roughly doubled each year until 2018, when it
rose roughly 10% (through the latest available data).
129Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
Packet pg. 179
STRs are vacant more often than not
We can calculate an occupancy rate by dividing the number of occupied nights by the number of
nights that the property was available for rent. On average, occupancy rates are 32% on any
given night, but with strong seasonal changes. Occupancy rates in the summer are higher than
occupancy in other seasons, and particularly in the month of July.
Note that not all STRs are available for rent full time. Some are available less often, depending
on the host’s preferences. So the units are occupied less than the formal occupancy rate will
show. However, as seen later in this chapter, most STRs are available full-time or a strong
majority of the time.
130Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Occupancy Rate Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 27%25% 20%24%
2015 21%17% 22%24%34% 38%50%41% 26%27%22% 21%28%
2016 20%18% 23%25%34% 43%49%43% 31%32%25% 26%31%
2017 20%20% 25%26%35% 46%57%52% 38%37%29% 30%35%
2018 23%24% 30%32%27%
Total 21%21% 26%28%34% 44%53%48% 33%33%26% 26%32%
Packet pg. 180
Most STRs are available as full-time rentals
Over half of STRs are for rent
every day, while most of the
remainder are available more than
half of the days in any given
month. As the market has
matured, the number of casual
rentals (less than half time) has
settled into the 10% to 14%
range.
Among those that are available
more than half the time, most are
available for nearly every day of
the month, being pulled off the
market only occasionally.
131Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Availability
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014
Full 58%64% 61%
Less Than Half 9%13% 11%
More Than Half 33%24% 28%
2015
Full 62%58% 53%46%38% 33%23%28% 28%28%44% 43%
Less Than Half 11%13% 15%17%21% 22%30%33% 22%18%13% 15%
More Than Half 27%29% 32%37%41% 45%47%39% 51%55%44% 42%
2016
Full 55%60% 53%60%48% 44%42%41% 52%53%57% 58%
Less Than Half 16%14% 14%12%13% 14%13%14% 10%12%12% 14%
More Than Half 30%26% 32%28%39% 42%46%45% 37%34%31% 29%
2017
Full 62%65% 54%60%48% 48%47%46% 51%51%55% 60%
Less Than Half 12%13% 9%8%12% 15%14%14% 12%11%14% 14%
More Than Half 26%22% 37%32%40% 37%39%40% 37%37%32% 27%
2018
Full 60%63% 61%60%
Less Than Half 14%13% 13%8%
More Than Half 26%24% 26%32%
Packet pg. 181
STR units are dispersed across the city
Roughly half of
STRs were located
near campus in the
past, but rentals are
dispersing over time.
Rentals outside the
two campus
neighborhoods have
risen from roughly
50% to over 60% as
the market has
grown.
132Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
East of Campus Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 22% 23%27%
2015 24% 23%24%27% 26%25%24% 22%23%23% 22%22%
2016 21% 19%21%21% 20%20%18% 20%23%23% 23%22%
2017 22% 22%21%21% 21%21%20% 22%22%22% 21%21%
2018 21% 21%21%22%
West of Campus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 24% 27%26%
2015 24% 24%21%21% 21%22%21% 23%20%20% 23%23%
2016 25% 24%21%24% 26%24%24% 22%20%20% 20%22%
2017 21% 21%21%20% 21%19%19% 16%16%16% 16%16%
2018 17% 17%17%16%
Remainder of City
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 53% 50%47%
2015 52% 53%54%52% 53%53%55% 55%57%57% 55%55%
2016 53% 57%58%55% 54%56%57% 58%57%57% 57%56%
2017 57% 58%58%58% 58%60%61% 62%62%63% 63%63%
2018 62% 62%62%62%
Packet pg. 182
The types of STR units are evolving
Private rooms in homes have historically been the bulk of rentals, but this is changing over time as renting
entire units is becoming more common. Renting entire housing units, generally more of an investment
approach than renting rooms, has risen from 34% of units to 46% of units.
133Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Entire home/apt Private room Shared room
2014 34%57%9%
2015 37%56%6%
2016 41%54%4%
2017 44%52%5%
2018 46%50%4%
Packet pg. 183
Prices are rising over time
Length of stay is relatively consistent over time, but price per night is rising (likely due in part to
full units becoming more common as STRs).
134Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Nights Per Reservation Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 4.3 7.0 6.0 5.5
2015 7.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.3
2016 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.3
2017 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.3
2018 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2
Average Dollars Per Night Reserved Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 $82 $89 $81 $84
2015 $90 $94 $86 $86 $88 $91 $89 $87 $92 $89 $86 $100 $90
2016 $88 $86 $84 $90 $99 $103 $106 $101 $99 $102 $99 $102 $99
2017 $92 $96 $104 $105 $119 $120 $120 $118 $123 $123 $130 $124 $117
2018 $108 $107 $112 $114
Packet pg. 184
Total revenues are growing rapidly
Revenues are growing on both a per-property basis and on a citywide basis. Over the past three
years, monthly revenues per unit have roughly doubled, and citywide revenues have risen from
less than $1 million to an estimated $9.6 million in 2018.
135Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Revenue Per Property Month Citywide Revenues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Measured
Total
Estimated
Annnual
Total
2014 $599 $566 $429 $144,297 $489,519
2015 $498 $376 $486 $495 $692 $764 $923 $752 $528 $571 $466 $524 $1,137,225 $1,137,225
2016 $452 $391 $499 $579 $880 $1,120 $1,319 $1,087 $783 $884 $641 $691 $3,398,016 $3,398,016
2017 $479 $461 $696 $718 $1,088 $1,357 $1,748 $1,581 $1,187 $1,201 $960 $990 $6,586,274 $6,586,274
2018 $673 $625 $884 $981 $1,671,493 $9,591,305
Packet pg. 185
136Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.2
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Hosts and Properties
Packet pg. 186
Key Findings: Rental Hosts and Properties
The STR market in Fort Collins is run by individuals and appears to be significantly insulated
from large property management companies.
>85% of hosts only own and operate a single STR.
>Only 5% of hosts said they owned their STRs with anyone other than their spouse.
>62% of STRs in Fort Collins are also hosts’ primary residence.
>Only 4% of STR units were managed by professional firms.
Hosts mention income, culture, and the unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
buying property for this purpose.
Around 30% of STRs have been pulled from the long-term rental market.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
137Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 187
The majority of city -licensed hosts operate only one STR
138Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Only Operates 1 STR
85%
Operates 2 STRs
8%
Operates 3 or More
STRs
7%
How Many Short-Term Rentals do you Operate?Few hosts in Fort Collins
operate more than one
STR. Overall, the STR
market in Fort Collins
appears to be insulated
from large property
management companies.
Only 5% of respondents
said they owned their
property with someone
other than their spouse.
Only one respondent
noted that they operated
five STRs, the highest
value in the survey.
Packet pg. 188
City -licensed STRs in Fort Collins are distributed evenly
across unit type
139Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Entire house
27%
Entire
condo/apartment/
townhouse
26%
Bedroom(s) in a
house
30%
Bedroom(s) in a
condo/apartment/
townhouse
2%
Other
15%
Type of Short-Term RentalsHosts report renting
bedrooms, entire houses, and
entire apartments at similar
rates.
The most frequent responses
within the “Other” category
were “Carriage House” and
“Private Suite, Basement, or
Garage.”
Packet pg. 189
Few city -licensed STR hosts have plans to own new
properties
140Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Host Activity
Please check each statement that applies to you.
I currently own long-term rentals in Fort Collins 38%
I currently own a second, unrented home for personal use 8%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 10%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 13%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 4%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 5%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on making some
or all of them short-term rental(s) in the next two years 4%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on selling some or
all of the property(ies) in the next two years 3%
While a significant
percentage of STR hosts also
report owning long-term
rentals in Fort Collins (38%),
few plan on purchasing new
properties for the purpose
short-term (10%) or long-
term (13%) renting in the
next two years.
Very few (4%) hosts plan on
making long-term rentals into
STRs in the near future.
Packet pg. 190
The average city -licensed STR in Fort Collins rents for
$125 a night
141Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Hosts reported charging an average of $125 per night for their STRs. A majority of
bedroom(s) within a house were rented for less than $65 a night, while a majority of entire
houses were rented for more than $150 a night. The median nightly rent was $100,
indicating the presence of a few very expensive STRs. The most expensive reported average
nightly rent was $450 for an entire house.
Host Reported Nightly Cost by Most Common Unit Types
Average rent per night
Less than $65 $65 -$100 $101 -$150 More than $150
Entire house -7%30%63%
Entire condo/apartment/townhouse 6%42%33%19%
Bedroom(s) in a house 65%24%6%6%
Packet pg. 191
Most city -licensed STRs are hosts’ primary residence
142Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
STR is also my primary
residence
62%
STR is not my
primary residence
38%
Residency Status of STRsThe majority of STRs described in
the survey were also hosts’ primary
residence. This pattern is consistent
with previous findings that suggest
the STR market in Fort Collins is
managed more by individuals than
property companies. Hosts
reported only 4% of STRs in the
survey as being managed by
professional firms.
A significant proportion of STRs
that are not primary residences
belong to the few hosts who
happen to operate multiple STRs.
Packet pg. 192
A majority of city -licensed STRs were previously primary
residences
143Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Long-term
rental
24%
Primary
residence
57%
Second
residence
0%
Other
13%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use Before Ownership
Long-term
rental
20%
Primary
residence
55%
Second
residence
1%
Other
18%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use While Owned
When asked to recall the previous use of their STRs before and during ownership, a
majority of hosts said these units used to be primary residences. Hosts recall 24% and 20%
of STRs previously being long-term rental units (with lease agreements 1 month or longer)
before and during ownership, respectively. The most common descriptions of the “Other”
category reference new construction or remodeling.
Packet pg. 193
City -licensed Hosts mention income, culture, and the
unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
renting
144Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
14%
26%
40%
62%
0%20%40%60%80%
Culture
Competing with LTRs
Unique STR appeal
Income
Percentage of Responses that Mentioned Each of
the Following when asked, "What led to your
decision to purchase this property with the intent
of it being short-term rental?"
The majority of hosts mentioned income when
asked about their decision to purchase a STR
property. 40% of hosts indicated that they
would not have a rental property if it were not
short-term, primarily due to scheduling
flexibility and alternative uses of the property.
26% of hosts noted that they prefer STR
renting to long-term renting due to the quality
of tenants, higher income, and other benefits.
Finally, 14% of hosts highlighted the cultural
experience of short-term renting. Example
quotes can be found below.
Income:“For extra income so I can pay my mortgage and HOA fees.”
Unique STR appeal: “The amount of time I spend away from home for both work and personal travel, might as well let someone else use
the space while it sits there empty.”
Competing with LTRs: “Too much wear and tear on the property from long term tenants.”
Culture:“There is something really special and unique about staying in a home where you can share a cup of coffee with your host, sha re
stories, and learn about the town you're visiting.”
Packet pg. 194
145Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Estimation Strategies to Calculate Percentage of STRs that Came from the LTR Market
Units Bedrooms
Switched STRs Total STRs Percent Switched Rooms Total Rooms Percent
Q7: Previous Use While Owned was LTR 26 123 21%57 236 24%
Q8: Original Intent at Purchase was LTR 20 122 16%45 236 19%
Q10: Decision Process Considered LTR 23 122 19%50 232 22%
Q12: Recall Previous Owner LTR 31 122 25%71 235 30%
Average 25 122 20%56 235 24%
Any Switch Indicator 52 122 43%107 236 45%
Q7, Q8, or Q10 36 122 30%80 236 34%
The table above details a series of strategies to estimate the percentage of STRs that came
from the LTR market. The number of bedrooms switched is calculated by multiplying the
various switch data by the number of bedrooms hosts reported for each switched STR unit.
The most conservative estimate is the average of all potential switch indicators (20% of
STRs). Relying on hosts to report only their own past actions (questions 7, 8, and 10), and
not their recollection of previous owners (question 10), provides a higher estimate of 30%
of STR units that were converted from long-term rentals.
Approximately 30% of city -licensed STRs were once long-
term rentals
Packet pg. 195
146Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.3
Short-Term Rentals
Public Sentiment Toward Short-Term Rental Rules
Packet pg. 196
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
About one-third of residents are aware of STR licensing rules.
Support for STR rules outweighs opposition by a margin of 38% to 20% (with the remainder
being neutral).
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
147Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 197
Most residents are not aware of STR licensing rules
About one-third of residents were aware of STR licensing rules. The highest awareness was
seen east of campus, while the lowest awareness was in areas where only primary STRs are
allowed.
148Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region STR Zone
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
No STRs
allowed
Primary STRs
only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed
Base
Unweighted 1366 361 513 492 851 468 47
Weighted 1362 323 145 894 640 622 101
Missing
No reply 5%5%4%5%2%7%7%
Aware of STR Licensing
Yes 31%29%39%31%34%27%37%
No 64%67%57%65%64%66%56%
Packet pg. 198
The public generally supports STR rules
While a large proportion of residents were not aware of STR rules, those people still generally
supported such rules when informed about them. Nonetheless roughly 20% still opposed them.
Support for the rules was higher among residents who were already aware of the rules.
Residents with higher incomes were slightly more likely to support rules than those with lower
incomes.
149Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Aware of STR
Licensing Impact of STRs on Neighborhood Household Income
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No
Positive
impact
No
significant
impact
Negative
impact
Not
applicable
Less
than
$50,000
$50,000
or more
Decline
to
specify
Base
Unweighted 1344 354 506 484 487 817 31 673 144 438 287 777 215
Weighted 1337 316 144 877 422 863 23 647 170 439 401 661 213
Opinion of STR Rules
Support 41%38%41%42%50%37%31%38%61%38%35%44%43%
Neutral or no opinion 39%42%41%38%34%42%39%43%23%42%44%36%40%
Oppose 19%20%18%20%16%21%31%19%16%20%21%20%17%
Packet pg. 199
150Section 4 -Neighborhood Quality
Packet pg. 200
151Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.1
Neighborhood Quality
Citywide
Packet pg. 201
Key Findings: Citywide Neighborhood Quality
Residents give generally high ratings to neighborhood quality, though ratings have decline
over the past 15 years.
Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common
neighborhood issues citywide.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
152Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 202
Neighborhood quality was generally high
On a citywide basis, residents had positive perceptions of their neighborhood, particularly in
terms of peace and quiet, and maintenance of lawns and homes. Sense of community had lower
scores, but still positive.
However, opinions were not uniform. The neighborhoods west of the campus rated all of these
attributes considerably lower than did the other areas of the city, though all attributes were still
rated positively. Additionally, homeowners tended to rate all elements higher than renters,
particularly sense of community.
Interestingly, residents who opposed ordinance generally gave higher neighborhood ratings than
those who supported the ordinance.
153Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11 1.06 1.11 1.21 1.40
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04 0.99 1.01 1.25 1.19
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10 1.04 1.04 1.12 1.28
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.52 0.69
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Packet pg. 203
Some neighborhood problems have increased over the
last decade
154Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
41%
16%20%24%
30%34%
25%21%
35%
13%13%18%16%
28%
22%20%
34%
14%
21%
29%
16%
39%
30%28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled
pets running
loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive
parties
Loud noise other
than parties, such
as stereos or
yelling
More than three
unrelated people
living in a house
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in
the yard
Poorly
maintained house
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems
2004 2008 2018
While neighborhood problems decreased between 2004 and 2008, a higher percentage of
residents in 2018 reported observing at least one of their four nearest residences having
disruptive parties, loud noise, parking vehicles inappropriately, trash or junk in the yard, and
a poorly maintained house.
Packet pg. 204
While neighborhood ratings are high, the percentage of
residents rating their neighborhood good or very good
has reverted to, or dropped below, pre-ordinance levels
155Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
84%81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
While the 2008 survey saw
universal increases in
neighborhood ratings
compared to 2004, the
change between 2008 and
2018 saw the percentage of
residents rating their
neighborhood good or very
good decrease across the
board.
Nonetheless, substantial
majorities rate their
neighborhood as good or
very good on these
measures.
Packet pg. 205
Inappropriately parked vehicles are the most common
neighborhood issue
Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common issues,
particularly in the neighborhoods west of campus. This area was more likely to see every one of
the tested issues. Similarly, renters were more likely to see every tested issue in comparison to
owners.
156Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose 0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately 0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
Packet pg. 206
157Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.2
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Packet pg. 207
Key Findings: Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are strongly correlated
with being neighbors to a suspected ordinance-violating household.
However, the overall negative trend is neighborhood quality and long-term increases in
negative neighborhood issues are also seen when no ordinance-violating neighbors are
present.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
158Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 208
Neighborhood impacts were linked to perceptions of a
violating neighbor
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-Neighbor(s)
violating occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
159Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Residents who reported having at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report
lower neighborhood quality, especially for maintenance of houses in the remainder of the city.
Packet pg. 209
Within neighborhoods, proximity to violator households
led to differences in neighborhood issues
160
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Residents reporting at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report a higher
number of neighbor issues, especially for trash or junk in the yard in the East region and
parking vehicles in the West region.
Packet pg. 210
39%39%
30%
39%
56%
39%
27%
51%
29%
44%39%
66%61%56%
33%
19%
37%43%
61%
49%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
One Observed Violator
The presence of violators in 2018 increased reported
neighborhood problems, but often at a lower rate than
2008
161Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
53%
31%
72%
56%
72%
61%58%52%48%
57%
71%
90%
67%
76%
59%
43%
63%66%
81%79%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
Packet pg. 211
Decreases in neighborhood ratings were observed in the
absence of violator households
162Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
91%91%94%
64%
92%90%
94%
72%
88%
81%
88%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or
Very Good with no Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
While residents who
observed no violators in their
four neighboring households
rated their neighborhood
good or very good at higher
rates than those who did,
they did so at a lower rate
than they have in the past.
This suggests something
beyond, or in addition to,
ordinance violators is causing
the observed decrease in
neighborhood quality.
Packet pg. 212
Increases in neighborhood problems were observed in
the absence of violator households
163Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
40%
13%10%
16%22%16%14%
32%
9%7%12%
19%14%12%
33%
11%15%
24%
32%
24%21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
No Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
The above graph plots the percentage of neighborhood issues reported by residents who
said none of their four nearest homes had more than three unrelated people living in them.
While the number of problems reported by this group is significantly lower than those who
observe neighbors violating the ordinance, this group was more likely to report problems in
2018 than they were in 2008.
Packet pg. 213
The presence of violating households decreases the
percentage of good or very good neighborhood ratings
164Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
72%
62%
78%
46%
83%
68%74%
54%
67%
54%
62%
46%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
One Observed Violator
2004 2008 2018
64%
56%55%
39%
48%
38%
58%
48%
68%
31%
45%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
Living next to violators decreases good and very good neighborhood ratings across all
surveys and indicators. As with residents who observed zero violating households, these
percentages decreased in between 2008 and 2018 for those who reported one or multiple
violating neighbor.
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good
Packet pg. 214
165Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.3
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Packet pg. 215
Key Findings: Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are also correlated with
being neighbors to an STR property.
However, the impact is smaller than proximity to a suspected ordinance-violating property,
and the negative impacts are notably smaller in areas where STRs are allowed, compared to
areas where they are not allowed.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
166Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 216
STR presence correlates with lower neighborhood quality
Residents report somewhat lower neighborhood quality when they live near an STR, with the
largest impact being on sense of community.
While the sample sizes are too small to draw confident conclusions, it appears that the
negative impact is primarily when STRs operate in areas where they’re not allowed. An STR
operating in a zone where STRs are allowed did not appear to impact quality of life (with
results even leaning very slightly positive).
167Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s)
operate STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Small sample sizes
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Packet pg. 217
Neighborhood issues are correlated with STR presence
Residents report more neighborhood issues when neighbor(s) operate(s) an STR. The impact is
larger when STRs are operating in areas where they are not allowed, particularly having snow on
sidewalks, parking, and loud noises.
168Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
Packet pg. 218
The impact of STRs is narrow
STRs impact the neighborhood of about 15% of residents, showing that they are not yet
widespread and/or that their impact is narrow within a neighborhood. Of impacted residents,
more cited a negative impact than a positive impact (13% versus 2%). The impact goes up if
they have a neighbor operating an STR, as does the support of STR rules. The most commonly
cited reasons for negative impacts were strangers coming and going, trash/lack of maintenance,
parking, and partying/noise.
169Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s)
Operate STRs STR Zone Aware of STR
Licensing Opinion of STR Rules
Yes No
No STRs
allowed
Primary
STRs only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1366 147 1152 851 468 47 491 825 558 388 274 124
Weighted 1362 145 1134 640 622 101 423 877 547 391 260 138
Missing
No reply 7%3%3%5%7%15%4%3%5%5%6%4%
Positive impact 2%1%2%2%1%3%2%2%1%0%3%6%
No significant impact 47%61%49%45%50%50%57%45%45%56%47%42%
Negative impact 13%31%10%12%14%8%14%13%19%9%10%2%
Not applicable 33%4%38% 37%29%25%24%38%30%31%34%46%
Packet pg. 219
Appendix -Methodology Packet pg. 220
171Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Rental Market Trends
•Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
•Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Packet pg. 221
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
In order to assess changes to the overall rental market in Fort Collins, Corona Insights employed data from
current and archived reports from the Colorado Department of Housing. These data allow for an analysis of
trends in vacancy and rental rates by unit type and offer the chance to make two important comparisons.
First, we replicate analysis from our 2009 report and include trends from similar Colorado cities including,
Colorado Springs, Greeley, Grand Junction, and Pueblo. By observing these similar metro areas we can start
to distinguish what separates Fort Collins’ rental market from broader trends in the state. Second, these data
often allow for comparisons overtime spanning multiple decades. Comparing trends pre and post -ordinance
provides insights into the law’s potential effect.
It is important to note that the Colorado Division of Housing only collects data on multifamily homes. While
this accounts for a majority of the rental market in Fort Collins, these data were supplemented with data
from the US Census’ American Community Survey to account for the entire scope of the market. Population
data was collected from the State Demographer and the US Census.
Finally, Corona Insights collected supplemental data from Redfin and the Census’ Building Permits Survey in
order to assess the broader housing market in Fort Collins. While the Colorado Division of Housing often
reports data for the combined Fort Collins/Loveland market, these cities are reported independently when
possible. Cities and years are included/excluded in analysis based on data availability.
172Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 222
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
The Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas section of this report identified how the Fort Collins
rental market has compared to similar metro areas within the state of Colorado. While that analysis allowed
for the ability to account for broader trends within the state, it could not rule out the possibility that the
patterns observed in Fort Collins were common to similar cities across the country. Specifically, Fort Collins’
household growth and composition have historically been filled by younger individuals (aged 15-24) at higher
rates than other cities in the state. As such, a comparison of similar cities nationwide is needed to supplement
the assessment of the previous section.
This section replicates analysis conducted in Corona Insights’ 2005 report to compare trends in the rental
markets across 15 similar case study cities. This national analysis allows for an additional assessment of how
the Fort Collins housing market has fared in the pre and post -ordinance era. Data in this section comes from
the US Census’ American Community Survey. Two main time periods will be compared. The first is the era
between 1990 and 2000. This provides a baseline for how the Fort Collins rental market compared to similar
cities. The second era is between 2005 and 2017. Here, comparisons demonstrate what trends emerge post -
ordinance. Data have been annualized to account for the difference in each era’s length.
173Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 223
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Case Selection for National Market Analysis
This section details the case selection process for the national market analysis.
As of the Year 2000, there were 243 cities in the United States and its protectorates with population of
100,000 or more, which made up the initial population of eligible comparable cities. From that initial list,
Corona pared down the candidates as follows:
>Corona eliminated from consideration 41 cities that had population over 400,000.
>Corona eliminated two cities that radically changed their boundaries between 1990 and 2000, and
thus acquired large pre-existing populations and housing stocks.
>Corona eliminated 34 cities that experienced declines in population from 1990 through 2000.
>Corona eliminated 7 cities that experienced phenomenal growth from 1990 through 2000, with rates
of over 6.8% per year.
>Corona eliminated two cities in Puerto Rico for which standard data were not available.
These cuts pared the list from 243 cities to 157 cities. Data was then gathered on those cities to identify
specific growth patterns between 1990 and 2000. From that list, 16 cities were identified to have
exhibited highly similar household growth patterns to those projected for Fort Collins, based on total
household growth, household growth among traditional college-age students, and a higher
growth rate among the second group than the first.
174Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 224
2005 Report Case Study Cities
*Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky is excluded from all subsequent analysis as the US
Census no longer collects annual data for the city.
175Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Similar Growth Cities Annual Household Growth Annual Household Growth,
Ages 15-24
Ratio of Young/Total
Household Growth
Columbia, South Carolina 2.19%4.14%1.89
Durham, North Carolina 2.95%3.33%1.13
Eugene, Oregon 2.26%3.68%1.63
Fort Collins, Colorado 3.07%3.34%1.08
Fort Wayne, Indiana 1.86%3.20%1.72
Greensboro, North Carolina 2.12%3.34%1.58
Joliet, Illinois 3.06%3.10%1.01
Lakewood, Colorado 1.59%2.74%1.73
Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky*1.93%3.73%1.93
Lincoln, Nebraska 1.83%2.73%1.49
Mesquite, Texas 2.03%2.52%1.24
Provo, Utah 2.13%3.06%1.44
Raleigh, North Carolina 2.77%2.69%0.97
Salem, Oregon 2.09%3.39%1.63
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 2.22%2.93%1.32
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 2.49%2.94%1.18
Packet pg. 225
2005 Report Case Studies: Cities with Large Universities
*These cities contain colleges or universities with more than 15,000 undergraduates. The
sample of case studies shows effective diversity between college towns and comparable
cities that have experienced historically similar household growth and composition to Fort
Collins.
176Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Similar Growth Cities Largest University Number of Undergraduates
Columbia, South Carolina*University of South Carolina 24,941
Durham, North Carolina Duke 6,501
Eugene, Oregon*University of Oregon 20,220
Fort Collins, Colorado*Colorado State University 22,727
Fort Wayne, Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne 8,746
Greensboro, North Carolina*The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 15,158
Joliet, Illinois NA
Lakewood, Colorado Colorado Christian University 3,885
Lincoln, Nebraska*University of Nebraska Lincoln 20,182
Mesquite, Texas NA
Provo, Utah*Brigham Young University 30,221
Raleigh, North Carolina*North Carolina State University 22,458
Salem, Oregon Willamette University 1,925
Sioux Falls, South Dakota University of Sioux Falls 1,185
Winston-Salem, North Carolina Wake Forest Unversity 4,866
Packet pg. 226
177Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Ordinance Violators
•Estimated Number
•Profile of Violators
•Investigation Outcomes
Packet pg. 227
Methodology: Violator Estimates and Profiles
Estimates of the number of violators were developed via two means. First, the study team examined
specialized census data on a sample of the population, where individual (anonymized) records are made
available to the public. This has emerged as the predominant means of developing estimates. As a second
check, the public survey was used to develop estimates, in conjunction with complaint data to estimate the
accuracy with which residents identify violator households. These are the same two methods used in the
past, though specific methodologies have evolved over time.
The profiles of violator households are drawn specifically from the specialized census records referenced
above. These microdata records are deemed to be accurate since they are gathered for other purposes, but
also contain information about household makeup.
One limitation of the microdata sample is that relationships within a household are always measured from
the perspective of the person who filled out the census form. If that person is not related to others in the
household, then it is not possible to identify whether those others are related. The research team took a
conservative approach that they were not related, which in most cases is the likely scenario (for example,
when all residents are labeled as roommates or boarders relative to the householder). However, some of
these may be related in which case some households that are not violators could be labeled as violators. This
is unlikely to have a large enough effect on the conclusions to change any findings, though.
178Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 228
Methodology: Investigation Outcomes
Over occupancy investigation outcome results were calculated from complaint, investigation, and outcome
records provided by City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services. These data included the case year (based
on investigation start date), the address of the investigated residence, and the outcome determined as either
violation or unfounded. Additionally, each residence was assigned to a study area region that aligned with the
regions from the resident survey in this report. The dataset analyzed spanned the years 2011 to 2017.
179Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 229
180Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Short-Term Rentals
•Profile of Units and Revenues
•Rental Host Survey
Packet pg. 230
Methodology: Profile of Units and Revenue
For the short-term rental market analysis, the research team purchased data that had been scraped from the
AirBnB web site by a third-party vendor. (We recognize that other sites exist for short-term rentals, but the
STR survey conducted on this project showed a large overlap in advertising across sites.) The data included
information on specific properties, including nights available, nights rented, asking price, type of unit, and
location.
The research team used GIS software to assign the STRs to specific zones relative to STR licensing rules.
This also allowed the team to eliminate any properties that were outside the Fort Collins city limits, even if
they were in the general Fort Collins market area. Therefore, the figures relates specifically to units inside the
city limits.
Data were available beginning in October of 2014, and Corona Insights purchased all available data, which at
the time of purchase extended through April of 2018.
181Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 231
Methodology: Short-Term Rental Host Survey
The survey of short-term rental hosts was conducted by using the contact list for licensed STR units that is
gathered during the licensing process. Corona Insights designed an 10-minute online survey and sent an
invitation to complete the survey to every available STR host. We sent 255 survey invitations and received
143 useable responses, constituting a very strong response rate of 56%.
182Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Residency
Total Residency
Primary Non-Primary
Non-Response 111 67%33%
In Survey 143 68%32%
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Title Registered
Total Title Registered
Business Personal Address Other
Non-Response 111 32%48%6%14%
In Survey 143 36%50%5%8%
One way to check the representativeness of a
sample is to compare demographic breakdowns
within a survey to available data from the
population (like a census). While there is no
broader demographic data for STR hosts in
Fort Collins, comparing available information
(residency status and the title of the registered
STR) from the total recruited population
(registered STR hosts) offers an opportunity to
assess representativeness.
The similar percentages amongst the two
samples provides evidence in favor of the STR
survey sample being representative of the
population.
Packet pg. 232
183Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Resident Survey
•Public Sentiment Toward Occupancy Ordinance
•Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
•Citywide Quality Measures
•Proximity to Ordinance Violators
•Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Packet pg. 233
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Instrument
To facilitate comparability to previous results, many of the survey questions were asked in the same way
as they were asked in the previous community surveys, with some updates where applicable.
The final survey instrument was six pages long, printed in black and white, with a cover letter on the first
page. The cover letter instructed that any adult resident of the household could complete the
questionnaire. It also assured residents that their responses would remain confidential and would not be
used for enforcement.
To further encourage residents to complete and return the questionnaire, an incentive was offered, which
was a chance to win one of two $500 grand prizes or one of ten separate $100 prizes. Lastly, a pre -
stamped and pre-addressed return envelope was included to make it easy for residents to return their
completed questionnaire.
184Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 234
Methodology: Resident Survey
Sampling
Selecting a subset of home addresses to send a survey
packet is called sampling. We used a stratified random
address-based sampling technique to draw a list of 6,450
home addresses in Fort Collins that each received one
survey packet in the mail. We used a stratified approach to
send disproportionally more questionnaires to homes in the
regions immediately east and west of campus with the goal
of collecting enough responses from each region to report
results by those segments. The list of home addresses was
purchased from MSG, a commercial address-based sampling
vendor.
185Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region % of Homes % of Sample
Away from Campus 66%34%
East of Campus 11%33%
West of Campus 23%33%
Fort Collins 100%100%
Packet pg. 235
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Administration
Survey packets were mailed in mid-September of 2018. About ten days after mailing the initial survey
packet, a postcard was sent to each household to remind and encourage residents to complete and return
the questionnaire.
Response Rate
1,053 survey packets were returned as non-deliverable. We received and entered 1,366 useable responses,
for a final adjusted response rate of 25%. A typical response rate for a community-issue mail-based
survey is around 15%.
186Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region % of Delivered
Surveys
% of Returned
Surveys
Adjusted
Response Rate
Away from Campus 35%36%26%
East of Campus 33%38%29%
West of Campus 32%26%21%
Fort Collins 100%100%25%
Packet pg. 236
Methodology: Resident Survey
Weighting
In a community survey, it is common for certain demographics to be over or under-represented. For
example, mail survey respondents are often older. Additionally, because the sample was originally
stratified, it was necessary to check the balance of responses between the three strata.
To check and correct for potential skew and response biases, we calculated corrective weights based on
the known demographic estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Three dimensions were used for
weighting: region (west, east, or away from campus), owner/renter status, and years lived at current
residence (more than two years or no more than two years). The corrective weights were applied to the
data so that the results would more closely reflect the community as a whole. All results in this report,
including demographic tables, are based on the weighted data.
187Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Packet pg. 237
Methodology: Resident Survey
Margin of Error
The corrected top-level margin of error was +/-4.6% at the 95% confidence level. If we were to
conduct this survey 200 times, drawing a new random sample each time, we would expect that our
estimates would be within the margin-of-error in 19 of those 20 surveys. The margin of error accounts
for the study’s design and weighting effects, which increased the margin of error relative to the size of
the weights.
The corrected margin of error for each region is shown below.
188Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region Corrected Margin of Error
Away from Campus ±6.1%
East of Campus ±8.0%
West of Campus ±9.1%
Fort Collins ±4.6%
Packet pg. 238
About Corona Insights
189Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Our founder named the company
Corona because the word means “light.”
It’s the knowledge that surrounds and
illuminates an issue;exactly what we
provide.Our firm’s mission is to provide
accurate and unbiased information and
counsel to decision makers.We provide
market research,evaluation,and strategic
consulting for organizations both small
and large.
Learn more at www.CoronaInsights.com
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 510
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.894.8246
Packet pg. 239
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcy Yoder, City of Fort Collins
From: Mollie Fitzpatrick, Lucy McGehee, and Julia Jones, Root Policy Research
Re: Fort Collins Housing Stock Bedroom and Capacity Analysis
Date : November 29, 2022
This memorandum provides a summary of current bedroom capacity within Fort Collins
housing stock using data from the American Community Survey (ACS).
Data Sources and Geographic Note
The analysis uses data from the 2020 5-year ACS for the City of Fort Collins as well as ACS
microdata from IPUMS USA (also 2020 5-year data). The microdata provide more
specificity about bedrooms and occupancy of units; however, the microdata geographic
boundaries do not align perfectly with the City of Fort Collins. As shown in Figure 1,
microdata captures the northern portion of Larimer County which includes Fort Collins
and surrounding smaller communities (e.g. Bellvue, Wellington, Timnath) and
unincorporated areas. The City of Fort Collins accounts for 82% of homes in this area.
Fig u r e 1. Geographic Area of Analysis for IPUMS Data
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Packet pg. 240
Page 2
For aggregate data on number of units, total number of bedrooms, and units in
structure, Root Policy Research relies on ACS data specifically for the City of Fort Collins.
However, Root also calculates estimated bedrooms by units in structure and occupancy
relative to bedroom, by applying IPUMS estimates from the broader area to data for the
City of Fort Collins. Such calculations are detailed in table notes for transparency.
Overview of Bedroom Capacity
Figure 2 displays the number of units by bedroom count in the City of Fort Collins (using
2020 5-year ACS data). Three bedrooms are the most common in Fort Collins,
accounting for 33% of all unit s . There are a total of 186,718 bedrooms in the city in
64,262 units (average of 2.91 bedrooms per unit).
The number of bedrooms vary by type of residential structure. Figure 3 details unit and
bedroom count by structure type , and the average number of bedrooms per unit by
structure type.
Figure 3. Bedroom Count by Structure Type, City of Fort Collins
Note: Units in Structure and total number of bedrooms reflect data for the City of Fort Collins; bedrooms by units in
structure and average number of bedrooms per unit applied from IPUMS analysis of greater Fort Collins area.
Source: 2020 5-year ACS, IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Structure Type
Single-Family Detached 36,674 57% 128,506 69%3 .5
Single-Family Attached 5,129 8% 13,496 7%2.6
Duplex 1,381 2% 3,091 2%2.2
3-4 Units 3,445 5% 6,897 4%2.0
5-9 Units 4,751 7% 9,773 5%2.1
10-19 Units 4,558 7% 8,519 5%1.9
20-49 Units 3,237 5% 5,436 3%1.7
50+ Units 3,613 6% 7,236 4%2.0
Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,424 2% 3,683 2%2.6
Other 50 0% 81 0%1.6
Total 64,262 100% 186,718 100%2.9
Number
Avg. Bedrooms
per Unit
BedroomsUnits
Number Percent Percent
Fig ure 2. Units by Bedroom Count, City of Fort Collins
Source:
2020 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research.
Note: Studio units included as one bedroom
Studio/One Bedroom 7,208 11% 7,208
Two bedroom 16,778 26% 33,556
Three bedroom 21,045 33% 63,135
Four bedroom 14,176 22% 56,704
Five or more bedrooms 5,055 8% 26,115
Total 64,262 100% 186,718
Number
of Units
Total Num ber
of Bedrooms
Percent
of Units
Packet pg. 241
Page 3
Residential single family homes account for 57% of all units and 69% of all bedrooms in
the City with an average of 3.5 bedrooms per unit. The second largest contributor to the
total bedroo m count are townhomes (i.e., single family attached), which account for 7%
of bedrooms and have, on average, 2.6 bedrooms per unit. Multifamily structures have
lower bedroom counts on average, ranging from 1.7 bedrooms per unit to 2.1
bedrooms per unit.
Figure 4 provides additional detail on the distribution of units by bedrooms and structure
type . These data reflect the distribution within the broader Fort Collins Area (see map in
Figure 2) but are representative of the City, which accounts for 82% of the homes in the area.
Figure 4 . Bedrooms by Unit Structure, Broader Fort Collins Area
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Among single family detached units, 11% of units have two bedrooms, 42% have three
bedrooms, 32% have four bedrooms, and 13% have five or more bedrooms. Multifamily
units (particularly those with 10 or more units in the structure) have higher proportions
o f one bedroom units than other structure types. Five (or more) bedroom homes are
primarily found in single family structures, duplexes or mobile/manufactured homes.
Occupancy by Bedroom
Figure 5 details the average number of occupants per bedroom by structure type . Single
family detached structures have the fewest average occupants per bedroom at 0.79
people per bedroom. Note that values less than one indicate there are more bedrooms
than people, suggesting that most people have their own bedroom or there are spare
rooms.
Packet pg. 242
Page 4
Figure 5 . Units by Bedroom Count, Broader Fort Collins Area
Source:
IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota,
www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research..
The highest occupancy per bedroom is within multifamily housing with 20 -49 units. On
average, there are 1.14 occupants per bedroom. In most housing above five units, there
is more than one person per bedroom.
Sum m ary of Key findings
There are a total of 186,718 bedrooms in the city in 64,262 units (average of 2.91
bedrooms per unit).
Single family residences (attached and detached) account for 65% of units and 76%
of bedrooms in Fort Collins.
On average, single family homes have 3.4 bedrooms compared to multi-unit hom es
with 2.4 bedrooms.
Single family housing types (detached, townhomes, and duplexes) all average fewer
than 1 person per bedroom. Multifamily residences have the higher average
occupancy per bedroom compared with other building structures but still only
a verage about 1 person per bedroom;
g
Occupants Per
Bedroom
Single-Family Detached 0.79
Single-Family Attached 0.86
Duplex 0.92
3-4 Units 0.98
5-9 Units 1.08
10-19 Units 1.09
20-49 Units 1.14
50+ Units 0.97
Mobile home/ Trailer 1.02
Packet pg. 243
MEMO RAN DUM
To: Marcy Yoder, City of Fort Collins
From: Mollie Fitzpatrick, Avilia Bueno, and Julia Jones , Root Policy Research
Re: Fort Collins Occupancy Code Data Analysis
Date: June 8, 2021
Fort Collins Occupancy Analysis
This memorandum presents an analysis of living arrangements of households according
to compliance with the current Fort Collins occupancy code. The analysis uses microdata
from IPUMS USA0F1 to provide demographic details of households according to the
number and relationship of people in current households. Microdata is not available by
city limit designations and as such the analysis includes the northern portion of Larimer
County which includes Fort Collins but also includes small communities outside of Fort
Collins (e.g., Bellvue, Wellington, Timnath) and unincorporated areas.1F
2 Figure 1 shows
the geographic area of analysis.
The occupancy limit ordinance, found in 3.8.16 of Fort Collins Land Use Code, currently
restricts the number of persons who occupy a dwelling unit to no more than three (3)
unrelated parties, or a family of any size plus one additional unrelated individual.
Throughout this memo households with four or more unrelated individuals or
composed of a family and more than one unrelated individual are labeled
nonconforming households.
There are 82,691 households in the area of analysis shown in Figure 1.2F3 Of those,
around 2 percent, or 1,875 households live in nonconforming households.
1 Estimates are based on 2019 5-year ACS data.
2 It excludes communities south of Fort Collins, e.g., Loveland and Estes Park.
3 Estimate excludes populations living in “group quarters,” defined in the Census as “group living arrangement that
is owned or m anaged by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents” and
generally include college dormitories, residential treatment centers, and correctional facilities.
Packet pg. 244
Page 2
Fig u r e 1. Geographic Area of Analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Type and Size
Figure 2 shows the number and distribution of all households and nonconforming
households by household size.
Overall, 94 percent of study area households are composed of 4 persons or less.
The majority of nonconforming households (68%) are composed of 4 persons,
another 30 percent are composed of 5 and 6 persons, and only 2 percent are
composed of more than 6 persons.
Packet pg. 245
Page 3
Figure 2 . Household Size
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research .
Almost half of all households (47%) are married-couple family households. Not
surprisingly, nonconforming households are more likely to be non-family households
(64%); however 438 households (23%) do include a family unit living in the household.
Figure 3 . Household Type
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Household size
Total 82,691 100%1,875 100%
1- Person household 19,764 24%-0%
2- Person household 33,688 41%-0%
3- Person household 13,380 16%-0%
4-Person household 10,696 13%1,284 68%
5-Person household 3,767 5%355 19%
6-Person household 995 1%199 11%
7-Person household 210 0%16 1%
8-Person household 97 0%21 1%
10-Person household 94 0%-0%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Household type
Total 82,691 100%1,875 100%
Family Households 45,892 55%438 23%
Married-couple household 38,778 47%299 16%
Male householder, no spouse present 2,225 3%58 3%
Female householder, no spouse present 4,889 6%81 4%
Non-Family Households 29,636 36%1,201 64%
Male householder, living alone 8,982 11%-0%
Male householder, not living alone 5,463 7%653 35%
Female householder, living alone 10,782 13%-0%
Female householder, not living alone 4,409 5%548 29%
Type could not be determined 7,163 9%236 13%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Packet pg. 246
Page 4
Homeownership and Structure
Figure 4 shows the number and distribution of households by tenure. Almost three
fourths (74%) of nonconforming households are renters.
Figure 4 . Tenure
Note:
Excludes households
living in group quarters.
Source:
IPUMS USA, University
of Minnesota,
www.ipums.org and
Root Policy Research.
Nonconforming households are less likely than conforming households to live in single
family detached homes. Overall 62 percent of households live in single family detached
homes compared to 54 percent of nonconforming households. Around 4 percent of
households live in building with 50 or more units, compared to 14 percent of
nonconforming households.
Incom e
Nonconforming households are more likely to have income below $50,000 compared to
all households (46% v. 37%) a nd are significantly less likely to have income between
$50,000 and $75,000 (10% v. 17%).
Figure 5 . Income Distribution
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Packet pg. 247
Page 5
Demographic Characteristics
Nonconforming households are slightly more racially and ethnically diverse (Figure 6).
Eighty five percent of all households are non-Hispanic White compared to 78 percent of
nonconforming households. Nonconforming households are more like to be of one or
more races (9% v. 2%).
Figure 6 . Racial and Ethnic Distribution
Note:
Excludes households living in group
quarters.
Source:
IPUMS USA, University of
Minnesota, www.ipums.org and
Root Policy Research.
Figure 7 presents the number and distribution of households grouped by different age
ranges of members in the household. Around 18 percent of nonconforming households
(341 households) include children. As expected, nonconforming households are
clustered around younger adults, 48 percent of nonconforming households are
composed of members between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure 7 . Age Range of Household Members
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Age range of household members
With children in household 21,090 26%341 18%
Without children in household:61,601 74%1,534 82%
College aged adults 18-24 8,405 10%909 48%
Middle aged adults 25-54 18,828 23%40 2%
Older adults 55 and over 23,160 28%0 0%
Broader Age Range 11,208 14%585 31%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Packet pg. 248
Page 6
Unit Size
Figure 8 shows the average number of persons per bedroom for different unit sizes and
the distribution of households by unit size. While there is some crowding among
nonconforming households in units with one and two bedrooms, the majority (76%) of
nonconforming households occupy units with 4 or more bedrooms. As shown, these
larger units tend to be underutilized—have less than one occupant per bedroom —
among conforming households while nonconforming households are more likely to
have a more appropriate utilization of these larger housing units, with an average of one
person per bedroom.
Figure 8. Average N um ber of P ersons per B edroom, and Household Distribution, by Unit Size
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Key Findings
Overall, around 2 percent, or 1,875 households are “nonconforming” households—
meaning their occupancy is currently out of compliance with Fort Collins’ code. Ke y
findings about the composition and characteristics of non-conforming households
include:
23% of all nonconforming households include a family unit living in the household;
26% of nonconforming households are owners;
54% of nonconforming households (or about 1,000 units) are living in single family
homes; the rest are in various types of attached housing;
Number of bedrooms
No bedrooms -2%-0%
On e bedroom 1.3 7%4.0 1%
Two bedrooms 1.0 27%2.1 5%
Three bedrooms 0.8 34%1.6 18%
Four bedrooms 0.7 21%1.0 54%
Five bedrooms 0.6 7%1.0 17%
Six bedrooms 0.6 1%0.9 5%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Average
Number of
Persons per
Percent of
Households in
Unit Type
Average Number
of Persons per
Bedroom
Percent of
Households in
Unit Type
Packet pg. 249
Page 7
Nonconforming households are more likely to have incomes below $50,000
compared to all households (46% v. 37%). However, occupancy isn’t just a low-
income issue: conforming and nonconforming households are similarly likely to
have incomes over $75,000 (46% and 43%, respectively).
Nonconforming households are slightly more racially and ethnically diverse that
households overall; and
Larger housing units (3 or more bedrooms) tend to be underutilized by conforming
households, while non-conforming households average 1 person per bedroom in
these units. (The majority (76%) of nonconforming households occupy units with 4
or more bedrooms).
Packet pg. 250
Council Work Session: Housing Strategic Plan Implementation05.09.23Occupancy Code OptionsMarcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services ManagerMeaghan Overton, Housing ManagerPacket pg. 251
2Questions for Council1. Which option for regulating occupancy do Councilmembers support? 2. If Council supports regulating occupancy based on number of adults and their dependents, how many adults and their dependents should be allowed to occupy one dwelling unit? 3. Which proposed changes to the City’s extra occupancy process do Councilmembers support, if any?Packet pg. 252
Background + Policy Alignment3Big Move 7: Healthy, Affordable Housing•HAH2: Explore revisions to the City’s occupancy ordinance•Strategy 21 - Explore revisions to occupancy limits and family definitions in order to streamline processes and calibrate the policy to support stable, healthy, and affordable housing citywide.•LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices•LIV 6: Improve access to housing …regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, ability, or backgroundPacket pg. 253
•Greatest Challenge #7: Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent.•Community engagement: a desire to proactively ensure healthy, safe units and maintain neighborhood quality of life• Lack of choices and affordable options • Concerns about impacts on specific populations including lower-income residents, LGBTQ+ residents• Concerns about impacts on neighborhoods if occupancy regulations are changed• Many opinions about the best approach to “right-sizing” the City’s occupancy ordinance4Background + Policy AlignmentWhy explore changes to occupancy regulations?Key OutcomesIncrease Housing Supply & Affordability (12)Increase Housing Diversity / Choice (12)Increase Stability / Renter Protections (11)Improve housing equity (11)Preserve Existing Affordable Housing (9)Increase Accessibility (2)Packet pg. 254
• Key Policy Decisions• 1963 – Adoption of Occupancy Ordinance (U+2)• 2005 – Decriminalization of occupancy violations, beginning of enforcement, increase support of nuisance enforcement• Research• Corona Insights Economic and Impact Studies completed in 2005, 2009, 2018• Peer City research • Root Policy Analysis on occupancy violations and housing stock # of bedrooms• Recent Council Direction• December 2020: Ad Hoc Housing Committee; direction for further work on rental licensing/registration, occupancy, and landlord incentives• October 2021: Full Council Work Session; support for community engagement to explore potential design of rental licensing/registration, revisions to occupancy, and small landlord incentives• August 2022: Full Council Work Session; support to continue moving forward with program design5Background + Policy AlignmentPrevious Council Direction and ResearchPacket pg. 255
Community Engagement6Engagement Activities ConductedGroupHousing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021Community Questionnaire, Aug. 2022Pop-up Engagement, Aug. 2022Rental Housing TaskforceRenters, neighborhood groups, HOAsPresentation to Northern CO Rental Housing Association, Feb. 2022Presentation to Board of Realtors, Feb. 2022Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022Rental Housing TaskforceLandlords, realtors, property managersConvening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core TeamConversations with IT, Building Services, Communications and Public Involvement Office, City Attorney’s OfficeCity DepartmentsAd Hoc Housing Committee discussion, Dec. 2020Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021 & August 2022CouncilPacket pg. 256
7Existing ConditionsHousehold SizePacket pg. 257
8Existing ConditionsNumbers of Bedrooms and Structure TypesPacket pg. 258
• Significant demographic shifts since 2005 in households violating U+2:• Price escalation (78% rent increase between 2005-2018) and low rental vacancy rates (under 5%) are likely resulting in “doubling up” to afford housing for a wide range of household configurations9Existing ConditionsDemographic Shifts201820051,2341,238Total (est) households in violation47%71%Percentage college students13%NegligiblePercentage children under 18Packet pg. 259
10Existing ConditionsHousing TenurePacket pg. 260
• Complaint-based system11Existing ConditionsCity Compliance Data# Citations# Violations# CasesYear0Voluntary compliance21 (29%)7320225 occupancy3 failure to disclose39 (40%)9720219 occupancy3 failure to disclosure44 (35%)12620206 occupancy15 failure to disclosure57 (35%)162201916 occupancy6 failure to disclosure80 (38%)2092018Packet pg. 261
12Community EngagementNon Industry homeownersHomeownersRentersAll RespondentsOccupancyNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesAgree or disagree with the following statements:55%45%64%36%78%22%69%31%Should Fort Collins occupancy limit stay as they are?49%43%41%50%23%72%35%62%Allow extra occupancy rentals in more places around the city46%43%39%51%21%74%33%59%Make the process to approve extra occupancy easier51%38%44%47%33%59%50%51%Adjust occupancy limit to match number of bedrooms in a home52%28%47%21%31%51%41%48%Regulate occupancy based on household function, not family relatedness63%24%57%27%69%12%61%22%Regulate occupancy based on number of parking spaces44%44%36%54%26%61%32%56%Focus on regulating nuisances instead of occupancy52%39%45%47%23%73%37%56%Increase occupancy limits to more than 3 unrelated residents67%24%63%27%36%52%54%36%Eliminate occupancy limits completelyQuestionnaire, Summer 2021Packet pg. 262
Rental Housing Taskforce Recommendations:Revise the current occupancy ordinance• Regulate based on number of bedrooms rather than the number of unrelated adults; OR• Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide• Evaluate extra occupancy rental applications through an administrative permit process, not a land use approvalBest Practices from peer cities research (40+ cities, 22 in Colorado):Revise the current occupancy ordinance - multiple approaches• Regulate based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness.• Increase the number of unrelated adults permitted.• Regulate based on number of bedrooms or square footage13Recommendations and Best PracticesPacket pg. 263
Part 1: Occupancy Ordinance Definitions14• Current definition: Familyshall mean any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities.• Options to consider:1. Keep the current definition of “family” in Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.22. Regulate occupancy based on the number of adults and their dependents; remove the definition of family/relationship from Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.2 Note: “Dependents” would require a clear, enforceable definitionPacket pg. 264
Part 2: Number of Adults and Dependents15• Options to consider:1. Three adults and their dependents2. Four adults and their dependents3. _____ adults and their dependents• Potential impacts to consider:• Multi-generational families• Households with multiple non-dependent adultsMO0Packet pg. 265
Slide 15MO0 Others?Meaghan Overton, 2023-04-05T02:17:53.246Packet pg. 266
Part 3: Extra Occupancy Process16• Current process: Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code regulates extra occupancy requirements and review typesReview TypeParkingMaximum % of parcels per block faceMaximum number of residents, excluding occupant familyZone> 4 occupants: Type 11 bicycle space per occupant.75 vehicle space per occupant, rounded up to the nearest whole parking spaceNo more than 25% of a block faceOne occupant per 350 square feet of habitable floor spaceAdditional minimum 400 square feet if owner-occupiedMixed-Use Zones (LMN)5 or fewer occupants: BDR>5 occupants: Type 1No limitMixed-Use Zones (MMN, HMN, NCB)Downtown, Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Zones (D, RDR, CC, CCN, CCR, CG, CN, NC, CL, E, I)Extra occupancy not allowedResidential, Harmony Corridor, and Open Lands (RL, NCL, RF, UE, NCM, HC, POL, RC)Packet pg. 267
Part 3: Extra Occupancy Process17• Options to consider:1. Remove from Land Use Code, instead create an administrative permit process-Permit could then be granted to the property owner rather than “running with the land” as a land use approval2. Allow in more places or citywide, consider streamlined requirements3. Regulate number of extra occupants based on number of bedrooms rather than square footage4. Could require a rental inspection before issuing the permitAG0Packet pg. 268
Slide 17AG0 should this indicate that the following reflects a "proposal" upon which we are seeking guidance from Council.Aaron Guin, 2023-04-04T22:21:46.897Packet pg. 269
Part 3: Extra Occupancy Process18Potential Example (illustrative only)• Any 1 to 2-bedroom unit could allow 3/4 adults and dependents and each additional bedroom could allow for 1 additional adult and dependents, not to exceed 6/7 adults and their dependents. Example:# of adults, if 4 + dependents# of adults, if 3 + dependentsBedrooms543rdbed654thbed765thbed76thbedPacket pg. 270
Engagement Plan and Timeline19Engagement approach will be finalized pending Council directionKey engagement questions:• What are your thoughts about the options being considered?• What is the best fit for Fort Collins?• What is missing?Proposed Timeline:• Summer 2023 – Neighborhood engagement• Fall 2023 – Student/CSU community engagement• Winter 2023 – Council actionPacket pg. 271
20Questions for Council1. Which option for regulating occupancy do Councilmembers support? 2. If Council supports regulating occupancy based on number of adults and their dependents, how many adults and their dependents should be allowed to occupy one dwelling unit? 3. Which proposed changes to the City’s extra occupancy process do Councilmembers support, if any?Packet pg. 272
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:THANK YOU!Packet pg. 273
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE
Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
Planning & Development Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
MEMORANDUM
Date April 14, 2023
To
From
Re
Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison
April 2022 Public Engagement Update
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Commission a monthly review of staff efforts to engage the
public in Development Review as well as preview upcoming work of interest.
March Public Engagement
• Neighborhood meetings - 3
1. J & G Farm Restaurant
2. Watermark on Willox
3. Hull Orchards
Upcoming April Public Engagement
• Neighborhood meetings – 2
1. Landing at Lemay
2. Hartford & Habitat Condos
• Land Use Code Events - 3
1. Virtual information & listening session, 4/24
• Copies a similar event last November
• Maximum of 500 people on Zoom, anyone can come
• Simultaneous Spanish interpretation
• Short presentation from staff
• Q&A
2. Public forum with the CSU Center for Public Deliberation, 4/26
• Targeted registration for 70 key stakeholders
• Facilitator-led small-group discussion
• Staff available to give brief presentations and answer questions
3. Soft launch of neighborhood walking tours with Next Level Neighborhoods (NLN), TBD
• Next Level Neighborhoods is a current Neighborhood Services program which
has already established great relationships with leaders in 8 neighborhoods
• Observatory Village is a member and will host the inaugural walking tour with
NLN leaders and Observatory Village residents.
• Staff will be able to practice their presentations and answering questions with
a friendly, knowledgeable audience before opening walking tour registration to
the general public
• Working with NLN to schedule during the last two weeks of April
Packet pg. 274