HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/26/2021 - HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONDATE:
STAFF:
October 26, 2021
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Senior Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Housing Strategic Plan Implementation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Work Session is to:
1. Provide updates on implementation progress for three interrelated Housing Strategic Plan strategies:
a. Rental licensing/registration (Strategy 20)
b. Occupancy ordinance revisions (Strategy 21)
c. Small Landlord Incentives (Strategy 26);
2. Share findings from recently completed demographic and market research and peer cities exploration;
3. Seek input about the proposed implementation roadmap and next steps for community dialogue.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed roadmap for rental licensing, inspections,
occupancy ordinance revisions, and small landlord incentives?
2. What additional information would be helpful to inform Council’s dialogue and decision -making process about
these strategies?
BACKGROUND
The City has had an adopted occupancy ordinance since 1963. Active enforcement of the ordinance (also called
U+2) began in 2005 with the establishment of an occupancy enforcement program. Currently, enforcement of the
occupancy ordinance is managed with a complaint-based system that investigates reports of suspected over
occupancy, typically based on parking, noise, or rubbish issues in the neighborhood. In the last several years,
cases have ranged from 160 to just over 200 annually. During 2020, the number of cases was lower, likely due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Typically, 35-50% of complaints are sustained, and the balance are unfounded or
unproven.
The most recent community discussion about occupancy and rental programming occurred in 2020 as part of the
development of the Housing Strategic Plan. In December 2020, the Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee
expressed interest in exploring rental licensing and revisions to the occupancy ordinance to better support
healthy, stable housing for people who rent their homes.
Initial steps to share with Council at this work session include an overview of Previous Council Direction, a
summary of Housing Strategic Plan Alignment (why), findings from Demographic and Market Analysis (who),
summary of Peer Cities Research (what), and an outline of a Proposed Roadmap for implementation (when
and how).
October 26, 2021 Page 2
Previous Council Direction
Though the City has had an adopted occupancy ordinance since 1963, the penalty for occupancy violations prior
to 2005 was a criminal misdemeanor rather than a civil infraction. In November 2005, Council unanimously
decided to decriminalize occupancy violations and directed staff to develop an enforcement structure. Council
also considered several options for rental registration and licensing as part of this discussion, but a formal rental
registration or licensing program was not pursued.
The 2005 ordinances adopted the following policy changes:
• Made occupancy violations a civil rather than criminal offense;
• Updated land use code definitions for “family” and revised code language regarding boarding houses;
• Required property owner affidavit signature upon sale of single -unit or duplex homes acknowledging the
occupancy ordinance; and
• Directed staff to utilize utility records in lieu of rental registration requirements (to be effective in 2007).
Since 2005, Council has had several in-depth conversations about occupancy, nuisance regulation, and rental
licensing as part of the community dialogue about neighborhood livability. Council has also reviewed regular
evaluations of the occupancy ordinance and its impacts. Below is a selection of work sessions and hearings
related to occupancy and rental licensing. (Please refer Attachment 6 for links to the following documents.)
• December 2020 - Ad-Hoc Housing Committee Discussion of Occupancy and Rental Regulations
• February 2019 Work Session - Occupancy Limit Enforcement and Chronic Nuisance Properties Update
• January 2019 Work Session Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (results)
• December 2016 Work Session - Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (scope of study)
• February 2016 Work Session Summary - Rental Licensing (decision to pursue options outside of rental
licensing)
• February 2016 Work Session - Rental Licensing
• November 2014 Work Session - Housing Affordability Policy Study (evaluated U+2 and recommended
modifications to extra occupancy processes)
• October 2009 Work - Occupancy Ordinance Two-Year Review and Policy Discussion
• August 2009 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance “Economic and Market Impact Study”
• August 2007 Work Session - Review and update of the Over-Occupancy Enforcement Program
• November 2005 Hearing (Second Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
• November 2005 Hearing (First Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations a nd Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
• August 2005 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance
• October 2004 Work Session - Rental Licensing Alternatives
The most recent Council discussion about occupancy and rental programming occurred in December 20 20 as
part of the development of the Housing Strategic Plan. In December 2020, the Council Ad Hoc Housing
Committee expressed interest in exploring rental licensing to support healthy, stable housing for people who rent
their homes. The Committee encourage d consideration of a pilot program and emphasized that flexibility in
program implementation would be critical. The Committee also discussed the occupancy ordinance and
suggested that revisions to the definition of “family” and the process for approval of extra occupancy rental
housing could be two “quick wins” to pursue. Committee members had differing opinions about the occupancy
ordinance. Discussion included whether the occupancy ordinance should be rescinded in favor of rental
registration, or whether it should be amended and “right-sized” to better meet community needs. However, all
Committee members supported further work on occupancy and rental programming.
Housing Strategic Plan Alignment - Why are we discussing occupancy and rental programming?
The Housing Strategic Plan (HSP, March 2021) is the most recent update to the City’s adopted housing policy
with a vision that everyone has healthy, stable, housing they can afford. The HSP identified 7 “Greatest
Challenges” to achieving the vision and prioritized 26 strategies designed to address one or more challenges. The
October 26, 2021 Page 3
three strategies addressed in this work session are intended to address Greatest Challenge # 7: Housing policies
have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent.
Full implementation of these strategies is expected to take several years of exploration and development as they
are listed as either transformational (2+ years) or transitional (1 -2 years) strategies. Inclusion of these strategies
in the HSP was a direct reflection of both community and Council feedback during the engagement process.
HSP Engagement - What we heard
As the Previous Council Direction section indicates, Fort Collins has had a long -standing community dialogue
about the best way(s) to address nuisance issues and ensure safe, healthy housing for renters. During public
engagement for the HSP, occupancy and rental programming were frequent topics of discussion and debate. A
summary of common themes is included below, and more information is available in the Housing Strategic Plan-
Fall 2020 Engagement Report:
• Community comments indicated a range of concerns: a need to proactively ensure healthy, safe units; fear of
retaliation or loss of housing if renters report substandard or unsafe units; concerns about discrimination; and
lack of choices and affordable options because of the current restrictions on occupancy. Rental registration
was a common suggestion for addressing these concerns.
• There was not a clear consensus about the best path forward for the City’s occupancy ordinance. Some
participants supported repealing or modifying U+2. This was seen as a potential benefit for people of all ages
living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up” additional homes for rental or purchase. Others
credited U+2 with positively impacting their neighborhoods and controlling nuisance issues.
• Many comments brought up concerns about the definition of a “family” in the current occupancy ordinance,
October 26, 2021 Page 4
pointing to changes in community demographics and household configurations as reasons to reevaluate the
ordinance. Several participants shared stories about the impact of high housing costs that led them to “double
up” with other households in violation of the occupancy limits. Suggestions for potential solutions included
limiting occupancy to the number of bedrooms in a home or to a certain amount of space for each person,
rather than an ordinance based on peoples’ relationships to each other.
o Land Use Code 5.1.2 definition: Family shall 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.
Demographic and Market Analysis - Who is impacted?
Households in violation of U+2: The demographic characteristics of households in violation of U+2 and the impact
of U+2 on the housing market have been studied reg ularly to evaluate the effectiveness of the occupancy
ordinance. The City partnered with Corona Insights to conduct the most recent of these evaluations in 2018. The
study was presented to Council at a work session in January 2019 .
Most residents in Fort Collins are in compliance with the City’s occupancy ordinance. The Corona Insights survey
estimated that the total population of households in violation of the City’s occupancy ordinance is around 1,234
with an average household size of 5 people. These 1,234 households represent approximately 3.5% of the city’s
total population.
Compared to the previous survey in 2005, the 2018 study reported a dramatic shift in the demographics of
households in violation of U+2. In 2005, 71% of violators were college students. In 2018, students were no longer
the majority demographic in violation; only 47% of households in violation were estimated to be students while
53% were non-student households. These non-student households also included a much larger number of
children under 18, who were estimated to make up about 13% of the total population of residents in violation.
These demographic shifts suggest that, compared to 2005, a wider cross -section of households are bringing in
roommates in violation of the occupancy ordinance, likely to defray high housing costs.
Market impacts: The Corona Insights study indicated that the occupancy ordinance has contributed to low rental
vacancy rates and higher housing costs. However, the study also emphasized the complexit y of factors
influencing the housing market. It is difficult to isolate the impact of the occupancy ordinance in the context of the
rising costs of housing overall, high demand due to population growth, and low supply of available housing in the
city.
October 26, 2021 Page 5
Other Renter Households: While enforcement of the occupancy ordinance impacts a small percentage of
residents and housing units (approximately 3.5% of population and 1,234 homes), more than 40% of all housing
in Fort Collins is renter-occupied. Census data indicates that 46.9% of housing units in Fort Collins are renter -
occupied, and City Utilities data estimates that 43% of housing units (about 38,000 homes) in Fort Collins are
rental properties.
Est. # of homes* Est. % of all housing
Total (citywide) 87,863 100%
Owned Units 49,775 57%
Rental Units 38,088 43%
Single-Household, detached rentals 14,419 16% (38% of all rentals)
Multi-household, mixed-use or manufactured housing rentals 23,669 27% (62% of all rentals)
*Note: This data is the best available information at present but should be interpreted as an estimate because of potential data
gaps or lags in reporting property information.
Most renters in Fort Collins are also struggling to afford high housing costs. About 60% of re nters are cost-
burdened, meaning they are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Furthermore, ensuring healthy,
safe housing is a priority for HSP implementation. Eleven of the 26 strategies in the plan seek to increase housing
stability and/or renter protections. While the City’s occupancy ordinance has historically played an important role
in addressing nuisance issues in neighborhoods and health and safety concerns for households in violation, it has
not had a direct impact on the health or safety of housing for most renters in our community who are not in
violation of the ordinance.
Peer Cities Research - What do other communities do? What are the best practices?
Since adoption of the HSP in March 2021, a team of City staff has been cond ucting thorough research into peer
communities and best practices for occupancy and rental programming. A summary of this research is below, with
details in the attachments as noted:
1. CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy. In 2020, staff working on the HSP were
approached by Shelby Sommer to explore a capstone project for her Master’s Degree in Public Administration
around rental regulations. Specifically, Ms. Sommer’s research explored rental housing regulations including
occupancy, registration, licensing, and inspections for 20 communities across the United States, with
emphasis on communities that have similar housing markets or demographic characteristics to Fort Collins.
Interviews with four of the 20 communities provided additional insight and considerations for Fort Collins and
October 26, 2021 Page 6
other communities exploring new rental regulations. This research was shared with the Council Ad Hoc
Housing Committee in December 2020 (Attachment 1).
Key findings:
• The most common type of rental regulations were paired licensing and inspection programs; however,
there are many regulatory permutations for communities to consider.
• Approaches that incorporate occupancy restrictions and focus rental registration and inspections on
properties with a history of code compliance issues appear to be strategic and effective alternatives to
comprehensive licensing and inspection programs.
• Rental regulations would likely lead to health, safety, and equity improvements but may have less of an
impact on overall housing stability or affordability.
• Communities that adopt or revise rental housing regulations can expect political resistance and potential
legal challenges. A collaborative and thorough stakeholder engagement process is critical to succes sful
program development and regulation adoption.
2. Peer Communities Interviews: Root Policy Research. Root Policy Research completed peer community
research and conducted in-depth interviews with 10 peer cities about their rental and occupancy
regulations. A summary of recommendations is included below, with full details in Attachment 2:
Licensing · Require all rental properties to register with the city and obtain a license. · Require all
rental properties to pass an inspection prior to renting units. · Provide a three-year
introductory period to provide education, allow property owners to ensure properties are
habitable for inspection, and get properties licensed prior to full enforcement.
Enforcement · Lead with education to tenants and landlords before issuing a citation. · Consider
requiring landlords that rent four or more units and live more than 50 miles from the city
to designate a local contact with authority to fix maintenance issues and make repairs. ·
Consult the city’s legal team to understand the options for enforcement penalties and
escalation of violations. Review enforcement tactics with City Council.
Fee structure · Design the fee structure to cover the costs of running the program. · Charge fees based
on the number of rental units under ownership, not based on the number of properties.
This ensures the administrative burden is consistent with the fee charged · Assume
startup costs will be more than you think · Hire full time staff dedicated to this program,
particularly inspectors.
Inspections · Require mandatory life and safety inspections of rental properties. · Provide a tiered
inspection schedule to alleviate the burden of inspections on landlords who maintain their
property to a higher standard. Consider the number of c itations received during initial
inspection as a gauge for the inspection period. · Inspect all properties at least once
every four years. · Inspect all rental properties, even if they are inspected through
another program. Explore opportunities to coordinate inspections to alleviate burden on
landlords. · Hire city inspectors to perform rental inspections but allow landlords to
choose a private inspector if they wish.
Landlord and
tenant
involvement
· Convene a stakeholder advisory committee to collaborate on process efficiencies,
program cost, and implementation timelines for open communication. · Hold quarterly
meetings with stakeholders and residents to identify issues with implementation, discuss
progress and effectiveness, and provide education.
Other
considerations
· Review energy efficiency standards for new construction in the city. Reevaluate the
introduction of minimum energy efficiency standards for existing rental properties in five
years to avoid overburdening landlords and administrative staff while implementing initial
rental regulations. Life and safety issues are the priority. · Partner with Colorado State
University code of conduct office on a notice system that involves the university in
nuisance violations in off campus student housing. · Treat mobile and manufactured
housing units the same as other rental units if the unit itself is occupied by a renter. Lot
rent should not be considered a rental property trigger if the unit is owner occupied.
October 26, 2021 Page 7
Implementation · Create a community education and engagement plan to guide outreach efforts over the
first three years of implementation. Include education, stakeholder engagement, student
engagement, clear expectations on timing, and key messaging about the purpose and
jurisdiction of the program regulations. · Formalize the process for filing and investigating
complaints to remove biases. · Work closely with the city’s IT staff to identify the unique
software needs to administer the program and register properties efficiently.
Occupancy · Revise the occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household functionality rather
than familial relatedness.
3. Occupancy document and code review of peer and Colorado cities : Staff Research. City code currently limits
occupancy to three unrelated adults, requires two parking spaces, and utilizes the term “family”. Staff
investigated 14 peer cities and 22 Colorado cities (36 total cities) to explore different code approaches to
occupancy and related regulations. (Attachment 3)
Peer City key findings:
• The number of unrelated adults permitted across 14 peer cities ranged from 2 to 8 people. The most
common number of unrelated adults permitted in a household was 5 people.
• Parking requirements per unit range from no parking to 2 spaces plus a garage. About half of the peer
cities researched require 1 space per unit, while the other half require 2 spaces per unit.
• 8 peer cities use the term “family” in their code, 4 use the term “household”, and one uses “dwelling unit”.
Colorado city key findings:
• The number of unrelated adults permitted across 22 Colorado cities ranged from 2 to 5 people. Most
permitted 4 or 5 unrelated persons per household.
• Parking requirements ranged from no requirement up to 4 spaces per unit (2 enclosed and 2 open). Most
required 2 parking spaces per unit.
• 17 Colorado cities use the term “family” in their code and 5 use “household”.
Key Takeaways: This peer cities and best practices research was one of the initial steps toward exploration of
rental programming, occupancy revisions, and small landlord incentives. Both rental programming and occupancy
regulations are common approaches to addressing health, safety and nuisance concerns. However,
implementation of these programs varies widely across the cities studied. Recommendations for implementation
were to design a rental licensing program (as compared to a program requiring only registration and no
inspections) and to revise the City’s current occupancy ordinance:
• Implement a rental licensing program that includes:
o Inspection of units
o A fee structure designed to cover program costs
o Training for staff, landlords, and tenants
o Involve landlords and tenant in program design and implementation
• Revise the current occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household functionality rather than familial
relatedness.
Proposed Roadmap - How and when could implementation happen?
In accordance with HSP strategies and informed by the best practice research and recommendations
summarized above, staff is proposing a five-year roadmap that would begin with a pilot program and targeted
updates to the occupancy ordinance while working toward development of rental licensing and inspections
(Strategy 20), changes to the occupancy ordinance (Strategy 2 1), and small landlord incentives (Strategy 26).
Consultation with the City Attorney’s office is also underway and there is acknowledgement that law and policy
best practices have evolved during the life of the City’s occupancy regulations. Considering this, the City’s legacy
October 26, 2021 Page 8
approach to regulating occupancy levels and their impacts is under review. This is expected to identify more
direct and equitable ways to regulate occupancy to maximize housing availability, maintain the City’s unique
character, move towards our Climate Action Plan goals and protect our neighborhoods through the updated Land
Use Code provisions.
These three strategies intertwine, and the information gained in each phase of the roadmap will inform the
appropriate next steps. During program development and implementation these factors should be considered:
• Ensuring the cost of rental licensing does not create a significant increase in costs to renters and managing
costs so that no one is forced out of the market (renters or landlords).
• Changes should not incentivize a shift in the housing market; programs should seek to maintain a healthy
balance of investors renting properties and primary home ownership.
Detailed Outline of Occupancy and Rental Programming Roadmap: The proposed approach to these three
strategies (Strategy 20 - rental licensing, Strategy 21 - occupancy, Strategy 26 - small landlord incentives) begins
with a pilot phase and adjustments to the occupancy ordinance (Year 1) before moving into mandatory ren tal
licensing and inspection (Years 2-4) and finally into enforcement and full operation of a rental licensing program.
During Year 5, staff recommends evaluating the function and effectiveness of the occupancy ordinance.
Year one: Strategy 20 and 21
• Explore options for adjusting occupancy code from family definitions to household functionality.
• As part of Land Use Code changes, evaluate a shift for extra occupancy approval from a development review
process to an administrative permit process.
• Pilot a rental licensing program, inviting and incentivizing voluntary licensing.
• Finalize a fee structure that will cover program costs.
• Select and pilot a tracking software system.
• Develop landlord training to be incorporated into licensing process.
• Recruit, select and train third party inspectors.
• Council policy decision on full program implementation
Year 2:
• Year one of mandatory rental licensing program, including training, inspections, and fees.
o Annual renewal of rental licensing information with inspections every 4 years.
October 26, 2021 Page 9
• 25% of inspections will be completed by 3rd party contractors
o Complaints on rental units will be handled by City Building inspectors.
o Any units not passing inspection by the 3rd party contractors will be referred to City building inspectors to
ensure compliance is reached.
• Inspections should begin informing the number of units needing repair and types of repairs most needed.
This helps identify the size and scope of small landlord incentives that are developed and piloted in year
three.
• Educate and work toward voluntary compliance
Year 3 and 4: Strategy 26
• Rental licensing program continues.
• 25% of inspections completed each year.
• Pilot landlord incentives.
o Begin with health and safety issues
o Consider incentives for landlords utilizing affordable housing programs
o Explore options for landlords upgrading energy efficiency, historical preservation, etc.
• Educate and work toward voluntary compliance
• Check-in after 50% of inspections are completed to determine if adjustments need to be made in structure or
fees.
• Complete a process check-in on the extra occupancy permit process and potential impacts to the occupancy
code.
Year 5:
• Final 25% of inspections are completed.
• Begin enforcement for properties that do not pass inspections or are not in compliance with administrative
components.
• Evaluate licensing program effectiveness, fee structure, training, etc.
• Council policy decision on occupancy code.
Preliminary costs of implementation: If supported by Council, funding for a rental registration program will be
pursued as part of the City’s Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) process beginning with next year’s (2023 -2024)
budget cycle. Based on some of the following factors, staff will be able to better estimate the costs in the next two
budget cycles. The end goal is that the fee structure creates a full cost recovery.
Key factors:
• Percentage of rental units inspected
• Cost per unit or tiered based on number of units, affordable units, etc.
• Costs of tracking software, other program components, etc.
• Number and types of staffing needed based on how the program fleshes out.
NEXT STEPS:
If Council is supportive of the proposed approach, staff plan to initiate a thorough public engagement process to
finalize program and design in early 2022, with a work session to share engagement results.
• Landlords and property management companies: Involve these stakeholders in exploration of the pros, cons,
and mutual benefits of rental licensing, inspections, and incentives. Fine tune the program before piloting and
share input on program and incentive design.
• Renters, neighborhood groups, HOAs: Consult with these stakeholders about whether the pilot programs
proposed would address the issues raised during the initial HSP engagement around health, safety,
affordability, and nuisance concerns.
• Other key stakeholders such as realtors, boards and commissions, etc: Inform of potential upcoming
October 26, 2021 Page 10
changes and listen to feedback.
Council: Future council work session to share engagement results and details for year 1 pilot.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (PDF)
2. Peer Community Research (PDF)
3. Occupancy Document and Code Review (PDF)
4. Rental Housing Minimum Requirements (DOC)
5. Rental Market Study (PDF)
6. Links to Referenced Documents (PDF)
7. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
AGENDA
City Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee
Thursday, December 10, 2020, 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual
Public is encouraged to listen through Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/98351510422
Or Telephone: Dial: (253) 215-8782 or (346) 248-7799 Webinar ID: 983 5151 0422
Committee Members: Kristin Stephens (Mayor Pro Tem), District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5
Emily Gorgol, District 6
Committee Contact: Lindsay Ex, lex@fcgov.com
Note: Per Ord. No 079, the Committee Chair, may in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, determine
that meeting in person would not be prudent for some or all persons due to a public health emergency or other
unforeseen circumstance affecting the city. Committee Chair Emily Gorgol has conferred with the City Manager and the
City Attorney and has determined that the Committee will conduct this meeting remotely pursuant to Ord. No. 079. As
well, an individual Committee member may request to participate remotely even if the rest of the Committee will be
there if the member has a concern about their or others’ health or safety by notifying the Clerk at least three hours in
advance of the meeting.
1.Call Meeting to Order
2.Approval of November 12, 2020 minutes
3.Agenda Review
4.Discussion Items
a.Review: Anti-displacement and Housing Stability (Clay Frickey, Redevelopment
Manager)
•Review the November meeting discussion and staff work since then
•Committee discussion around strategies and solutions
b. Explore:
•Topic 1: Funding and Financing Strategies (Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Housing Policy
and Program Manager; Victoria Shaw, Sr Financial Analyst)
o Staff review of funding sources available, gap needed to achieve current
goal, and an overview of options and strategies
o Committee discussion
•Topic 2: Occupancy and Rental Regulations (Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood
Services Manager; Justin Moore, Code Compliance Lead Inspector)
o Overview of existing occupancy regulations in Fort Collins
o Guest presentation (Shelby Sommer, CU Denver Masters Student)
o Committee discussion
5.Next Meeting Focus and Process Check-in
There are three or more members of City Council that may attend this meeting. While no formal action will be
taken by the Council at this meeting, the discussion of public business will occur and the meeting is open to the
public via Zoom.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Meeting Pre-Work to Prepare for the December 10, 2020 Meeting
2.November 12, 2020 Draft Minutes
3.Pre-Work Item #3: Additional background on Fort Collins’ occupancy program
4.Pre-Work Item #3: Shelby Sommer’s Capstone Paper on Rental Regulations and Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1: MEETING PRE-WORK
Pre-Work Item #1: Options for moving the Anti-Displacement and Housing Stability
Conversation forward
Description: At the November Ad Hoc Housing Committee
meeting, Councilmembers discussed anti-displacement and housing
stability and asked for additional information on the following
strategies as potential quick(er) wins:
• Support for legal defense fund to prevent evictions
• Support for financial literacy programs
• Develop maps showing neighborhoods assessing risk of
displacement and gentrification
Staff spent the past month assessing the feasibility of each anti-displacement strategy. What follows is
a brief overview of how the City could act on each of these strategies on the short term.
Legal Defense Fund
Overview: Evictions have been minimal due to the federal moratorium on evictions. This moratorium
lasts until the end of 2020. Once this moratorium expires, staff anticipates a sharp increase in evictions
and thus a greater need for legal defense for households under threat of illegal evictions. In speaking
with service providers, there is also an opportunity to provide education and address other housing
security issues that come up during consultations on eviction cases.
Potential Action: Colorado Legal Services estimated an annual cost of a dedicated attorney and
bilingual paralegal at $125,000. This would cover direct representation in court, education and outreach
for tenants and landlords, training specialized mediation volunteers to assist tenants on the day of a
hearing (for previously unrepresented tenants) and with Conflict Mediation prior to court hearings, legal
clinic/Ask A Lawyer days, “walk-in” assistance, and working with the court to get eviction avoidance
resources printed in the packet for service on tenants facing eviction.
Financial Literacy Programs
Overview: The City currently provides financial support for financial literacy programs through the
competitive process. Other community organizations offer financial literacy programs and have not
sought funding through the competitive process in the past.
Potential Action: The City could allocate additional funds to the competitive process and encourage
organizations that provide financial literacy programs to apply for funding through the competitive
process. The CDBG Commission has full discretion on how to apply funds in the competitive process,
however. This means the CDBG Commission could end up allocating additional funds to other
priorities. Staff could also pursue supporting financial literacy programs offered by local banks. This
would be outside the competitive process and further this objective.
Gentrification/Displacement Mapping
Overview: Other communities have created indices and maps showing the threat of displacement and
gentrification at the neighborhood level.
Potential Action: In discussing this concept with GIS staff, this type of project is feasible, and its
implementation is dependent on the complexity of the map. If the map uses readily available data from
the City, County, and Census, the map could take a few months to develop and implement using only
staff resources. Additional data sources increase the complexity of the map and the time it would take
for staff to implement. An option for moving forward would be to create a simplified version of the map,
test it, and then refine over time. Staff can complete this project without any additional resources.
Discussion Question: Would Committee members like to see any of these three quick(er) wins move
forward now or be evaluated and considered within the full planning process?
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #6: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing
stability and healthy housing,
especially for people who rent.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 3
Pre-Work Item #2: Explore Topic 1: Funding and Financing Solutions
Description: At the November meeting, Councilmembers
expressed the desire to dive in more deeply on funding and
financing solutions for affordable housing. This section includes the
following:
• A review of existing financing mechanisms and incentives
• A deeper dive into the scale of the gap ($8.8M/year) and
associated assumptions
• current occupancy ordinance; and
• Opportunities to increase funding available for direct subsidy
from City resources as well as opportunities beyond direct City funding
Analysis of Existing Financing Mechanisms & Incentives: The City of Fort Collins maintains a
portfolio of mechanisms to incentivize Affordable housing. The below table illustrates how the current
mechanisms support different housing needs:
The median level of City contributions in new construction & renovation of affordable housing projects
from 2015-2020 was $38,970 per unit. The City also provides other incentives to support affordable
housing beyond direct subsidy.
The City has two direct funding sources which have contributed to Affordable housing developments:
• Competitive Process funding - The City distributes federal and local funds through an annual
competitive process. Federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME
program combine with the City Affordable Housing Fund to distribute between $1.5- $3M
annually. At median subsidy, this could yield 38-77 units per year.
• Affordable Housing Capital Fund - The Affordable Housing Capital Fund is part of a dedicated
sales tax. $500K per year is expected for this fund from 2020-2025. The language requires that
these funds be used for the capital needs of one or more affordable housing developments. At
median subsidy, this could yield 12 units per year.
Over the past 5 years, 884 units have been incentivized through the existing mechanisms. An
additional 245 units are also under construction.
Scale of Gap & Assumptions behind $8.8M/year: A gap of $8.8M would represent the median level
of City contribution of $38,970 per unit extended across 228 units. This is a simple figure which
illuminates the scale of the gap, but does not account for additional complexities such as:
• Median figures are a common way to express housing costs and avoid skewing the data
towards outliers. It means that half of projects have exceed this figure and half have required
less. Many projects which required less leveraged one-time funding opportunities. Although we
seek to maximize leverage of City funds, we cannot depend on those external funding sources
to reoccur.
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #3: The City does have
some tools to encourage affordable
housing, but the current amount of
funding and incentives for
affordable housing are
not enough to meet our goals.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 4
• 228 units/year was the need identified in the last plan; this may be revised in the next plan.
• Recently, there have been increases to raw material costs. Land and/or labor costs are also
market driven and outside of our control. Changes in those costs could change the per unit gap.
• Many non-City funding mechanisms that contributed to these developments are being maxed
out. This means that the leverage ratio realized vs. the direct City funding may not be
sustainable if the volume of units per year is significantly increased. This could also increase the
subsidy amount needed from the City.
Opportunities to Increase Funding Available for Direct Subsidy: There are multiple approaches the
City could take to invest more direct subsidy in affordable housing. It is likely multiple mechanisms
would need to be implemented to reach $8.8M.
1. Options to Expand Existing Funding Pools:
• Increase funding to the Affordable Housing Fund – Additional allocation from the General Fund
during the Budgeting for Outcomes process would allow for more investment in affordable housing.
o While this in City Council’s control, it requires balancing against competing budget needs.
o The amount committed has been about $535K for the past two years.
• New dedicated sales tax – Currently, the Affordable Housing Capital Fund is funded through 2025
at $500K per year. A new tax could substantially add to the funds in the Affordable Housing Capital
Fund or the Affordable Housing Fund.
o A sales tax of .25% would yield about $9M annually.
o A sales tax of .10% would yield about $3.5M annually.
o This would require an election and would need to be balanced with other City priorities.
2. New Funding Opportunities:
• Commercial and/or Residential Linkage Fees - Linkage fees are policy tools that generate
revenue by charging a fee on new development. It can be assessed on new commercial or market
and/or luxury rate residential developments. All proceeds from these fees would be dedicated for
investments in affordable housing development.
o The City’s Feasibility Study for Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fees
(May 2020) found that Residential and Commercial linkage fees could be justified at levels
that exceed what the market could accommodate.
o The study suggested that potential annual yields span a wide range:
• General obligation bonds - General obligation bonds are government issued bonds that are
repaid from general funds or a dedicated tax. While securing general obligation bonds can be
challenging, once issued the proceeds can be used flexibly.
• Urban Renewal Authority and Tax increment financing - Tax increment financing (TIF) is a
vehicle for issuing bonds which fund the redevelopment of designated plan areas. The plan areas
capture incremental tax revenue generated by development in the district.
Opportunity Potential Yield Difficulty
Expand Affordable Housing Fund during BFO Medium to High High
Implement New Dedicated Sales Tax Medium to High High
Opportunity Potential Yield Difficulty Examples
Residential & Commercial linkage fees Medium to High Medium Boston; Chicago
General Obligation Bond for Affordable Housing Medium (One-Time)High Portland, OR
Tax Increment Financing in new URA areas Minimal Low Minnesota; Texas
Demolition Tax or Fee Low Medium Lake Forest, IL
Residential Commercial
5% of Max Justifiable $700K 50% of Max Justifiable $74K
50% of Max Justifiable $7M 75% of Max Justifiable $111K
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 5
• Demolition taxes - Demolition taxes are levied on property owners when they tear down residential
buildings. Demolition can result in the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing if the
replacement unit is of a higher cost. This type of tax helps compensate for that loss.
3. Opportunities beyond direct City funding
The City is just one player in the landscape of affordable housing and relies on many partners. The City
could also influence availability of affordable housing through continued advocacy and partnerships.
Opportunities for Advocacy:
• Private Activity Bonds – Every year the City gets an allocation of federal PAB based on
population. The competition for this bond capacity has overwhelmed supply across the state. The
program is being examined at the federal level to consider fixing the yield of these bonds and/or
requiring less bond per project. Either of these changes would be beneficial locally.
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits – LIHTC are available at both the State and Federal level. More
tax credits could be made available for both these programs.
• Employer-assisted housing (EAH) programs – EAH programs provide a channel for employers
to help their employees with housing costs. Assistance may be provided in a variety of ways,
including direct funding and education. CSU is working on a project to develop new rental housing
and discount rent for their employees based on their income. Currently, Fort Collins facilitates
conversations about employer sponsored housing, but we could advocate more or begin partnering.
Opportunities for Increased Partnership:
• Community Land Trusts (CLT) – CLTs are mechanisms for creating permanently affordable for
sale housing and maintaining the homes as affordable over the long-term. The City’s partnership
with Elevations Community Land Trust not only brings a development and acquisitions partner who
will act as long-term stewards, but they also bring subsidy to match what the community invests.
• Community Down payment Opportunities - The City discontinued offering homebuyers down
payment assistance (DPA) because that assistance is available from other sources such as
Colorado Housing Finance Authority and Impact Development Fund. A new partner could be the
Metro DPA program, which is a potential quick(er) win the Committee could consider. This program
is expanding and can serve borrowers with lower credit scores and those with low or very low-
income. It can also serve borrowers with incomes up to $150,000. While a City Council Resolution
is required to offer this program in the City, there is no risk or cost for the City to participate.
• Development projects that do not need public support – Some affordable housing
developments need little or no monetary support from the City but can benefit from City incentives.
For instance, Lakeview on the Rise is a 180-unit development under construction in south Fort
Collins. While they are using LIHTC financing, they received PAB from other parts of Colorado and
did not ask for any Competitive process funding.
Discussion Questions for Pre-Work Item 2:
• What feedback or questions do Committee members have on the range of strategies identified?
• Would the Committee like staff to explore moving forward on the quick(er) win to partner with
Metro DPA to expand down payment assistance opportunities for borrowers with incomes up to
$150k?
Action Opportunity Partner Difficulty
Advocacy Adjust PAB requirements Federal High
Advocacy Expand LIHTC Federal & State High
Advocacy/Partnership Employer Assisted Housing Programs Local Employers Medium
Partnership Community Land Trusts Elevation Community Land Trust
(existing partner)Low-Medium
Partnership Community Down Payment Assistance Metro DPA (potential partner)Low
Partnership Projects that do not require City subsidy Various Community Partners Low-Medium
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 6
Pre-Work Item #3: Explore Topic 2: Occupancy and Rental Regulations
Description: At the November meeting, Councilmembers
expressed the desire to discuss Fort Collins’ current occupancy
ordinance (known as U+2) and explore other approaches to
regulating rental housing. This session of the meeting will include
the following:
• A review of the current occupancy ordinance
• A summary of research into 20 communities across the U.S.
and their approach to rental regulations, and finally
• An exploration into potential next steps.
Background on the City’s Occupancy Ordinance: Fort Collins has had an occupancy code since the
60’s with the original intent being limiting the number of unrelated people living in the same household
as a way to manage neighborhood issues such as parking, noise, and rubbish.
In 2005, the City amended the ordinance to add clarity and to make violation of the ordinance a civil
infraction, which was followed by a period of education and outreach before enforcement started in
2007. It is a complaint-based system that investigates reports of suspected over occupancy, typically
based on parking, noise, or rubbish issues in the neighborhood. In the last several years, cases have
ranged from 160 to just over 200 with the exception of this year which to date is 120. Typically, 35-50%
are sustained and the balance are unfounded or unproven.
The 2018 Coruna Survey highlighted a couple of key points:
• There is a shift in profile of occupancy ordinance violators. In 2005, 71% of violators were
college students. In 2018 only 47% are estimated to be students.
• The ordinance is well known with 89% of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards
it, but more residents support the ordinance (42%) than oppose it (24%). The biggest split is
homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while
homes without a student have the opposite stance.
• Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower neighborhood quality ratings.
In reviewing the current occupancy ordinance, its enforcement process, and currently available options
for legally increasing occupancy in residential property located in Fort Collins, staff have identified
options for potential process changes in order to balance the needs of the community as they relate to
both the goal of addressing housing availability and impacts to quality of life/neighborhood livability.
Initial options identified include:
• Revisions to the current occupancy code – could expand or eliminate the definition of family,
increase the number of unrelated people, or base occupancy on building code requirements
• Streamline and/or Expand Extra Occupancy Rental House Approval Process – limit or remove
existing criteria, increase the number of zone districts in which this tool is allowed, or created
expedited/reduced fee approval processes
• Update Host Family Permitting Criteria/Process or create a new process for homeowners
wishing to increase occupancy in their primary residence.
• Eliminate occupancy ordinance and replace with either rental registration or rental licensing (see
capstone research paper information below)
• Implementation of a quasi-licensing and/or registration program specific to property owners
intending to increase occupancy loads, replacing the current extra occupancy process.
These initial options and additional background and information on Fort Collins’ Occupancy Ordinance
is in Attachment 3.
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #6: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing
stability and healthy housing,
especially for people who rent.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 7
What we heard through the community engagement process: As will be discussed at the December
8 Work Session, engagement for the Housing Strategic Plan was conducted this past fall. Strategies
identified by the community included four main categories, one of which is to “revamp the housing we
have.” In this category, community members mentioned a desire to revisit occupancy restrictions at nearly
every conversation that was held.
More specifically, participants saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having
enough housing, and to having housing that is affordable for all residents. Many folks supported repealing
“U+2”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. This was seen as a potential
benefit for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up” additional homes
for rental or purchase.
Capstone Research on Rental Regulations and Occupancy
In addition to the overview of the City’s approach to occupancy, staff were approached by Shelby
Sommer to conduct her capstone project for her Master’s Degree in Public Administration around rental
regulations. Specifically, Ms. Sommer research explores rental housing regulations including
occupancy, registration, licensing, and inspections for 20 communities across the United States, with
emphasis on communities that have similar housing markets or demographic characteristics as Fort
Collins. Interviews with and lessons learned from four of the 20 communities provide additional insight
and considerations for Fort Collins and other communities exploring new rental regulations.
Key findings include:
• While the most common type of rental regulations reviewed are paired licensing and inspection
programs, there are many regulatory permutations for communities to consider.
• Approaches that incorporate occupancy restrictions and focus rental registration and
inspections on properties with a history of code compliance issues appear to be strategic and
effective alternatives to comprehensive licensing and inspection programs.
• Rental regulations would likely lead to health, safety, and equity improvements but may have
less of an impact on overall housing stability or affordability.
• Communities that adopt or revise rental housing regulations can expect political resistance and
potential legal challenges, and so a collaborative and thorough stakeholder engagement
process is critical to successful program development and regulation adoption.
The full research paper that Ms. Sommer developed is Attachment 4 of this packet.
Discussion Questions:
• Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension inherent
in this solution, given the community feedback and interest?
• If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations Councilmembers want
to see included? What additional questions need to be explored and/or answered?
ATTACHMENT 2
AD HOC HOUSING COMMITTEE
November 12, 2020
5:00pm-7:00pm
Zoom Meeting
Members:
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, Councilmember Cunniff, Councilmember Gorgol
Attendees:
Staff Members: Lindsay Ex, Caryn Champine, Meaghan Overton, Clay Frickey, Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Shawna Van Zee,
Dean Klingner, Carrie Daggett, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Community Members: Daphne Bear, Jennifer Bray, Kevin Jones, Bob Pawlikowski, Adam Eggleston
Call to Order: 5:03
Approval of October Minutes and Agenda Review:
• Councilmember Cunniff moved to approve, Councilmember Gorgol seconded.
Roll call for vote: Unanimous 2-0-0.
• Proposed adoption date of February 16, 2021
• Draft vision: “Everyone has stable, healthy housing they can afford”
• Fall engagement update and summary
Discussion Item: Housing Types and Zoning Discussion
• Summary of October discussion including initial list of strategies and next steps
• Quick(er) wins: Adopt Housing Strategic Plan and prepare an out-of-cycle appropriation to initiate
comprehensive revisions to the Land Use Code in Q2 of 2021
o Interested in cost estimate for Land Use Code revisions – initial estimate $300k
o Initial work could be started, full audit implementation will take a few years
o Mid-year cycle appropriation could potentially fund beyond this Council, but the results would
need to be adopted by new Council
• Committee discussion around strategies and solutions that could be included in the Housing Strategic
Plan and their various timelines
o Committee members supported moving forward with an off-cycle appropriation to begin the
initial LUC audit work – more information will be brought forward to the full Council at the
December 8, 2020 Work Session
o Councilmembers asked that staff bring forward a conversation around economic mobility, e.g.,
educational access, wages, childcare and transportation at a future meeting.
o Councilmembers also supported moving forward now on exploring solutions to increase the
density bonus, what else could be achieved via land bank parcels, and other associated code
changes.
Discussion: Does density have to get increased through the Land Use Code, or is there
another way to address density? Could potentially pull out that one piece, discuss with
affordable housing providers about ideal density requirements. Would require change
to Land Use Code.
Affordable housing providers – in increasing density, would have to consider other
impacts (e.g. number of units per building, etc.)
While LUC is being updated, can development proposals be considered individually for
density?
• Recognized there is the option for a standalone modification request for
density, yet what staff has heard from community members and stakeholders is
there is a preference for a Land Use Code change that would apply to all
projects to reduce potential risk, particularly with financing affordable housing
Discussion Item: Explore Housing Stability and Anti-Displacement
• Summary of October discussion – request to research anti-displacement and gentrification strategies
o Began with Portland, OR framework and researched 8 communities (Portland, OR; Austin, TX;
San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Bozeman, MT; Flagstaff, AZ; Ann Arbor, MI; Lawrence, KS)
o Found 29 distinct policies – no one community doing all 29, and no policy being used by all 8
communities
Fort Collins is implementing 8 of these
• Potential Quick Wins:
o Strategy 1 – Assess displacement and gentrification risk
Can use existing staffing and readily available data
o Strategy 2 – Tenant rights and legal services
Continue support for legal defense fund for renters facing eviction
o Strategy 3 – Financial literacy
Support existing programs offered by partners
o Strategies 1 and 3 would require support from additional departments, unsure if resources
would allow currently – if committee members support, staff could create roadmap to show the
how and potential constraints
o Strategy 2 is already in process
o To prioritize these, would be helpful to see direct impact on community – what is most needed,
most quickly to positively impact housing gaps and needs?
o Councilmembers supported exploring these strategies, as they were generally low risk and could
serve as a good starting point; staff will bring these strategies back to the Committee with more
specifics at the December meeting.
Next Meeting Focus and Process Check-in:
• Interest in discussing the following at December meeting/future meetings:
o Dedicated funding source
o Overview of financing tools
o U+2, rental licensing, tenant protections – this may be too much to dig into in one meeting, but
these issues all come up frequently
o Graduate student has researched rental licensing – they could share this research
o Discussion of employment incentives, living wage, and workforce housing – earmark for
partnership conversation
o How to approach options as more retail spaces become available
• Process Check-in
o About the right amount of information and pre-work
o Some Councilmembers expressed that it was easier to read materials vs watching videos; others
expressed videos are easier – continuing with a mix is good
• Jonathan Rose will join January 11 Futures Committee – focus on communities of opportunity
o Copy of his book and invite will go to all Councilmembers
Meeting Adjourned: 6:31
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 1
Attachment 3: Pre-Work Item #3 - Occupancy in Fort Collins
History and Original Intent: The City of Fort Collins has a long history with the occupancy
ordinance. The initial ordinance went into effect in 1964, which limited the number of unrelated
individuals that may occupy a residential dwelling unit. The original intent of establishing
Occupancy limits in Fort Collins was focused on the issue of neighborhood off-street parking.
Prior to 1963, homes typically had single-driveways, single-garages and occupants generally had
only one car. This model worked until each home had more than one driver, leading to more than
one vehicle per home and parking on the street.
The City of Fort Collins adopted the ordinance in 1963 (Ordinance 53, 1963). The ordinance Was
proposed following neighborhood concerns of increased congestion and over-parking on streets
associated with the rising number of rental properties that were emerging at the time. With the
adoption of the ordinance, the definition of family was updated to exclude a group of more than 3
individuals who were not related by blood, marriage, or other duly authorized custodial
relationship. Its purpose of establishing a limit on the number of individuals who can occupy a
property was intended to decrease the impacts of parking within neighborhoods by reducing the
number of vehicle owners per household, as well as a number of other livability issues commonly
associated with over-occupied properties (noise, rubbish, etc.).
In 2005, after much public input and an economic study, City Council amended the ordinance to
add clarity and to make violation of the ordinance a civil infraction, thus making the ordinance
more enforceable. Following a period of community education and outreach, active enforcement
of the ordinance began in 2007 as a result, and has continued until present.
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. The City’s Occupancy Enforcement
Program is managed by two fulltime Inspectors. Caseload is distributed and processed
depending on order in which cases are received, volume of reported properties, and prioritization
based on high-profile referrals or health/safety concerns. Occupancy cases are primarily
investigated on a reactive basis, following complaints involving neighborhood impact.
There are allowances for extra occupancy based on zone district and/or host family permitting,
within parameters; however, in low-density residential zone areas (RL) the objective is to preserve
the neighborhood character and therefore exceptions in that zone type are currently not allowed.
There are two existing exceptions to the occupancy ordinance currently in place: Dwellings
regularly inspected or licensed by the state or federal government, including, but not limited to,
group homes, and; Dwellings owned and operated by a non-profit incorporated organization for
the purpose of providing housing to victims of domestic violence.
The options developed are provided below, with additional information about the program, current
case loads, and engagement feedback beginning on page 4 of this document.
Options for Consideration re: Opportunities for Improvement:
In reviewing the current occupancy ordinance, its enforcement process, and currently available
options for legally increasing occupancy in residential property located in Fort Collins, staff have
identified options for potential process changes in order to balance the needs of the community
as they relate to both the goal of addressing housing availability and impacts to quality of
life/neighborhood livability. Below are potential/possible options. The bigger question is which
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 2
tools make the most sense for us to consider in balancing the tensions we now face? What
additional questions need to be explored and/or answered?
1. Revision of Current Occupancy Code
Occupancy limits and narrow family definitions can create unintended constraints on
housing choice and options, including cooperative housing opportunities for seniors and
people with disabilities desiring to live with unrelated adults in a single family home setting.
Occupancy limits may also potentially pose fair housing liabilities to the extent that they
can have a disparate impact on certain individuals.
Other cities have expanded or eliminated the definition of family, allowed up to 8 unrelated
people, or have based occupancy on building code requirements (e.g. x number of square
ft per occupant).
2. Streamline and/or Expand Extra Occupancy Rental House Approval Process
Utilizing the existing process already in place for designating a residential property as an
Extra Occupancy Rental House, however limiting or removing a number of existing criteria
required for approval in order to broaden the availability of this option as a means for
property owners to legally increase occupancy loads upon submitting application for
approval.
The option for obtaining EOR designation is limited to residential property located in 15
zone types throughout Fort Collins. This currently does not include low-density residential
zone (RL) areas, which accounts for the majority of residential homes within city limits.
Opening up the qualifying zones to include certain or all RL zone districts would drastically
increase accessibility of the EOR designation to more property owners and support an
increase in housing availability.
Additionally, the process for obtaining this designation can be both lengthy and costly.
Lowering fees and allowing for expedited EOR approval decisions being made at a staff
level, among other significant process changes, would likely be necessary in order for this
to be a practical and effective option.
3. Update Host Family Permitting Criteria/Process or create a new process for
homeowners wishing to increase occupancy in their primary residence.
Utilizing the existing application process already in place for issuing Host Family Permits,
however updating existing criteria required for approval in order to broaden the availability
of this option as a means for property owners to legally increase occupancy loads for
purposes such as being able to keep their home in the face of financial hardship, home-
sharing to allow for aging in place for elderly community members or for other individuals
in need, etc..
Currently the HFP is a simpler approval process than obtaining EOR designation, and
issuance of the permit can be done in short order at the staff level. While the permit is
already applicable for residential property in any zone-type, at present it is limited to
owner-occupied property, and only allows for an increase of one additional unrelated
occupant. Further, the permits are tied to a 10-month timeframe and can be re-issued for
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 3
up to an additional 10 months, provided that 2 months have elapsed between issuance of
permits.
Updating the HFP criteria to increase the number of additional occupants and eliminating
the required gap between permits issued (while maintaining the time-limited permit
duration on an as-needed basis) would drastically increase the availability of this option to
property owners seeking to increase occupancy loads. Such changes may put this
process in conflict with the already existing and more complicated process for Extra
Occupancy Rental House designation, however.
There would also need to be consideration of what other criteria should be included in
approving additional occupants.
4. Eliminate Occupancy Ordinance and replace with one of the following:
a. Rental Registration
b. Rental Licensing
Listed below is the conclusion from recent research paper by Shelby Sommer, see
Attachment 4.
Conclusion: Several of the communities reviewed include housing occupancy
regulations like Fort Collins, yet all layer in other rental regulatory approaches to more
proactively address rental housing management and conditions. Approaches vary from
voluntary rental registration to mandatory licensing and inspection.
Additional rental regulations beyond occupancy regulations present potential benefits to
communities like Fort Collins, especially in the context of improving health and safety
conditions for tenants. Few of the examples reviewed demonstrate significant impact on
housing stability, partially because rental occupancy provides flexibility and in university
communities, high rental turnover is expected. In terms of housing affordability, some
rental regulations can create a perception of increasing unaffordability. Yet in communities
like Fort Collins with extreme housing affordability challenges, some renters experience
substandard housing conditions as a result of simply trying to secure low-cost housing.
Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance focuses on over-occupancy as a nuisance issue for
neighbors, whereas many of the other programs examined focus on proactively
addressing housing conditions and tenants’ rights to quality, safe, and healthy housing.
As Fort Collins looks to finalize and implement the Housing Strategic Plan with a vision
that “everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a), it
may be necessary to introduce creative, locally-tailored rental housing regulations beyond
U plus 2 to improve equity and quality housing options for the community’s large rental
housing population.
5. Implementation of a quasi-licensing and/or registration program specific to
property owners intending to increase occupancy loads, replacing the current extra
occupancy process.
This is an example of a hybrid solution or a step process that could be the first phase to a
longer-term strategy of rental licensing for all rentals. It would allow us to pilot a rental
licensing program and potential streamline and change the current processes for extra
occupancy with a focus on both the health and safety of the unit and paying attention to
the livability issues in the surrounding neighborhood.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 4
Discussion Questions:
• Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension
inherent in this solution, given the community feedback and interest?
• If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations
Councilmembers want to see included? What additional questions need to be explored
and/or answered?
Current Perceptions and Caseloads:
Occupancy is a divisive topic. Annually, we have residents that say, the Occupancy ordinance
saved my neighborhood. Thank you. Over the last several years we have students and/or
members of ASCSU that approach us about changing U+2 to Me +3.
The 2018 Coruna Survey highlighted a couple of key points regarding the number of people not
in compliance, their profiles, people’s current perception of the occupancy ordinance and
neighborhood quality ratings. See tables below. The survey can be accessed
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy under the occupancy study section.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 5
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 6
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 7
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 8
Occupancy Investigation Caseloads:
TOTAL CASES
OPENED Sustained Unfounded/Unproven Percent
Sustained
2007 140 19 121 14%
2008 61 15 46 25%
2009 64 23 41 36%
2010 104 49 55 47%
2011 85 46 39 54%
2012 157 88 69 56%
2013 89 42 47 47%
2014 147 74 73 50%
2015 138 62 76 45%
2016 206 77 129 37%
2017 167 52 115 32%
2018 211 77 106 42%
2019 162 58 104 36%
2020* 120* 34* 57* 37%*
*As of 12/20
*A case distribution heat map is being developed and may be ready to share at the time of
the committee meeting.
140
61 64
104
85
157
89
147 138
206
167
211
162
120
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020*
Occupancy Cases
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 9
Current Processes for Increasing Occupancy Limits:
Extra Occupancy Rental House:
• Extra Occupancy Rental House is a building or portion of which is used to accommodate,
for compensation, four (4) or more tenants, boarders, or roomers. It is not necessary for
a family or owner to also occupy the house.
• Approved units are permitted in certain zones (see Extra Occupancy Rental House Zone
Map).
• Process for obtaining certificate of occupancy as an Extra Occupancy Rental House
includes either a Type 1 administrative public hearing or a Basic Development Review,
application for change of use building permit, and an inspection for compliance with
applicable codes/regulations.
• Some factors considered during the approval/denial process include the density/number
of nearby Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (no more than 25% of parcels on a block face),
minimum building square footage of habitable floor space per occupant, minimum bicycle
and parking spaces.
• At present, there are 59 single or two-family dwellings (104 additional “approved”
occupants) and 12 multi-family properties that are approved as Extra Occupancy Rental
Houses within the City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/files/extraoccupancyzoning11x17_2018.pdf?1552
071594
Host Family Permit:
Effective 2010, this allows an increase of the occupancy limit for host families in single-family,
owner-occupied dwellings to allow for one additional person, provided that the following conditions
are met:
• Adequate off-street parking is available to accommodate the additional occupant.
• There have been no code violations at the premises for which the permit is sought within
the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of the application for the permit.
• At least two (2) months have elapsed since the issuance of any previous host family permit
for the same premises.
Permits issued are valid for ten (10) months from the date of issuance. A permit may be revoked
during the permit duration if a violation of the City or Land Use Code has occurred at the premises
for which the permit was issued. In 2019, nine (9) Host Family Permits were issued, and to date
only one has been issued in 2020.
Current Exceptions to the Occupancy Ordinance:
• Dwellings regularly inspected or licensed by the state or federal government, including,
but not limited to, group homes.
• Dwellings owned and operated by a non-profit incorporated organization for the purpose
of providing housing to victims of domestic violence.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 10
What we heard through community engagement process:
The community values for housing included equity, choice, and collaboration. The strategies
grouped into four categories:
• Revamp the housing we have
• Increase the amount and types of new homes
• Ensure housing stability and safety for renters and homeowners
• Leverage funding for housing stability and sustainability
Under revamp housing we have the community recommendations included things like:
• Remove or relax occupancy restrictions
• Relax restrictions on density in existing neighborhoods
• Make it easier to modify homes
• Ensure all neighborhoods have access to amenities
• Explore options of “house swapping” between residents
Participants saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having enough
housing, and to having housing that is affordable for all residents. Many folks supported repealing
“U+2”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. This was seen as a
potential benefit for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up”
additional homes for rental or purchase.
Regulating Rental Housing: Considerations for Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Social Sustainability Department
University of Colorado
School of Public Affairs
Shelby Sommer
Fall 2020
Professor Todd Ely
Dr. Sebawit Bishu
Lindsay Ex
ATTACHMENT 4
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 13
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26
References ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A: Selection of Communities for Benchmarking ......................................................... 30
Appendix B: Community Benchmarking Criteria ........................................................................ 32
Appendix C: Community Benchmarking Details ......................................................................... 34
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 40
Appendix E: Interview Participants .............................................................................................. 43
Table of Tables
Table 1. Summary Statistics for Community Demographic and Housing Characteristics ........... 16
Table 2. Regulation Paring Frequency .......................................................................................... 17
Table 3. Summary of Communities Interviewed .......................................................................... 18
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 3
Executive Summary
Fort Collins, Colorado is a university community with nearly half of the population
(46.9%) living in rental housing units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Issues such as housing
quality, stability, affordability, and equity are growing concerns across the community. The City
of Fort Collins’ current approach to regulating housing centers on limiting housing occupancy to
no more than three unrelated adults. Building on two decades of affordable housing planning,
Fort Collins is preparing its first-ever comprehensive Housing Strategic Plan. As part of that
effort, Fort Collins is exploring new solutions to address rental housing concerns.
This research explores rental housing regulations including occupancy, registration,
licensing, and inspections for 20 communities across the United States, with emphasis on
communities that have similar housing markets or demographic characteristics as Fort Collins.
Interviews with and lessons learned from four of the 20 communities provide additional insight
and considerations for Fort Collins and other communities exploring new rental regulations.
While the most common type of rental regulations reviewed are paired licensing and
inspection programs, there are many regulatory permutations for communities to consider.
Approaches that incorporate occupancy restrictions and focus rental registration and inspections
on properties with a history of code compliance issues appear to be strategic and effective
alternatives to comprehensive licensing and inspection programs.
Rental regulations would likely lead to health, safety, and equity improvements but may
have less of an impact on overall housing stability or affordability. Communities that adopt or
revise rental housing regulations can expect political resistance and potential legal challenges,
and so a collaborative and thorough stakeholder engagement process is critical to successful
program development and regulation adoption.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 4
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins (City) is a home-rule municipality, with a vision “to provide
world-class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation” (City
of Fort Collins, n.d.b). The organization is nationally recognized for its leadership and
commitment to performance excellence (National Institue of Standards and Technology, 2017).
The City’s Social Sustainability Department has a mission to “support a diverse and equitable
community that successfully meets the basic needs of all residents” (City of Fort Collins, n.d.a).
The Social Sustainability Department is leading development of the City’s first Housing
Strategic Plan, in coordination with other departments, including but not limited to
Neighborhoods Services and Planning. The effort is guided by an Ad Hoc Housing Committee
comprised of three City Councilmembers. The draft vision for the Housing Strategic Plan is
“everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a) and the plan
will eventually include goals, strategies, and implementation details to support achievement of
this vision.
The Housing Strategic Plan will address a full spectrum of housing needs, ranging from
affordable housing to high-end housing market considerations (City of Fort Collins, 2020a).
Issues and opportunities for the plan to address include quality rental housing and neighborhood
compatibility solutions. One existing approach to address neighborhood quality is Fort Collins’s
“U plus 2” occupancy ordinance, which limits the number of unrelated persons living in
residential dwelling units (including owner-and renter-occupied units). Fort Collins has a long
history of looking at occupancy issues, and so this research examines possible alternatives or
modifications to “U plus 2” in the context of the Housing Strategic Plan vision. Potential
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 5
alternatives or layered approaches to U plus 2 include registration, licensing, or inspection
programs for rental housing.
Concerns about housing affordability, availability, quality, equity, and enforcement are
underlying factors driving community conversations about potential occupancy ordinance
alternatives or refinements. Emerging priorities also include improving health, safety, and
efficiency of rental housing, and the elevating role that housing plays in achieving the
community’s ambitious climate goals. This project examines how the City of Fort Collins could,
if the community desires to, effectively regulate rental housing to help achieve a vision that
“everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.” The research explores and documents
best practices among municipal rental housing regulations and programs. Because many
communities are facing similar housing challenges as Fort Collins, this research will be of value
to other organizations looking to establish equitable and innovative rental housing regulations
and programs.
Literature Review
Defining Healthy, Stable, and Affordable Housing
To understand how to achieve healthy, stable, and affordable housing for all community
members, it is important to first define and explore what each of these concepts mean both
universally, as well as in the local Fort Collins context.
Healthy Housing
The premise behind healthy housing is that the nature and quality of housing conditions
has a tremendous impact on inhabitant health and safety. Unhealthy housing conditions,
including but not limited to lead paint, poor indoor air quality, and general neglect in upkeep, can
lead to myriad problems and challenges including asthma, lead poisoning, behavioral and
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 6
learning problems, and physical injury (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). These unhealthy conditions are
present in communities across the country; in Fort Collins, poor indoor air quality is of
prominent concern due to the fact that one of four households report a family member with a
respiratory ailment (City of Fort Collins, n.d.c.).
Research shows that public health approaches often focus on providing services after an
illness or injury, rather than proactively preventing disease by addressing factors like
neighborhood and housing conditions (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). By moving upstream and
focusing on improving social determinants of health such as housing conditions and quality,
overall population health could be enhanced (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). In response, cities across
the nation have started developing and implementing programs to address health-related housing
issues; most in the arenas of lead and asthma concerns (GWUSPH, 2018).
Housing Stability
The concept of housing stability focuses on improving predictability and maintaining
steadiness in securing and occupying housing. It emphasizes keeping people in housing,
regardless of whether they own or rent their home. According to Phillips (2020), programs that
address tenant protections and rental housing preservation help “ensure all residents have access
to safe, clean, affordable housing without fear that the rug might someday be pulled out from
under them” (p. 19). The case for addressing and improving housing stability is that “providing
stability to those who want it, to renters in particular, is how we turn housing into homes”
(Phillips, 2020, p20).
Improving housing stability encompasses a mix of activities including increasing and
preserving housing opportunities, reducing displacement, and addressing equity issues.
According to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Report (2020),
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 7
current City of Fort Collins policies and regulations do not address housing stability or health in
a systematic way (p. 54).
Housing Affordability
The cost of housing and whether those costs are affordable to residents is a subject of
much research and analysis. A common measure of housing affordability is the percent of
household income spent on housing (i.e., rent or mortgage and associated costs). A threshold of
30% of income spent on housing costs is often used as an indicator of affordability, wherein
households spending greater than 30% of income on housing costs are commonly referred to as
“cost-burdened.”
Trends in recent decades reveal “pronounced increases in the typical rental burdens for
poor and near-poor households” (Quigley and Raphael, 2004, p. 192). Nationally, approximately
50.2% of rental households are now rent-burdened, paying 30% or more of their income on rent
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). In Fort Collins, that number is even higher, with 60.6% of
households paying 30% or more of their income on rent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).
Such a large share of income going towards housing costs puts pressure on a households’
budget, “leaving less to pay for food, utilities, transportation to work, health and child care
expenditures and reducing savings for emergencies, retirement, and other opportunities, such as
pursuing higher education or starting a small business” (Anacker, 2019, p.1). Challenges with
housing affordability in turn create challenges in housing health and stability, as households may
have limited resources to available support home upkeep or improvements, may not be able to be
able to move to other housing options, or may face displacement or eviction if rent cannot be
paid.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 8
Equity Issues in Rental Housing
While the issues around health, stability, and affordability permeate across renter and
owner-occupied housing, unique equity issues exist with rental housing. Across the country,
36.2% of occupied housing units are renter-occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). In Fort
Collins, the share of housing that is renter-occupied is much larger at 46.9% (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020). These numbers illustrate that more than a third of households (and nearly half of
Fort Collins’ households) may face unique equity challenges due to their housing status.
In the realm of public administration, social equity centers on simple fairness and equal
treatment; distribution of resources to reduce inequalities in universal programs and services; and
redistribution of resources to level the playing field (Norman-Major, 2011). This framework
helps highlight some of the equity issues associated with rental housing. Note that this paper
focuses exclusively on long-term rental housing (rented for one month or longer) due to the
systemic inequities and housing challenges facing the long-term renter population. Short-term
rental housing (often referred to as vacation rentals) also presents myriad equity impacts and
other community challenges but is excluded from this discussion since such properties are often
already regulated by cities in different ways than long-term rental properties.
Racial Discrimination and Unequal Opportunity
Housing in the United States has a long history and current reality of structural racism
and housing discrimination. According to Rothstein (2017), policy decisions and laws of cities,
states, and the federal government promoted discrimination across sectors, most prominently in
housing – patterns that continue and endure today. As one specific example in the context of
rental households, “black and Hispanic families, a growing share of low-income renter families,
experience high levels of residential segregation from white families, and are more likely to be
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 9
concentrated in lower opportunity neighborhoods” (Acevedo-Garcia, et al., 2016, p. 608). In
Colorado, research by the Bell Policy Center demonstrates the impediments to housing
opportunity by race, showing that “Colorado’s black families are 62% less likely to own a home
than the state’s non-Hispanic white families” and “Latino families are 43% less likely to own a
home than white families,” (Parsons, 2019, p. 1). These examples show that rental households,
especially those with Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC) residents, are more likely to
live in rental housing and have less neighborhood opportunity (i.e., socioeconomic, educational,
and health/environmental opportunity) (Parsons, 2019).
Landlord-Tenant Power Dynamics
Another equity consideration in rental housing is related to power dynamics of renter and
landlord relationships. When health and safety problems in rental properties exist, most
circumstances and regulations place the burden of reporting problems on the tenant.
Numerous studies provide evidence that many tenants do not report problems with their
housing due to varying reasons (Chisholm, Howden-Chapman, & Fougere, 2020; Way, Trinh, &
Wyatt, 2013). These reasons include lack of trust that repairs will be made and fear of retaliation
through rent hikes, eviction, or even deportation. The lowest and most cost-burdened tenants
tend to be the most risk-averse when it comes to reporting housing health and safety problems,
and this risk aversion is strongly linked to concerns about housing stability (Chisholm, Howden-
Chapman, & Fougere, 2020).
In Fort Collins, the Community Mediation Program is a free and confidential program
available to help address landlord/tenant issues. While the program does help resolve some
landlord/tenant issues, it requires awareness of the program, as well as willingness of both
parties to participate.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 10
Approaches for Regulating Rental Housing
Many cities (and a few states such as Arizona) have implemented approaches to regulate
rental housing to address a variety of housing needs and concerns, including improving health
and safety, protecting vulnerable tenants, and preserving neighborhood stability and property
values. While the specific regulatory and programmatic approaches vary by jurisdiction, rental
regulations can be organized into four overarching categories: occupancy, registration, licensing,
and inspection.
Occupancy Restriction
Restricting the occupancy of a housing unit addresses the potential health, safety, and
nuisance issues that can arise from having numerous people residing in a dwelling unit.
Occupancy restrictions most commonly address a minimum standard of habitable area per person
in a dwelling unit; some occupancy restrictions also address the maximum number of adults, or
even the number of unrelated people, allowed to occupy a unit. Residential occupancy limits
focused on habitable area are most often regulated through building codes, but occupancy
regulations can also be found in zoning codes, housing codes, and property nuisance codes.
Occupancy limits can be stand-alone regulations that apply to all housing, or they can be linked
to other types of nuisance or rental housing regulations.
Rental Registration
Rental registration requires landlords to register their rental property(ies) with the city
and provide basic property information such as contact information for the owner and contact
information for a local property management firm or agent (Center for Community Progress:
Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d.). Some rental registration programs collect other basic
information about each rental unit, such as year built, number of bedrooms, and number of
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 11
parking spaces so that the city can maintain a database of rental property information. In most
cases, “the purpose of registration is to enable the city to find property owners in case of
emergencies or code violations, and to make sure the owner understands his obligations under
city ordinances” (Center for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d.).
Many rental registration programs include minimal fees for registration and impose fines for
non-compliance (Ackerman, Galbreth, & Pearson, 2014).
Rental Licensing
Rental licensing requires property owners to obtain a license in order to rent a housing
unit. As is common across most programs, “under a licensing regime a rental property is not
eligible for registration unless it is in compliance with key health and safety standards” (Center
for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d., para. 3). The types of rental
properties that are subject to rental licensing programs vary by community – potential regulating
factors can include the number of units (single-family, duplex, multi-family), the type of rental
housing (short term versus long-term), exemptions for publicly owned or managed units, owner-
occupancy, and housing unit age (Way, T rinh, & Wyatt, 2013). Previous nuisance code violations
or citations can be another driver in determining which properties must be licensed.
Property Inspection
Most often, rental licensing regulation is paired with an inspection program, but some
property inspection programs do exist independently. As with the applicability of rental licensing
to varied property types and conditions, there is also variation in the inspection program
parameters. Common categories of rental inspection programs include inspection of all
properties, inspection of a pre-defined percentage of properties, and inspection of properties with
a history of code citations (Way, Trinh, & Wyatt, 2013). Rental inspection programs can focus on
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 12
housing unit exteriors, interiors, or a combination of both. Some communities prohibit
occupancy of dwelling units until an inspection has been completed; others require an inspection
in order to be granted a rental license.
Implementation Considerations for Rental Housing Regulations
Communities that enact rental housing regulations must be aware of many
implementation details and considerations to achieve the desired outcomes. Furthermore, there
are various strategies to improve implementation success, as well as co-benefits to explore.
Implementation Details
According to Ackerman, Galbreth, and Pearson (2014), some important details that
communities should consider when designing and implementing rental housing regulations
include: geographic applicability to the full community or certain neighborhoods; presence of
any additional occupancy regulations or restrictions; compliance and renewal intervals;
inspection frequency; inspection authority; inspection notification and consent; fee structures;
enforcement measures; staff training; and landlord and tenant education and outreach. While this
list is not exhaustive, these considerations summarize the many facets and details addressed in
many existing rental housing regulations and can provide an organizational structure when
comparing communities to one another.
Potential Challenges, Solutions, and Co-Benefits
Implementation of regulations to improve housing heath, stability, or affordability can
present significant challenges and barriers for governments to overcome. Major challenges
associated with implementation of healthy housing programs include landlord or property owner
opposition, tenant resistance or concerns, political climate, scope of city authority, limited
financing, and limited data (GWUSPH, 2018, p. 22-24). Potential strategies identified to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 13
overcome these barriers include convener and coalition building, community organizing,
facilitating adoption, sustainable funding, peer-to-peer guidance from other cities, effective use
of data and evaluations, compelling messaging, and leveraging data (George Washington
University School of Public Health, 2018, p. 36-39). While these challenges and strategies are
focused on advancing healthy housing, they may apply more generally to housing stability and
affordability as well.
Finally, some co-benefits can emerge in communities that regulate rental housing. For
example, research from Rocky Mountain Institute shows that rental properties are a “powerful
first intervention point for existing residential properties” in efforts to improve energy efficiency
in buildings and help communities achieve carbon reduction plans (Petersen & Lalit, 2018, p. 5).
Additional co-benefits beyond housing health, stability, and affordability explored during the
reseach process included improved neighborhood quality, community resiliency, and job
creation.
Methodology
The research methodology built on the findings of the literature review and included two
community-focused components: benchmarking and interviews. The benchmarking efforts were
completed first in order to refine which community candidates to select for semi-structured
interviews.
Benchmarking
The research methodology began with benchmarking Fort Collins to the rental housing
regulations and programs in 19 other cities. The City of Fort Collins provided a list of peer
communities that have been used for other City benchmarking efforts, many of which have
organizational structures and/or demographic characteristics like Fort Collins. That list was
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 14
supplemented with other communities identified during the literature review – these included
communities that may have different governmental or community characteristics than Fort
Collins, but have been recognized for successful, innovative, or unique rental housing
regulations or healthy home programs. Approximately 50 communities were screened for
potential benchmarking efforts. Criteria for determining which communities to include in the
benchmarking efforts included:
1. The community has a known long-term rental registration or licensing program (or
similar occupancy or housing regulation under a different name); and
2. The community satisfies one or more of the following:
a. Shows up on the City of Fort Collins’ peer communities list.
b. Referenced in one or more publications included in the literature review.
c. Located in Colorado.
d. Has a large university presence/influence.
See Appendix A for a list of communities screened and shortlisted for benchmarking analysis.
For each community included in the benchmarking analysis, data were collected to the
greatest extent practical and feasible, through information collected during the literature review
and data collected through online research of community websites and regulations. See Appendix
B for benchmarking criteria and Appendix C for detailed benchmarking results. The results were
analyzed to determine which types of rental housing regulations are most common overall, as
well as which types of regulations are most often paired together (e.g., rental licensing and
inspection). Analysis also focused on unique characteristics of rental regulations in university
communities, as well as communities with similar housing stock characteristics (e.g., percent of
households cost burdened, percent of single-family units).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 15
Community Interviews
The next phase of the research included interviews with rental program administrators
from communities with rental regulations or programs that may be good models for Fort Collins.
Through a collaborative work session with the client team, the benchmarking results were
reviewed and discussed for potential relevance and applicability to the City of Fort Collins.
Ultimately, through this work session a shortlist of six communities and two alternates were
identified and contacted for interviews. Community factors such as similar socioeconomic
conditions, comparable housing stock, program/regulation tenure and applicability, and
innovation were used in the interview selection process.
Interviews were 60 minutes each and the discussions explored more regulation history,
program administration, and other implementation considerations. See Appendix C for the
interview protocol, which outlines the steps that were conducted before, during, and following
each interview.
Results
Benchmarking
The benchmarking process compared various demographic and housing characteristics
for each community, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. As illustrated in Table 1, Fort Collins falls within the range of each
variable analyzed, and does not represent the minimum or maximum value for any of the
variables. In comparison to the average (mean) for all communities included in the
benchmarking analysis, Fort Collins has a smaller population, lower proportion of rental
households, greater share of single-family units, equal average household size, significantly
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 16
lower rental vacancy rate, and a higher-share of cost-burdened renters. See Appendix C for
detailed benchmarking information by community.
Table 1
Summary Statistics for Community Demographic and Housing Characteristics
Population Rental
Tenure
Single-
Family
Units
Average
Household
Size of
Renter
Occupied
Unit
Rental
Vacancy
Rate
Cost-
Burdened
Renters
Minimum 64,273 35.20% 12.00% 1.97 1.80% 38.6%
Maximum 935,755 63.70% 62.30% 2.8 9.20% 66.4%
Mean 333,104 51.75% 47.66% 2.27 4.68% 53.0%
Median 207,778 52.00% 52.90% 2.22 4.20% 52.7%
Fort Collins 162,511 46.90% 56.20% 2.27 2.50% 60.6%
Benchmarking efforts also included review of each community’s housing programs and
regulations, as available from each city’s website. While each community’s regulations are
unique, they were categorized into four categories for analysis purposes: unique occupancy,
registration, licensing, and inspection. See Appendix B for descriptions of these categories.
Overall, when reviewing the communities’ regulations, 90% have an inspection element,
60% have a registration element, 30% have a licensing element, and 30% have a unique
occupancy element. Interestingly, only three of the communities analyzed have just one type of
occupancy or rental housing regulation (Fort Collins just regulates occupancy, Asheville and
Aurora just regulate inspections). The majority (11, or 55%) of the other communities have two
regulations in effect. Three of the communities (Ames, Austin, and Boulder) have three types of
regulations, and two communities (Lawrence and Westminster) have all four types of rental
housing requirements. Note that Greensboro’s regulations appear to have been rescinded
recently.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 17
When examining the most common regulation pairings (Table 2), of the 20 communities
analyzed, the most common combination is rental registration and inspection (60% of all
regulations reviewed), followed by coordinated licensing and inspection regulations (30%).
Table 2
Regulation Paring Frequency
Unique Occupancy Registration Licensing Inspection
Unique Occupancy 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 5 (25%)
Registration 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 12 (60%)
Licensing 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Inspection 5 (25%) 12 (60%) 6 (30%) 2 (10%)
Analysis of communities with combined rental registration and inspection programs (12
total), reveals that 92% of those are also university communities. Of the six communities with
unique occupancy regulations (Ames, Austin, Boulder, Fort Collins, Lawrence, and
Westminster), all except for Fort Collins have at least two other rental regulation elements. As
noted earlier, Lawrence and Westminster have all four types of regulations; both Ames’ and
Austin’s regulations lack a licensing component; and Boulder’s lacks a registration element.
There are no discernable trends when examining regulation type by community
population, rental vacancy rate, share of single-family units, rental tenure, average household
size, renter cost burden, or regulation applicability. In terms of regulation longevity, 50% of
communities have regulations that have been enacted since 2000, 20% have regulations that were
enacted between 1980 and 2000, and another 20% have regulations that were enacted before
1980. Note that regulation adoption dates are unknown for two communities (San Francisco and
Washington D.C.).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 18
Interviews
Four communities responded to the request and participated in the interview process:
Ames, Austin, Boulder, and Westminster. See Appendix E for interview participant details.
Coincidentally, all the communities interviewed have unique occupancy restrictions that are
similar to Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance. Table 3 summarizes the occupancy restrictions for
each community interviewed, as well as the related registration, licensing, and/or inspection
regulations.
Table 3
Summary of Communities Interviewed
City
Occupancy
Restrictions Registration, Licensing, or Inspection Regulations
Ames Occupancy limits are
based on the number of
bedrooms.
The state of Iowa requires cities with more than
15,000 people to have a rental program. Ames
requires rental registration and conducts rental
inspections on a 1-4-year rotation, depending on the
age and condition of the property.
Austin The number of
unrelated adults
allowed is determined
by property use.
Austin focuses on rental housing that shows a pattern
of violating minimum housing standards. Housing
that exceeds a certain number of violations/citations
are required to register and be inspected.
Boulder The number of
unrelated adults
allowed is determined
by zoning district.
Boulder requires all rental properties to be licensed.
An inspection (completed by third party) is required
for a license. A license is valid for 4 years.
Westminster Occupancy is restricted
to no more than 4
unrelated people.
Westminster requires any properties with 1-3 rental
units to be registered. Licensing and periodic
inspections are required for anyone with 4 or more
units under single ownership.
Each interview revealed unique drivers and considerations for the community’s rental
housing regulations. Despite many differences across communities, all interview participants
noted positive impacts of the regulations on housing quality, especially improving health and
safety conditions within the dwelling units. None of the interview participants identified any
known impacts of the regulations on housing stability or affordability, though they also noted
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 19
they are not formally tracking or evaluating them for those impacts. The non-Colorado cities of
Ames and Austin both noted that the statewide regulatory environment significantly influenced
the local regulations.
Regarding property owner perceptions, common themes from interview participants
included general willingness of most rental property owners to comply with regulations, interest
in maintaining private property rights, and some concern about perceived costs of compliance
with the regulations. With respect to tenants, common themes included lack of awareness of
regulations and fear of potential retaliation from the property owner if a complaint is filed.
To address these concerns, all the interviewees mentioned outreach and education to
property owners and tenants as critical elements of program success. Furthermore, all the
interview participants discussed the need for flexibility in working with property owners to
achieve compliance for violations or inspections. If compliance issues persist, they all mentioned
escalating enforcement through citations. All noted concerns about potential tenant displacement
as a potential outcome of escalating enforcement measures, but also that such activities are rare.
Discussion and Recommendations
Occupancy Restrictions
For communities that regulate housing unit occupancy like Fort Collins (with a maximum
number of unrelated adults allowed per dwelling unit), issues and concerns associated with such
regulations can include tracking and enforcement, lack of tenant awareness, and impacts on
housing affordability and availability. In Fort Collins, most occupancy violations are driven by
neighbor complaints or concerns and can be difficult to investigate and resolve. Interview
participants also noted how difficult occupancy restrictions can be to investigate and enforce,
especially when considering differing cultural norms and family needs.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 20
In general, occupancy restrictions only limit the number of people in a room or dwelling
unit and do little else to address health or safety conditions of housing units. As the researched
communities demonstrate, pairing occupancy regulations with other types of rental housing
regulations (such as registration, licensing, or inspections) can be a means to improve the health
and safety conditions of rental housing units.
Rental Registration
Registration of rental properties can be an effective way to gather information about the
rental housing stock and to maintain records for property ownership and management.
Challenges associated with implementing rental registration regulations can include determining
which properties are rentals, identifying and contacting rental property owners, verifying the
number of bedrooms in a property (especially if no inspection is required), and enforcing non-
compliance. Interview participants noted that voluntary registration systems can lead to
incomplete or ineffective datasets, especially since properties that would most benefit from
registration may be least likely to comply.
Pairing registration and inspection appears to be an effective way to track rental
properties and ensure units are safe and habitable; this is the most common type of rental
regulations analyzedIf required, rental registration programs function quite similarly to rental
licensing programs and the administering agency may need to charge a fee to help recoup
program administration costs, including but not limited to staffing, tracking software,
notifications, and enforcement. The benchmarked communities with rental registration programs
charge fees ranging from $0 to $110 per unit, though fees vary significantly based on required
frequency, the number of units registered at a single property, and whether a rental unit is also
owner-occupied. The rental registration program in Ames is $50 annually, and according to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 21
program staff, this funding is enough to support full cost recovery for program administration
(note that Ames’ rental registration program also requires an inspection). Westminster’s
registration program does not require a fee, though this may be added in the future to support
program administration costs.
While none of the communities interviewed mentioned this pathway, Fort Collins could
consider starting with a no-cost, voluntary rental registration program to begin establishment of a
property database. Such voluntary program could be more effective if linked to some sort of
incentive, such as a utility bill credit, energy efficiency improvement, or guarantee of a first
warning of a potential violation instead of a citation. Alternatively, Fort Collins could move
towards a mandatory rental registration program; in that case, it is recommended that such
program include a registration fee as well as an inspection element to address housing health and
safety issues.
Rental Licensing
Many of the benefits of rental registration, including development of a property database
and gathering contact information, can also be achieved through rental licensing. Rental license
terms and requirements vary, but in general, they offer tenants the opportunity to confirm a
property’s legitimacy as a rental unit prior to entering a lease. Rental licensing programs also
provide motivation for property owners to comply with housing standards since licenses can be
rescinded or revoked.
Paired rental licensing and inspection programs are the second most common type of
combined regulations of the communities analyzed. This approach is recommended if Fort
Collins has the political and community support for introducing a comprehensive approach to
regulating rental housing. However, such programs can require significant time and resources to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 22
develop and administer. License fees can be established to support partial or full cost recovery
for administering the program. While beneficial from a municipal budget and cost-recovery
perspective, licensing fees could create a real or perceived negative impact on housing
affordability.
As with rental registration, rental licensing fees vary greatly by community, property
type, and frequency. For example, the City of Boulder’s rental licenses require a $105 application
fee (per single family dwelling unit or per building for multi-family buildings) that is valid for
four years; the City of Westminster’s rental license fee is $50 per property every two years for
properties that have four or more units under single ownership (Westminster also charges an
inspection fee of $40 per unit). The Boulder and Westminster interview participants noted that
registration fees may need to be increased soon to recover program administration costs.
Property Inspection
Periodic and proactive inspection of properties appears to be an effective way to maintain
minimum health and safety standards for rental properties. Interview participants noted that they
have found success linking property inspection requirements and processes with other code
elements and inspection processes. For example, the City of Ames’ Division of the Fire
Department administers rental inspections and they credit the program with keeping fire fatalities
and damage to structures from fire at a minimum. The City of Boulder’s connection between
rental property inspections and its SmartRegs program helps ensure that long-term rental
properties meet basic energy efficiency standards in support of the community’s energy and
sustainability goals.
If the municipality administers property inspections, it will need to find a mechanism to
allow right of entry on private property – registration or licensing can provide that pathway.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 23
Alternatively, a community can opt to accept inspections completed by a licensed third party
(like Boulder), which shifts the burden of the inspection to the property owner and reduces the
right of entry issues. In that case, a community will need to maintain and provide a list of
licensed inspectors and must be prepared to provide follow-up inspections if necessary
(including securing right of entry).
Public housing and multi-family properties receiving financial assistance through the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are subject to inspections
to ensure compliance with basic requirements. Communities that require rental property
inspections should clarify whether HUD inspections satisfy the community’s inspection
requirements. Interview participants noted that HUD inspection requirements are somewhat
outdated, reflecting a bare minimum of housing standards, and that additional inspections may be
beneficial for the sake of improving housing quality and safety. They also noted that such
additional inspections on these properties creates a burden for tenants who are subject to multiple
inspections.
Rather than attempting to register and inspect all rental properties, Austin’s Repeat
Offender program focuses on rental properties that have a history of code violations that are most
frequency discovered through proactive neighborhood code enforcement. For properties in the
program with ongoing compliance issues, a required annual inspection provides a mechanism to
ensure properties do not fall below established standards of habitability. In 2021, Austin will be
updating the list of criteria that trigger registration of rental properties, including tailoring the
criteria to the number of units on the property. Fort Collins should keep an eye on these
regulations and may want to model Austin’s approach as a pilot rental registration and inspection
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 24
program to more proactively address health and safety conditions in properties that have a
history of nuisance code issues.
Regulation Development
Communities that adopt rental housing regulations should anticipate state legislative and
legal challenges; regulations in several of the communities researched have been overturned or
rescinded by state authority. In Colorado, there appears to be no regulatory restrictions on rental
registration, licensing, or inspection programs, though it is interesting to note that all of the
Colorado communities included in the benchmarking efforts have longstanding rental housing
programs that have been in place for decades (some with more recent amendments). Fort Collins
could collaborate with other Colorado communities facing similar housing issues and
collectively explore or advocate for statewide policy solutions for tenant rights and rental
housing conditions.
To generate regulatory buy-in and reduce opposition, communities should engage diverse
stakeholders including property owners, property maintenance companies, tenants, tenants’ rights
organizations, chambers of commerce, realtors associations, universities, affordable housing
providers, state legislators, and other community stakeholders in collaborative dialogue to
explore options and determine preferred alternatives. All the interview participants noted looking
to other communities for initial ideas and examples, but also the need to work closely with local
groups and stakeholders to create or update program requirements to address unique community
needs and opportunities.
Many communities adopt a “housing code” that goes above and beyond basic building
code requirements to address additional health and safety issues, as well as rental registration,
licensing, and/or inspection requirements. Several communities interviewed noted that rental
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 25
property owners express frustration that owner-occupied properties are not held to the same
standards, and so any code updates should consider the extra burden created for rental properties.
When developing or updating housing code language, it is important to examine for
alignment or conflicts with other adopted codes, such as the International Property Maintenance
Code. Another example is Boulder’s SmartRegs, which requires minimum energy efficiency
performance for dwelling units that is confirmed by a third party through the rental inspection
process. Communities also need to review proposed regulations and procedures for potential Fair
Housing law violations.
Program Administration
All the interview participants mentioned the need for flexibility in administering rental
regulations and that new questions and issues arise almost weekly. In completing the
benchmarking process, accessibility of information about rental regulations emerged as an
opportunity for many communities to improve. A few communities like Ames, Boulder, and
Sacramento do a nice job of sharing guides and information that is accessible to property owners
and tenants. Other communities, like San Francisco and Washington D.C., rely heavily on code
citations that can be challenging to find or difficult for the community members to understand.
Austin’s Repeat Offender Program materials are exemplary and include a user-friendly video and
interactive mapping; however, Austin’s program information was initially difficult to find due to
the program’s unique name.
Most of the rental regulations reviewed are administered by municipal government staff
with community development or code enforcement divisions with a few notable exceptions.
Ames’ program is administered by the fire department and Kansas City’s program is
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 26
administered by the health department. Fort Collins should consider these types of unique
partnerships for any future rental regulation refinements to increase housing health and safety.
Regarding funding, fees for registration, licensing, inspection, and re-inspection are
common in communities reviewed. While registration fees do apply for the Repeat Offender
Program, Austin’s rental program is largely funded through a utility bill fee called the Clean
Community Service Charge, which is $8.95 per month for all residential units (including owner
and renter-occupied), and wherein $4.25 of that monthly charge goes to the Austin Code
Department. A utility bill fee is an interesting model for Fort Collins to consider for future
healthy housing program funding.
Other challenges of rental regulation administration raised by interview participants
included retaliation of property owners on tenants for reporting suspected violations and limited
resources of some property owners to make improvements to their properties. In both cases,
having a plan in place to link property owners and tenants to resources such as mediation
support, legal services, timeline extensions, and improvement grant funding, can often make a
difference in keeping people in their homes or unintentionally leading to their displacement.
Conclusion
Several of the communities reviewed include housing occupancy regulations like Fort
Collins, yet all layer in other rental regulatory approaches to more proactively address rental
housing management and conditions. Approaches vary from voluntary rental registration to
mandatory licensing and inspection.
Additional rental regulations beyond occupancy regulations present potential benefits to
communities like Fort Collins, especially in the context of improving health and safety
conditions for tenants. Few of the examples reviewed demonstrate significant impact on housing
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 27
stability, partially because rental occupancy provides flexibility and in university communities,
high rental turnover is expected. In terms of housing affordability, some rental regulations can
create a perception of increasing unaffordability. Yet in communities like Fort Collins with
extreme housing affordability challenges, some renters experience substandard housing
conditions as a result of simply trying to secure low-cost housing.
Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance focuses on over-occupancy as a nuisance issue for
neighbors, whereas many of the other programs examined focus on proactively addressing
housing conditions and tenants’ rights to quality, safe, and healthy housing. As Fort Collins looks
to finalize and implement the Housing Strategic Plan with a vision that “everyone has healthy,
stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a), it may be necessary to introduce
creative, locally-tailored rental housing regulations beyond U plus 2 to improve equity and
quality housing options for the community’s large rental housing population.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 28
References
Acevedo-Garcia, D., McArdle, N., Hardy, E., Dillman, K.-N., Reece, J., Crisan, U. I., . . .
Osypuk, T. L. (2016). Neighborhood Opportunity and Location Affordability for Low-
Income Renter Families. Housing Policy Debate, 26:4-6, 607-645.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1198410
Ackerman, A., Galbreth, L., & Pearson, A. (2014). A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection
Programs. Oakland: ChangeLab Solutions.
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: housing affordability and affordable housing. International
Journal of Housing Policy, 19:1, 1-16. doi:10.1080/19491247.2018.1560544
Center for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places. (n.d.). Tool 1: Rental
Registration and Licensing. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from
https://www.communityprogress.net/tool-1--rental-registration--licensing-pages-207.php
Chisholm, E., Howden-Chapman, P., & Fougere, G. (2020). Tenants' Responses to Substandard
Housing: Hidden and Invisible Power and the Failure of Rental Housing Regulation.
Housing, Theory and Society, 37:2, 139-161. doi:10.1080/14036096.2018.1538019
City of Fort Collins. (2020a). Ad Hoc Housing Committee First Meeting. Retrieved August 28,
2020, from City of Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/
City of Fort Collins. (2020b). Housing Strategic Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Assessment.
Fort Collins. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3488568&dt=MAIL+PACK
ET
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.a). Social Sustainability. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from City of Fort
Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.b). Vision, Mission, & Values. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from City of
Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/vmv
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.c.). Healthy Homes. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from City of Fort
Collins Air Quality Division: https://www.fcgov.com/airquality/healthyhomes
Corona Insights. (2019). Rental Market Study: Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and Short-
Term Rentals. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from Occupancy Limits & Enforcement:
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/files/corona-insights-rental-market-report-
to-fort-collins-2019-01-15.pdf?1550775622
George Washington University School of Public Health (GWUSPH). (2018). Advancing City-
Level Healthy Housing: Policies, Programs and Practices in Asthma and Lead. National
League of Cities.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 29
National Institue of Standards and Technology. (2017). City of Fort Collins. Retrieved October
10, 2020 , from Baldrige Performance Excellence Program:
https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/city-fort-collins
Norman-Major, K. (2011). Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity
in Public Administration? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17:2, 233-252.
doi:10.1080/15236803.2011.12001640
Parsons, M. (2019). Colorado's Racial Wealth Gap: Homewonership & Credit. Denver: The Bell
Policy Center. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://www.bellpolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Homeownership-Credit.pdf
Petersen, A., & Lalit, R. (2018). Better Rentals, Better City: Policies to Improve Your City's
Rental Housing Energy Peformance. Boulder: Rocky Mountain Institute.
Phillips, S. (2020). The Affordable City: Strategies for Putting Housing Within Reach (and
Keeping it There). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18:1, 191-214. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3216881
Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government
Segregated America (First ed.). New York; London: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a
division of W.W. Norton & Company.
Stacy, C. P., Schilling, J., Gourevitch, R., Lowy, J., Meixell, B., & Thornton, R. L. (2019).
Bridging the Housing and Health Policy Divide: Lessons in Community Development
from Memphis and Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 29:3, 403-420.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2018.1539858
Stacy, C. P., Schilling, J., Gourevitch, R., Lowy, J., Meixell, B., & Thornton, R. L. (2019).
Bridging the Housing and Health Policy Divide: Lessons in Community Development
From Memphis and Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 29:3, 403-420.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2018.1539858
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Selected housing characteristics, 2018 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Housing&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&hidePrevie
w=false
Way, H. K., Trinh, S., & Wyatt, M. (2013). An Analysis of Rental Property Registration in
Austin. University of Texas School of Law, Entrepreneurship and Community
Development Clinc. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://law.utexas.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2015/07/2013-07-ECDC-An-Analysis-of-Rental-Property-
Registration-in-Austin.pdf
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 30
Appendix A: Selection of Communities for Benchmarking
The following table shows the list of communities screened and the results for each
community across the four screening criteria used to determine whether a community would be
included in the benchmarking efforts:
1. Peer City List – communities that are identified by the City of Fort Collins as a peer
community or high-performing organization that serves as an aspirational peer.
2. Literature Review – communities that are spotlighted in major literature review
sources (A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs (2014); Better Rentals,
Better City (2018)).
3. Known Program – communities that appear to have a registration, licensing or
inspection program for long-term rentals, per search of community’s website.
4. University Community – presence of a large college or university as a significant
component of the community’s population or identity.
Fifty communities were screened, and 20 were shortlisted for more detailed benchmarking.
City State Peer City
List
Literature
Review
Known
Program
University
Community
Benchmark
Shortlist
Ames IA yes yes yes yes
Anaheim CA yes
Ann Arbor MI yes yes yes yes yes
Asheville NC yes yes yes yes yes
Aurora CO yes yes
Austin TX yes yes yes yes
Bloomington IL yes
Boston MA yes yes
Boulder CO yes yes yes yes yes
Brooklyn
Center MN yes
Burlington VT yes yes yes yes
Cleveland OH yes
Columbia MO
Denver CO yes
Detroit MI yes
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 31
City State Peer City
List
Literature
Review
Known
Program
University
Community
Benchmark
Shortlist
Durham NC yes yes yes yes
Eau Claire WI yes yes
Eugene OR yes yes
Fayetteville AR yes
Fort Collins CO yes yes
Grand Rapids MI yes yes yes yes
Greensboro NC yes yes yes yes yes
Hayward CA yes
Irving TX yes
Kansas City MO yes yes yes yes
Lawrence KS yes yes yes
Lincoln NE yes yes yes
Los Angeles CA yes
Mesa AZ yes
Moorhead MN yes
Naperville IL yes
Oklahoma
City OK yes
Philadelphia PA yes
Plano TX yes
Rochester NY yes yes yes yes
Sacramento CA yes yes yes yes yes
San Francisco CA yes yes yes
Santa Cruz CA yes yes yes yes
Santa Monica CA yes
Savannah GA yes
Seattle WA yes
Shakopee MN yes
Sioux Falls SD yes
Tallahassee FL yes
Toledo OH
Waco TX yes
Washington DC yes yes
Westminster CO yes yes
Wilmington NC yes
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 32
Appendix B: Community Benchmarking Criteria
Criteria Description Research Relevance Source
Population Total number of
residents
Do types of regulations
differ based on total
population?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
University
Community
Community dominated
by a significant
university presence
Do types of regulations
differ based on whether
there is university
presence?
Community
website
Rental Tenure Percentage of housing
units that are renter
occupied
Do communities with
larger shares of rental
housing have differing
types of regulations?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Single-Family
Units
Percentage of total
housing units that are 1-
unit detached
Do regulations differ in
communities with large
share of single-family
units?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Average Household
Size of Renter-
Occupied Unit
Average number of
people living in
occupied rental units
Do regulations differ in
communities with large
rental households?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Rental Vacancy
Rate
Percentage of the rental
inventory that is vacant
for rent
Do regulations differ in
communities with low
rental vacancy rates?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Cost-Burdened
Renters
Occupied units with
gross rent as 30% or
more of household
income
Do regulations differ in
communities with high
proportions of cost-
burdened renters?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 33
Criteria Description Research Relevance Source
Regulation
Adoption
Date when the
regulation or program
was established and/or
last amended
Describes how long the
regulation has been in
place and how recently it
was amended
Community
website
Unique Occupancy
Restrictions
Presence of regulations
that restrict total
dwelling occupancy
beyond standard
habitable square footage
or minimum room size
requirements
Helps to identify
communities that may be
regulating unit occupancy
in unique ways
Community
website
Registration Regulation requires
owner registration of
rental dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
License Regulation requires
periodic licensing of
rental dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
Inspection Regulation requires
proactive or complaint-
triggered inspection of
dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
Rental Regulation
Applicability
Type(s) of housing the
regulation applies to
(e.g., single-family,
multi-family, specific
areas)
Helps to identify what type
of housing is regulated and
where
Community
website
Program/Regulation
Description
Narrative summary of
the regulation or
program
Provides a summary of the
program for reference
Community
website
Appendix C: Community Benchmarking Details
Initial benchmarking efforts collected quantitative information for each community from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018
American Community Survey 5-Year estimates.
City State University
Community
Population Rental
Tenure
Single-
Family
Units
Average
Household
Size of
Renter
Occupied
Unit
Rental
Vacancy
Rate
Cost-
Burdened
Renters
Ames IA yes 65,937 59.20% 38.60% 2.08 3.60% 59.7%
Ann Arbor MI yes 120,641 55.20% 55.20% 2.22 2.90% 53.4%
Asheville NC yes 90,531 50.40% 54.30% 1.97 4.20% 52.9%
Aurora CO 363,550 41.00% 51.40% 2.8 4.40% 55.9%
Austin TX yes 935,755 54.80% 46.60% 2.29 6.60% 48.5%
Boulder CO yes 107,360 52.00% 39.30% 2.22 3.90% 62.2%
Burlington VT yes 935,755 62.20% 29.60% 2.15 2.00% 58.8%
Durham NC yes 264,310 50.50% 52.90% 2.24 6.60% 48.5%
Fort Collins CO yes 162,511 46.90% 56.20% 2.27 2.50% 60.6%
Grand Rapids MI yes 197,081 45.90% 58.10% 2.47 3.90% 52.4%
Greensboro NC 288,719 50.30% 53.90% 2.27 9.20% 50.3%
Kansas City MO yes 481,417 46.60% 62.30% 2.16 6.90% 46.6%
Lawrence KS yes 95,294 54.20% 49.30% 2.13 5.40% 53.8%
Lincoln NE yes 280,849 42.70% 57.80% 2.17 3.90% 46.1%
Rochester NY yes 207,778 63.70% 44.90% 2.26 7.70% 59.6%
Sacramento CA yes 495,011 52.00% 60.40% 2.56 4.20% 52.7%
San Francisco CA 870,044 62.40% 19.90% 2.13 2.90% 38.6%
Santa Cruz CA yes 64,273 52.90% 54.80% 2.47 1.80% 66.4%
Washington DC 162,204 58.20% 12.00% 2.2 6.00% 47.1%
Westminster CO 112,747 35.20% 58.30% 2.36 5.10% 50.4%
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 35
City State Regulation
Adoption
Unique
Occupancy
Restrictions
Registration License Inspection Applicability
Ames IA 1977 Yes Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Ann Arbor MI 1987 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Asheville NC 2003 No No No Yes All housing units
Aurora CO 1993 No No No Yes All multi-family properties
Austin TX 2013 Yes Yes No Yes Rental properties with violation
history; owner-occupied units
exempt
Boulder CO 1965 Yes No Yes Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Burlington VT 1993 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Durham NC 2012 No Yes No Yes Rental properties with violation
history; owner-occupied units
exempt
Fort Collins CO 1960s Yes No No No All dwelling units
Grand Rapids MI 2011 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Greensboro NC 2004 No No No No No longer applicable
Kansas City MO 2018 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 36
City State Regulation
Adoption
Unique
Occupancy
Restrictions
Registration License Inspection Applicability
Lawrence KS 2014 Yes Yes Yes Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Lincoln NE 2004 No No Yes Yes Multi-family properties with three
or more rental dwelling units
Rochester NY Mid 1970s No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Sacramento CA 2013 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
San Francisco CA unknown No No Yes Yes Multi-family properties with three
or more rental dwelling units
Santa Cruz CA 2010 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Washington DC unknown No No Yes Yes All rental properties
Westminster CO Late 1990s Yes Yes Yes Yes All rental properties
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 37
City State Regulation Description
Ames IA Occupancy regulations are based on the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit. All rental properties
must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections for registered properties (1, 2, 3 or
4 years based on dwelling type and condition).
Ann Arbor MI All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on inspection results (valid for 30-42 months).
Asheville NC Properties must comply with Minimum Housing Code. Inspections are conducted if a code violation is
suspected. Previous rental housing regulations appear to have been repealed.
Aurora CO All multi-family properties are systematically inspected. Inspections are prioritized based on property
maintenance history.
Austin TX Rental properties that meet certain conditions based on violation history must be registered for a minimum
of two years. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections may occur once a year.
Boulder CO The maximum number of unrelated individuals allowed per dwelling unit is determined by zoning district.
All rental properties must maintain a valid rental license. Owner-occupied units exempt. Licenses are valid
for four years. Baseline and renewal inspections are required. Properties must comply with basic energy
efficiency standards.
Burlington VT All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on inspection results (valid for 6 months to 5 years).
Durham NC Rental properties that meet certain conditions based on violation history must be registered for a minimum
of two years. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections may occur based on reasonable cause.
Fort Collins CO All dwelling units have a maximum occupancy of no more than three unrelated individuals.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 38
City State Regulation Description
Grand Rapids MI All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on property history (valid for 2, 4, or 6 years).
Greensboro NC Previous proactive rental inspection program appears to have been rescinded due to state legislation.
Kansas City MO All rental properties must be registered. All landlords must have a permit. Owner-occupied units exempt.
Initial inspections for all registered units. Fixed number of random routine inspections completed annually.
Lawrence KS Number of unrelated persons allowed per dwelling unit varies based on zoning district. All rental
properties must maintain a valid rental license. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are
required, and renewal inspections are required on a 3 or 6-year cycle based on property condition.
Lincoln NE Multi-family properties with three or more rental units must be licensed. Inspections are completed
annually on building exteriors and common areas. Interior inspections are completed on a complaint basis.
Rochester NY All rental properties must maintain a valid certificate of occupancy. Owner-occupied units exempt.
Baseline inspections are required, and renewal inspections are required on a 3 or 6-year cycle based on
property type.
Sacramento CA All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are required.
Properties that pass the initial inspection without any violations are placed in a self-certification program.
Random inspections of self-certified properties. Annual inspections for properties that are not self-
certified.
San Francisco CA All one and two-family rental units are required to pay an annual license fee. All multi-family properties
are required to pay an annual license fee and provide proof of compliance with minimum housing
standards, verified by a licensed professional every 5 years.
Santa Cruz CA All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are required.
Properties that pass the initial inspection without any violations are placed in a self-certification program.
Random inspections of self-certified properties. Annual inspections for properties that are not self-
certified.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 39
City State Regulation Description
Washington DC All landlords must maintain a basic business license. Inspections are required for license approval.
Westminster CO All rental properties must be registered. Rental properties with four or more units or with 4 or more units
under single ownership must be licensed. Baseline inspections are required for licensing and periodic
renewal inspections are required every 2 to 4 years based on property age.
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Pre-Interview Checklist
1. Send an email requesting a 60-minute interview with 1-2 city staff members most familiar
with rental registration program/policies.
2. Schedule interview with participants (via email or doodle poll)
3. Confirm interview appointment and send Zoom meeting link and interview details (project
description, interview agenda with list of interview questions)
Email Template
Greetings (insert name if known),
I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs,
conducting research on rental registration programs as a capstone project for the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado. Based on my preliminary research, the City of Fort Collins is interested in
learning more about your community’s rental registration program as it appears to be a potential
model for Fort Collins.
I would like to schedule a 60-minute videoconference interview with you to learn more
about your city’s rental registration program, including the purpose and history behind the
regulations, implementation considerations and challenges, and other tips and lessons learned
from your community’s experiences. I am reserving Friday, October 16 and Friday, October 23,
2020 to conduct the interviews, or can work with you to schedule an alternative date if necessary.
Please respond back to me by Wednesday, October 14, 2020 with your preferred interview date
and time and I will do my best to accommodate your request.
Once we confirm a date and time, I will follow-up with a calendar reminder, Zoom
meeting link (or other software if necessary), project summary, and interview questions. If you
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 41
feel like it is more appropriate to direct this request to another person (or people) in your
organization, please let me know so that I can follow up with him/her/them.
If you have any questions about the project or the interview request, please don’t hesitate
to email me at this address or call me at 970-692-3499. Thank you for your consideration and I
hope to hear from you soon.
With gratitude,
Shelby Sommer
Interview Checklist
1. Ask if the interview participant(s) authorize the interview to be recorded. If yes, remember to
hit record.
2. Proceed through the interview agenda and questionnaire.
Time
(min)
Agenda Topic Interview Questions
15 Introductions
and
Background
1. What is your name, title, and department?
2. How long have you been with the organization?
3. Please describe your level of involvement or history with
your community’s rental regulations/program.
4. Please describe the City's rental regulations or program. How
does it work and to what type of rental housing does it
apply?
5. What is the purpose of the regulation or program? What were
the motivating factors in its establishment?
6. Does your community have any other housing occupancy
regulations?
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 42
Time
(min)
Agenda Topic Interview Questions
35 Effectiveness
and
Implementation
Considerations
7. What challenges have you encountered with regard to
property owner buy-in &-opposition?
8. What challenges have you encountered with regard to tenant
resistance or concerns?
9. What benefits or positive impacts are you experiencing with
respect to this approach?
10. What challenges or unforeseen impacts are you experiencing
with respect to this approach?
11. How is the approach enforced? In your opinion, is
enforcement successful?
12. How is the approach funded? In your opinion, is funding
sufficient?
13. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
health and safety?
14. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
stability?
15. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
affordability?
16. What impacts do you think this approach has on your single-
family housing stock?
10 Wrap -Up 17. Are there any documents or resources not on the
community’s website that are relevant to this conversation
and available to share?
18. Which communities do you look to or think of as leaders in
effective or innovative rental regulation?
19. Do you have any recommendations for other cities as they
consider designing a rental registration program?
20. Are there any other questions you would like to go back to or
do you have any final comments?
Post-Interview Checklist
1. Type up interview summary notes.
2. Send a thank you to interview participant.
3. Send the participants any quotes or summary information that will be included in paper for
review, refinement, and approval (if applicable).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 43
Appendix E: Interview Participants
Name Title Organization Division/ Department
Sara VanMeeteren Building Official City of Ames,
Iowa
Inspection Division, Division
of the Fire Department
Holly Clayton Lead Rental
Housing Inspector
City of
Westminster,
Colorado
Building Division, Community
Development Department
Tonia Pringle &
Kimberly Allen
Administrative
Supervisor –
Licensing &
Administrative
Specialist –
Licensing
City of Boulder,
Colorado
Planning & Development
Services
Daniel Word Division Manager
for Repeat
Offender Program
City of Austin,
Texas
Code Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcy Yo d e r , City of Fort Collins
From:Mollie Fitzpatrick, Avilia Bueno, and Julia Jones , Root Policy Research
Re: Peer Community Research: Rental Registry Policy and Implementation
Date : June 8 , 2021
Peer Community Research
Communities interviewed. Root interviewed the following peer communities
about their rental regulations. These communities were selected because they are 1)
university anchored (with a few exceptions); and/or 2) have unique program
requirements or methods of enforcement.
Am es, Iowa
Austin, Texas
Boulder, Colorado
Corvallis, Oregon
Kansas City, Missouri
Lawrence, Kansas
Manhattan, Kansas
San Marcos, Texas
Seattle, Washington
Westminster, Colorado
Elements of regulations. While each community has unique challenges and
utilizes different rental regulations, there are common elements that constitute a rental
registration, licensing, or inspection program. This section of the memorandum will
discuss the pros and cons of elements of the peer community regulations and include
recommendations for the City of Fort Collins to consider when crafting their rental
regulations. Generally, rental regulations include the following elements:
Registration or licensing requirements,
Methods for enforcement and penalties for noncompliance,
Fee structure for funding the program,
Inspections either by request or systematized,
La ndlord and tenant outreach practices,
Local considerations, and
Implementation.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2
Registration versus licensing. Clear expectations and terminology are vital to the
successful implementation of rental regulations. In peer communities interviewed,
many had registration programs that acted as licenses. For the purposes of this memo
registration and license are defined as follows .
Registration programs can be either mandatory or voluntary and involve collecting
information from property owners and landlords. Registration programs are typically
complaint based and rarely involved proactive enforcement. The following communities
are considered registration programs by this definition:
Austin
Corvallis
Kansas City
Manhattan
Westminster
Licensing programs are mandatory and require property owners or landlords complete
an application and, in some cases, complete an inspection prior to renting the property.
Licensing programs are typically proactively enforced, but inspections can be either
complaint based or proactive. The following communities are considered licensing
programs by this definition:
Am es
Boulder
Lawrence
San Marcos
Seattle
Most peer communities interviewed indicated that mandatory licensing programs with
inspections have the best outcomes for health and safety of units and accuracy of
information . Mandatory licensing programs generally include an inspection and a
complete application prior to renting the unit. However, lack of political will, la ndlord
opposition, and administrative burden were cited as the primarily reasons some
communities were unable to implement a mandatory licensing program.
Among communities that have registration programs that are complaint based, the
condition of rental properties still improved. There were concerns about equity within
complaint-based systems because residents fear retaliation from landlords—this fear is
particularly acute among undocumented residents, residents with a disability, seniors,
low income resid ents, and racial and ethic minorities. While there are equity concerns
with a complaint -based system, the registration of rental properties was still largely
successful in communities for opening up avenues for communication with rental
property owners, landlords, and property managers.
The biggest concern about rental registration programs, particularly voluntary
programs, are that they “have no teeth.” These programs rely on property owners,
landlords, or management companies to voluntarily register and maintain accurate
Page 3
information within the registration system. Communities interviewed indicated these
programs have lower participation rate s compared to mandatory licensing programs.
Some communities build in deterrents for repeat offenders —properties th at are
routinely cited for code violations —through inspection schedules. The City of Austin’s
rental registration program is unique in that it only applies to repeat offenders. If
properties in the city exceed two code violations within a 24-month period t hey are
required to register with the program and receive , at a minimum , annual inspections for
at least two years. Properties must move into compliance before they can be removed
from the program.
Programs that rely on code violations to trigger inspecti ons or registration have a
greater impact on larger properties —unless the number of citations is scaled to the size
of the property. For example, a 400-unit apartment complex can easily have five code
violations in a year, whereas the same five code violat ions on a single family home is
more concerning for health and safety .
Peer communities said:
“Registration is no good without a license you can withhold and without an inspection.”
“Voluntary registration programs you might as well not wa ste your time.”
“[I] would be somewhat afraid of trying to do a full registration program with periodic
inspections.”
“It is punitive to require all properties to register.”
Recommendations.
Require all rental properties to register with the city and obtain a license to rent
their unit.
Require all rental properties to pass an inspection prior to renting units.
Provide a three -year introductory period to provide education, allow property
owners to ensure properties are habitable for inspection, and get properties
licensed prior to enforcement.
Enforcement. Peer communities utilize a wide variety of enforcement methods from
proactive to complaint based. Proactive enforcement is conducted through staff
investigation into parking permits, rental advertising online or in the community, and
utility billings. Complaint based enforcement requires a community member to report
the issue to the department. Most communities interviewed lead with education and
open a dialogue to give landlords the opportunity to comply prior to moving to
penalties.
Communities interviewed expressed the need to have decision makers and city
attorney(s) in agreement about suitable penalties for violations because they will
Page 4
ultimately take action when violations escalate. Peer communities interviewed utilize a
variety of penalties including revoking or suspending rental licenses, vacating the
property, allowing tena nt rent abatement, cash citations, tax liens, tickets or
administrative citations, and finally summons and prosecution.
Most communities require a local contact —some specify the distance they can live from
the city —in order to provide timely correspondence and fix maintenance issues. Local
contacts also ensure that fewer violations are escalated due to unresponsiveness of out
of town landlords and owners. Many communities work closely with owner property
management companies to resolve issues quickly withou t escalation.
Peer communities said:
“Very rare to have to issue citations to landlords or tenants. We generally start with a door
hanger to notify tenants about requirements, but it is ultimately the landlord’s responsibility
to come into compliance.”
“We approach enforcement mainly as pro-active where able, and definitely re-active in all
cases. We take an ‘education first’ approach to give landlords the opportunity to comply with
city codes prior to moving to penalties.”
“Safe and healthy living environment is our job…we are successful because we are
reasonable.”
“The real goal for registration was to provide better access to someone who could fix things
[like landlords and owners]. With out of state owners, it takes months to get grass mowed.”
“Getting out of state landlords has been a huge benefit for us. They need to put local contact
for repairs and this is public information so tenants can contact them as well.”
Recommendations.
Lead with education to tenants and landlords before issuing a citation.
Consider requiring landlords that rent four or more units and live more than 50
miles from the city to designate a local contact with authority to fix maintenance
issues and make repairs.
Consult the city’s legal team to understand the options for enforcement penalties
and escalation of violations. Review enforcement tactics with City Council.
Fee structure. The communities interviewed either directly fund their program
through fees collected, allocate fees to the general fund to fund the program through
the general fund, or collect fees and other department specific funding to run the
program. Most communities are cost neutral and self -sufficient , while some
communities are working toward that goal or using a unique funding structure. Cost
recovery depends on the frequency of registration/licensing renewals (ranges from 1 to
4 years in communities) and the fee structure and frequency of inspections (varies).
Page 5
Communities where fees collected fund the program include Ames, Boulder, Kansas
City, Manhattan, and Seattle. Programs funded through the general fund include
Corvallis, Lawrence, San Marcos, and Westminster. Programs funded through the
general fund can be cost neutral if fee revenue contributed to the general fund is
adequate . Finally, the City of Austin charges a small fee that covers the cost of
registration paperwork and funds the remainder of the program’s administration (staff,
inspectors, etc.) through a clean community fee —$4.25 collected monthly as part of
utility billi ng.
Communities interviewed indicated the fee calculation itself can be a challenge. Fees
that are calculated per property have a larger impact on small properties whereas fees
calculated per unit have a larger impact on large properties. Interviewees sugg ested the
fee calculation be tailored to the amount of staff time and resources properties require.
A tiered fee based on the size of the property was preferred.
The fee structure for the program determines the staffing capacity. The communities
interviewe d indicated the following staffing levels at the time of the interview.
Am es —3 full time inspectors
Austin —8 full time inspectors, 1 supervisor
Boulder—3 full time licensing team, inspections conducted by 3rd party
Corvallis —2 full time staff, 1 part time code compliance specialist
Kansas City—4 public health specialists, 6 field staff, 2 supervisors, 4 clinical staff
Lawrence—3 inspectors
Manhattan—1 clerical, 1 supervisor, 2 inspectors
San Marcos—0 dedicated staff
Seattle —1 call center, 3 administrative, 1 cashier, 3 inspectors, 1 senior inspector, 1
manager
Westminster—3 inspectors, 1 part time admin
Peer communities said:
“Self-sufficient; if it becomes a point where the program is not sufficient, then we would raise
the fee.”
“We are not allowed to profit from our program. Must be cost of service. Difficult to figure out
how to separate repeat offender activities from regular code enforcement. Right now, we
expend more time and money trying to collect the fee than the fee is.”
“When they look to hire people, think outside of the box. We are way overqualified for what
we do—our skillsets are helpful for the job we have. The people are important.”
Page 6
“Funded through the registration fee. When talking to anyone against program we can say,
‘we don’t take from general fund. Landlords pay for it, just like health inspections, hotel
inspections.’ “
“We ended up having to borrow more when getting started. It cost more than we thought to
get things running. We also, overestimated the number of rental propertie s and set fees too
low as a result.”
Recommendations.
Design the fee structure to cover the costs of running the program.
Charge fees based on the number of rental units under ownership, not based on
the number of properties. This ensures the adm inistrative burden is consistent with
the fee charged.
Assume startup costs will be more than you think.
Hire full time staff dedicated to this program, particularly inspectors .
Inspections. Communities interviewed are almost evenly split between complaint-
based inspections (Manhattan, Corvallis, Kansas City, and San Marcos) and mandatory
inspections (Ames, Austin, Boulder, Lawrence, Seattle, and Westminster). Complaint
based inspections require someone to report the property to the city, and some
interviewees raised the issue of equity and fear of retaliation in complaint -based
programs.
Mandatory inspection programs are generally required between every year and every
six years. Three of the communities interviewed offer a reward for a good inspection. In
Am es i f you pass your inspection the first time you get put on a four -year schedule as
opposed to an annual. In Lawrence if you have fewer than five violations you switch
from a three -year schedule to a six -year schedule. Westminster can modify inspection
period s based on performance.
Another key attribute of mandatory programs interviewed is unit sampling. Austin,
Lawrence, and Seattle all rely on unit sampling for inspections as part of their rental
regulation s . Generally, 10 percent of units are inspected in sampling programs.
However, in Lawrence the unit sampling is capped at 15 units total for each property
owner. Staff noted this is not effective for large properties and owners with multiple
properties in the program. Finally, Seattle uses a computer program to pull randomized
properties for inspection to prevent discrimination and targeting.
Among communities interviewed, most inspect HUD properties as well—even though
they have their own inspection requirements. While communities indicated this does
cause some inefficiencies, the standards and requirements are different for HUD
inspections. In one of the communities interviewed, most of their citations are in units
owned by the housing authority and in another they had to go back and revise the
Page 7
ordinance t o include Section 8 properties because one third of complaints came from
those properties. Interviewees advised to include publicly subsidized housing units in
the inspection program.
Peer communities said:
“Reward those that have units that are maintaine d.”
“If I had a choice, I would find a way to staff city inspectors for consistency and knowing the
codes specific to [our city]. There is a training element for licensed inspectors, and we do not
have control of consistency… a city inspector would give the program more consistency and
take away the price difference.”
“Registration is no good without a license you can withhold and without an inspection.”
Recommendations.
Require mandatory life and safety inspections of rental properties to receive a
license to rent units .
Provide a tiered inspection schedule to alleviate the burden of inspections on
landlords who maintain their property to a higher standard. Consider the number
of citations received during initial inspection as a gauge for the inspection period.
Inspect all properties at least once every four years.
Inspect all rental properties, even if they are inspected through another program.
Explore opportunities to coordinate inspections to alleviate administrative burden
on landlords.
Hire c ity inspectors to perform rental inspections but allow landlords to choose a
private inspector if they wish.
Landlord and tenant involvement. Open communication is key. Communities
advised to open a dialogue with landlords and tenants during program development,
and keep the dialogue going once the program is up and running. Quarterly touchpoints
are ideal to facilitate learning, training, and identify pain points in the process.
Particularly for students, education is constant. Many students are living alone for the
first time and do not understand the norms and behaviors to be a good neighbor.
Most landlords want to do a good job. Interviewees stressed the importance of having a
lot of upfront conversations and including them in the implementation process. Some
communities market the program as insurance for landlords as well to ensure tenants
are taking good care of their property. It is important to have a clear message for why
the community is pursuing rental regulations and how the program will ensure good
landlords are not penalized. Most communities focus on keeping costs low and focusing
on health and safety issues.
Page 8
Tenants are generally compl iant with the program and permit entry into units for
inspe ction. In some cases, it is difficult to balance tenants’ desires for swift compliance
and the need to properly notice landlords and provide ample time for them to fix the
issue.
Peer communities said:
“Most of the landlords want to do a good job.”
“Start with an open and collaborative approach with stakeholders on both sides—include
tenants as well.”
“Ordinance was repealed because of opposition. There is no buy-in and there never has been.
The prevailing thought is buyer beware. Students should know if it is unsafe. They need to
step up and get a clue—we don’t need to police landlords .“
“Focus on: ‘Let’s not wait for a tragedy or someone to die to realize this is important!’ It takes
a lot of talking about why we are doing this.”
“You will always have opposition. It is really dependent on how you frame it—documentation
and illustration of the problems is critical.”
“You need to have people on your team that fit in. Don’t dress like police officers—you are not
there to look for stuff or snitch. If there is stuff out in the open shame on them, but we are not
adversarial.”
“The tone was this is going to happen let’s talk about how to make it workable.”
Recommendations.
Convene a stakeholder advisory committee to collaborate on process efficiencies,
program cost, and implementation timelines to ensure there is an open avenue of
communication.
Maintain quarterly meetings with stakeholders and residents to identify issues with
the program implementation, discuss progress and effectiveness, and provide
education.
Local considerations. Mobile home parks, energy efficiency, and university
context are all local considerations for the City of Fort Collins. The responses from peer
communities regarding these local considerations are summarized below.
Mobile h omes . Seven of the ten communities interviewed inspect mobile homes if
they are rentals. Communities that do not inspect mobile homes either have state
requirements for them to be licensed or they are inspected by other entities.
Communities that d o inspect mobile homes only inspect units where the unit itself is
rented—lot rent does not qualify as a rental if the unit is owned by the occupant.
Page 9
Energy e fficiency . Only one of the communities interviewed incorporate minimum
energy efficiency regulati ons into their rental regulation program. Communities without
energy efficiency standards indicated that they want to keep the focus on health and
safety of the units and many landlords do not have the resources to address minimum
energy efficiency. Commun ities did clarify that basic weatherization and safety were
included in the inspections and that new construction residential is generally held to a
higher standard for energy efficiency.
The City of Boulder adopted their SmartRegs in 2012 to help address energy and climate
goals within rental housing stock. The city allowed two rental registration cycles (8 years)
for property owners to meet the new requirements. A license is a four -year term and
requires the property to meet a base level of energy effici ency and a life safety
inspection. The energy requirements are a one -time certification, and the life safety
inspection is required at each four -year renewal term. Early adopters of the energy
efficiency standards received incentives including rebates and upgrades . The city u sed
grants and program funds to support initial incentives .
In the early stages of the program the city was providing free energy audits as initial
inspections. The city designed an inspection and training program tailored to their
regulations. All inspections are done by a third party and costs are market driven . The
biggest pushback the city received was the cost of upgrades to properties and the cost
of inspect ions —particularly if the property required multiple inspections.
University context. University anchored peer communities stress the importance of
education and engagement with the student population. Peer cities conducted outreach
in a variety of ways inc luding meeting with student newspaper, reserving an ex oficio
seat on City Council for a student, attending back to school events, going door to door,
engaging the student conduct office , and including students in stakeholder meetings .
Corvallis and San Ma rcos take student engagement one step further by forming
partnerships with local universities to monitor off campus living.
Special response notices (SRN) in Corvallis allow code enforcement or police to
report a nuisance violation with an SRN which is available to the Oregon State
University code of conduct office. The student code of conduct extends off campus
and into the community. SRNs notify the university of violations so the school may
discuss the issue with students. Staff report this program has b een very successful
in reducing or addressing nuisance violations with students living off-campus.
The Act Ally program in San Marcos is a partnership between the university and
landlords. Landlords register for the program —there is no fee—and if landlords
maintain their properties, they are included on the off campus living list. The
university has a long -standing relationship with apartment complexes and this
program has had some success. However, the program was rolled back because of
the legal and liability issues of program managers certifying properties to rent.
Page 10
Landlords can now register through an online portal to get into the program, but
the university provides no guarantees about the conditions of the properties.
Recommendations.
Treat mobile and manufactured housing units the same as other rental units if the
unit itself is occupied by a renter. Lot rent should not be considered a rental
property trigger if the unit is owner occupied.
Review energy efficiency standards for new construction in the city. Reevaluate the
introduction of minimum energy efficiency standards for existing rental properties
in five years to avoid overburdening landlords and administrative staff while
implementing initial rental regulations. Life and safety issues should be the priority.
Partner with Colorado State University code of conduct office to craft a notice
system that involves the university in nuisance violations in off campus student
housing.
Implementation. Communities interviewed emphasized the importance of
messaging, education, and engagement during implementation. Messaging for the
program should “focus on the why,” which is for health and safety of tenants and
preservation of rental housing stock. Position the program as educational and do not
take sides between the tenant and landlord. Implementation in most communities took
two to three years to educate and work rental properties through the system.
Interviewees recommended to start early with education and engagement. For
engagement, it is important to work with stakeholders and alert them that this program
is coming and is supported politically, but the design and implementation of the
program is open for discussion. Have an open conversation about how to make the
program work for everyone.
Communities in terviewed spoke about the importance of fairness, balance, and
neutrality in implementation. The process for filing a complaint should be systematized
in order to avoid access to the “back door” for politically connected residents. The
process for filing a complaint and registering properties should also be designed in a
way to avoid unnecessary administrative burden on staff.
Many communities spoke about their experience with computer systems and software.
IT can either work for you or against you. One community struggled with issuing letters
of compliance for different number of years to reward good behavior another had to
revert to paper applications and manual data entry because their IT system was
ineffective. Starting an inventory of rentals was challenging in communities interviewed
because they were starting from scratch. Startup almost always took longer and cost
more than anticipated.
Peer communities said:
“Advice for them: ramping up is a great idea! Get way out in front of it . Take two years to
create awareness; you have to tell people time and time again.”
Page 11
“There is a group of renters out there that do not know the basics they should know. If you
are involved in government or housing it is your responsibility to advocate for those people.
Start with basic life safety. Otherwise, you missed the mark.”
“How you spin the program is important …you are there to educate. We have owners that love
us and are grateful and of course there are some that get upset. People who yell the loudest
are the ones that need it.”
“Startup was a real challenge. Before us there was no inventory of rentals. There was no good
information.”
“Wish we looked more at licensing software, for example, business licensing.”
Recommendations.
Create a community education and engagement plan to guide outreach efforts over
the first three years of implementation. Include education, stakeholder
engagement , student engagement, clear expectations on timing, and key
messaging about the purpose and jurisdiction of the program regulations.
Formalize the process for filing and investigating complaints to remove biases.
Work closely with the city’s IT staff to identify the unique software needs to
administer the program and register properties efficiently.
Occupancy . Peer communities, particularly university anchored communities
regulate occupancy similar to the City of Fort Collins —through the number of unrelated
individuals that can live together. Among peer communities, occupancy is measured
using the following methods: adults per bedroom, number of unrelated individuals by
type of unit, and limits on unrelated individuals defined by zoning district. Most
communities do not proactively enforce these ordinances—and in some states it is
illegal to —while others monitor parking permits, party complaints, number of
individuals receiving mail, and rental inspections to identify households in violation.
In Iowa and Oregon, local realtors and landlords lobbied the state to pass a law making
it illegal for jurisdictions to regulate or enforce occupancy based on familial status.
Additionally, regulating the number of unrelated individuals that can live together has
been challenged as a violation of the Fair Housing Act. A best practice is to not define
family through the zoning code to better facilitate inclusive housing arrangements,
reflect changing preferences in sharing of residential units, and instead regulating
through occupancy restrictions to prevent overcrowding. Additionally, it is a best
practice to focus definitions of families—or preferably households—on the functional
aspects of relationships instead of familial relatedness.
Recommendation s.
Revise the occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household functionality
rather than familial relatedness.
Page 12
Recommendation Summary
Licensing
Require all rental properties to register with the city and obtain a license
to rent their unit.
Require all rental properties to pass an inspection prior to renting units.
Provide a three -year introductory period to provide education, allow
property owners to ensure properties are habitable for inspection, and
get properties licensed prior to enforcement.
Enforcement
Lead with education to tenants and landlords before issuing a citation.
Consider requiring landlords that rent four or more units and live more
than 50 miles from the city to designate a local contact with authority to
fix maintenance issues and make repairs.
Consult the city’s legal team to understand the options for enforcement
penalties and escalation of violations. Review enforcement tactics with
City Council.
Fee structure
Design the fee structure to cover the costs of running the program.
Charge fees based on the number of rental units under ownership, not
based on the number of properties. This ensures the administrative
burden is consistent with the fee charged.
Assume startup costs will be more than you think.
Hire full time staff dedicated to this program, particularly inspectors .
Inspections
Require mandatory life and safety inspections of rental properties to
receive a license to rent units.
Provide a tiered inspection schedule to alleviate the burden of
inspections on landlords who maintain their property to a higher
standard. Consider the number of citations received during initial
inspection as a gauge for the inspection period.
Inspect all properties at least once every four years.
Inspect all rental properties, even if they are inspected through another
program. Explore opportunities to coordinate inspections to alleviate
administrative burden on landlords.
Page 13
Hire city inspectors to perfor m rental inspections but allow landlords to
choose a private inspector if they wish.
Landlord and tenant involvement
Convene a stakeholder advisory committee to collaborate on process
efficiencies, program cost, and implementation timelines to ensure there
is an open avenue of communication.
Maintain quarterly meetings with stakeholders and residents to identify
issues with the program implementation, discuss progress and
effectiveness, and provide education.
Other considerations
Treat mobile and manufactured housing units the same as other rental
units if the unit itself is occupied by a renter. Lot rent should not be
considered a rental property trigger if the unit is owner occupied.
Review energy efficiency standards for new construction in the city.
Reevaluate the introduction of minimum energy efficiency standards for
existing rental properties in five years to avoid overburdening landlords
and administrative staff while implementing initial rental regulations. Life
and safety issues should be the priority.
Partner with Colorado State University code of conduct office to craft a
notice system that involves the university in nuisance violations in off
campus student housing.
Implementation
Create a community education and engagement plan to guide outreach
efforts over the first three years of implementation. Include education,
stakeholder engagement, student engagement, clear expectations on
timing, and key messaging about the purpose and jurisdiction of the
program regulations.
Formalize the process for filing and investigating complaints to remove
biases.
Work closely with the city’s IT staff to identify the unique software needs
to administer the program and register properties efficiently.
Occupancy
Revise the occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household
functionality rather than familial relatedness.
Page 14
Appendix: Peer Community Program Details
Registration
v. License
Voluntary v.
Mandatory
Registration/
Licensing Period
Registration/
Licensing Fee
Ames, Iowa License
(registration
and letter of
compliance )
Mandatory Annual Single family $50;
duplex $100;
multifamily $23 -$30
per unit
Austin, Texas Registration Triggered by
code
violations
within a 24
month
period
Annual; in the
program for at
least 2 years
$372 per property
Boulder,
Colorado
License Mandatory 4 years $190 per SF unit or per
building
Corvallis,
Oregon
Registration Mandatory Annual $15 per unit; escalation
factor of $1 every odd
number year
Kansas City,
Missouri
Registration Mandatory Annual $20 per unit
Lawrence,
Kansas
License Mandatory Annual $14 -$17 per unit
Manhattan,
Kansas
Registration Mandatory;
not enforced
One time; update
as needed
None
San Marcos,
Texas
Registration Mandatory One time; update
as needed
None
Seattle,
Washington
License Mandatory 2 years $70 for property and
1st unit; $15 per
additional unit
Westminster,
Colorado
License
(properties
with 4+ units);
Registration
otherwise
Mandatory 2 years $50 per unit
Page 15
Inspections
Complaint or
Proactive
Inspection
Frequency
Inspection
Fee
Local Contact
Required
Ames, Iowa Proactive 1 to 4 year
rotation;
frequency based
on performance
Included in
registration fee;
3+ inspections
$50 each
No
Austin, Texas Registered
repeat
offender
properties
Annual No fee for
inspection; clean
community fee
$4.25/month
utility charge
funds code
enforcement
No
Boulder,
Colorado
Proactive 4 years Third party
inspectors
Within 60 minutes
of Boulder
Corvallis,
Oregon
Complaint
based
N/A N/A No
Kansas City,
Missouri
Complaint
based
N/A N/A No
Lawrence,
Kansas
Proactive 3 years typical; 5
or less violations,
6 years
$50 per unit Resident agent
within 40 miles of
the city
Manhattan,
Kansas
Complaint
based
N/A N/A 60 mile radius or
appoint a local
agent
San Marcos,
Texas
Complaint
based
N/A N/A Out of state contact
Seattle,
Washington
Proactive;
random
selection of
10% of all
rental units in
city per year
At least once
every 5 -10 years
$175 for
property and 1st
unit; $35 per
additional units
Out of state contact
of local for repairs
Westminster,
Colorado
Proactive 2 and 4 year
schedule of
inspections
based on
property age
$40 per unit 50 miles from unit,
need property
manager to take
summons, notices
of noncompliance,
and oversee
inspections
Page 16
Occupancy
Standards
Cost
Recovery Administration Staffing
Ames, Iowa 1 adult per
bedroom;
capped at 5
adults
100% Ames Fire
Department
3 full time inspectors
Austin, Texas Restricted by
land use; 6
unrelated in SF;
3 unrelated per
duplex
Covers
registration,
not staff
Code
Department
8 full time inspectors,
1 supervisor
Boulder,
Colorado
Determined by
zone; 3
unrelated in low
density; 4
unrelated in high
density
100%; pre -
2021 60%
fee recovery,
40% general
fund
Planning and
Development
Services
3 full time licensing
team, inspections
conducted by 3rd
party
Corvallis,
Oregon
Rule of 5; 5
unrelated
100%; fees
paid through
the general
fund
Housing and
Neighborhood
Services
2 full time staff, 1
part time code
compliance specialist
Kansas City,
Missouri
5 unrelated 100% Health
Department
4 public health
specialists, 6 field
staff, 2 supervisors, 4
clinical staff
Lawrence,
Kansas
Determined by
zone
General
fund
Planning and
Development
3 inspectors
Manhattan,
Kansas
4 unrelated N/A Fire
Department;
Risk Reduction
Division
1 clerical, 1
supervisor, 2
inspectors
San Marcos,
Texas
2 unrelated N/A Neighborhood
Enhancement
0 dedicated staff
Seattle,
Washington
6 unrelated Working
toward self -
sufficiency
Department of
Construction
and Inspections
1 call center, 3
administrative, 1
cashier, 3 inspectors,
1 senior inspector, 1
manager
Westminster,
Colorado
4 unrelated 100% Building
Division
3 inspectors, 1 part
time admin
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 USA0F
1 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 Fo rt
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 1.2F
3 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 exclude s 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.
Page 2
Figure 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.
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 no n -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
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.i pums.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.
Income
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.
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 househol ds 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 member s 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 1 8 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
Page 6
Unit Size
Figure 8 shows the average number of persons per bedroo m 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 umber 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 Po licy 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. Key
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%
One 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
Page 7
Nonconforming households are more likely to have income s 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 h ouseholds average 1 person per bedroom in
these units. (The majority (76%) of nonconforming households occupy units with 4
or more bedrooms).
CityCountyYear Definition Adopted Maximum # of Unrelated AdultsDefinition/RegulationSquare Footage Req't / Bedroom Limitation?Single Unit Parking Requirement(s)TermDenverDenver20215 Unrelated Adults, Unlimited # of Related AdultsHousehold a. A “household” is either: A dwelling unit occupied by persons in any one of the following four categories living as a single non-profit housekeeping unit, including any permitted domestic employees: i. A single person occupying a dwelling unit, plus any permitted domestic employees; or ii. Any number of persons related to each other by blood, marriage, civil union, committed partnership, adoption, or documented responsibility (such as foster care or guardianship), plus any permitted domestic employees, who all occupy a dwelling unit as a single non-profit housekeeping unit; or iii. Up to 5 adults of any relationship, plus any minor children related by blood, adoption or documented responsibility, plus any permitted domestic employees, who all occupy a dwelling unit as a single non-profit housekeeping unit; or iv. Up to 8 adults of any relationship with a “handicap” according to the definition in the Federal Fair Housing Act, and who do not meet this Code’s definition of a Congregate Living or Residential Care use; or v. Up to 8 older adults (individuals 55 or more years of age) who occupy a dwelling unit as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, and who do not meet this Code’s definition of a Congregate Living or Rersidential Care Use.Habitable rooms shall have a floor are of not less than 70 square feetNo Parking RequirementsHouseholdAuroraAdams/Arapahoe 20014 personsA group of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit and normally consisting of two parents and their children; Persons living together in the relationship and for the purpose of guardian, ward, or foster family or receiving home care who may not necessarily be related by blood or marriage to the head of the household, but live together as a single housekeeping unit but shallnot include correctional homes; A group of not more than four unrelated persons living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit; or Living arrangements wherein one person is providing care to another occupant who is not related by blood or marriage, provided they neither maintain separate cooking facilities nor advertise the premises for rent. 5. A single individual living as a single housekeeping unit.Exceptions: A family shall not include more than one person required to register as a sex offender pursuant to § 18‐3‐412.5, C.R.S. as amended, unless related by marriage or consanguinity. Family shall not include any group of individuals who are in a group living arrangement as a result of criminal offenses.Utilizes “Space and Occupancy Standards” which requires at least 150 square feet of floor space for each occupant. The floor space is calculated on the basis of total enclosed space within a dwelling.150 sf per occupant required2 spaces per dwelling unit (spaces can be accommodated in garage or driveway outside the required front yard setback) plus 2 guest spaces per unitFamilyBrightonAdams20084 personsAn individual or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, or a group of not more than 4 persons who are not related by blood, marriage or legal adoption living together in a dwelling unit.2 spaces per dwelling unitFamilyCommerce City Adams20163 personsAn individual or 2 or more persons related by blood or marriage, or a group of not to exceed 3 persons (excluding servants) living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Family members include those defined by the Internal Revenue Code as dependents of the occupants; provided, however, that a family not include more than one registered sex offender, except if the members of the family are related by blood or marriage.2 spaces / dwelling unitFamilyNorthglennAdams20194 persons(1) An individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, plus an additional two persons per dwelling unit, used as a single housekeeping unit. (2) A group of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons perbedroom plus an additional two persons per dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit.2 persons per bedroomResidences: two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit and may be in a garage or carport or on a slab or driveway, except in the R‐1‐C Zone, within which one (1) space per dwelling unit is required.FamilyThorntonAdams20114 personsIndividuals living together as a single housekeeping unit in which not more than four individuals are unrelated to the head of the household by blood, marriage, or adoption. For the purposes of this definition, "living together as a single housekeeping unit" is generally characterized by a family like structure, and/or a sharing of responsibility associated with the household, and a concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency, as opposed to the transient nature of a group home, bed and breakfast, motel, hotel, dormitory, boardinghouse, or rooming house. A single housekeeping unit shall not include more than one individual who is required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended.Four spaces for each lot. At least two of these spaces shall be fully enclosed within a structure on the lot.FamilyWestminsterAdams/Jefferson20154 personsA head of household plus, if applicable, any individuals related to the head of household by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, including foster children placed by a state institution or a licensed child placement agency.11‐4‐6. ‐ Special Regulations.The following additional regulations apply as indicated below:(A) Single‐Family Detached Dwelling Units: Permitted in the R2, R3, R4, and T1 Districts in accordance with the RA "Density Schedule" provisions. Duplexes are also permitted in the R3, R4, and T1 Districts in accordance with the R2 "Density Schedule" provisions. Multiple‐Family Dwelling Units are also permitted in the T1 District in accordance with the R3 "Density Schedule" provisions. In the B1District, a caretaker's quarters is allowed on or above the main floor, if said use is clearly ancillary to the primary business or commercial use. (B) Occupancy of Dwelling Units: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 12 of Title XI, "Rental Property Maintenance Code," W.M.C., no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit: (1) Members of a family, together with bona fide domestic employees of such family; or (2) Up to four unrelated persons; or (3) Two persons and any of either of their children by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, including foster children placed by a state institution or licensed child placement agency; or (4) Up to eight residents of a group home for the aged; or (5) Up to eight residents, plus staff, of a group home for persons with mental illness; or (6) Up to eight residents, plus staff, of a group home for developmentally disabled persons, provided, further, that, except as otherwise provided by law, no more than one individual who is required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act shall occupy a dwelling unit.Four spaces per unit, with two spaces enclosed in a garage and two spaces in driveway, except that parking for neo‐traditional developments may be reduced by the Planning Manager on a case‐by‐case basis, upon a finding that less parking is needed based upon the design of the development.FamilyATTACHMENT 3
Boulder Boulder 2007P, A, RR, RE, and RL Zone Districts: 3 personsMU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and IMS Zone Districts: 4 personsHeads of household plus the following persons who are related to the heads of the household: parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, first cousins, the children of first cousins, great‐grandchildren, great‐grandparents, great‐great‐grandchildren, great‐great‐grandparents, grandnieces, grandnephews, great‐aunts and great‐uncles. These relationships may be of the whole or half blood, by adoption, guardianship, including foster children, or through a marriage or a domestic partnership meeting the requirements of Chapter 12‐4, "Domestic Partners," B.R.C. 1981, to a person with such a relationship with the heads of household.An individual, or 2 or more individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and not more than 2 roomers or boarders; or 2 adults and any of their lineal descendants; or a group of not more than 3 unrelated individuals; and who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. NOTE: Landlords are jointly and severally responsible for the over occupancy activities of tenants. This liability extends to landlords even if the landlords have no knowledge of such activities and even if the landlords actively discourage such activities within lease prohibitions. Minimum number of off‐street parking spaces for a detached dwelling unit (DU)RR, RE, MU‐1, MU‐3, BMS, DT, A, RH‐6 RMX‐2, MU‐2, MH, IMS RL, RM, RMX‐1, RH‐1, RH‐2, RH‐4, RH‐5, BT, BC, BR, IS, IG, IM, P RH‐3 Zone Districts: 1 off street parking spaceMU‐4, RH‐7 Zone Districts: 0 off‐street parking spacesHouseholdLongmont Boulder 2015 5 personsOne or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, living together in a dwelling unit; or group of not more than five persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship (including foster children) living together in a dwelling unit; or two unrelated persons and their minor children living together in a dwelling unit.2 spaces per dwelling unit + 1 on street parking spaceFamilyArvada Jefferson 2008 5 personsA. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together as a single household unit; or a group of not more than 5 persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together as a single household unit; or a family foster home, licensed by the State of Colorado, or certified by the Jefferson County Department of Human Services or Adams County Department of Social Services, or a state‐licensed child placement agency, and having no more than 4 foster children, shall also be considered a "family." A "family" shall not include more than one (1) person required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 18‐3‐412.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, unless related by blood, marriage, or adoption.2 per dwelling unit; In the R‐NT Zoning District, 2‐car garages are required for each dwelling unit.FamilyWheat Ridge Jefferson 2001 3 personsOne (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal custody plus domestic servants employed for service on the premises, or a group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be so related living together as a single housekeeping unit. Five (5) people over the age of sixty (60) years sharing one (1) housekeeping unit shall also be deemed to be a family. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a family shall be deemed to include four (4) or more persons that are not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal custody occupying a residential dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit if the occupants are handicapped persons as defined in title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, or disabled persons as defined by § 24‐34‐301, C.R.S. A family shall not include more than one (1) person required to register as a sex offender pursuant to § 18‐3‐412.5, C.R.S., as amended, unless related by blood, marriage or adoption.With Street Parking: 2 spaces per dwelling unit (including enclosed garage spaces)Without Street Parking: 4 spaces per dwelling unit (including enclosed garage spaces)FamilyGolden Jefferson 1973 4 personsA household or family is defined as: (1) Any number of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, plus (a) Domestic servants employed for service on the premises. (b) Up to four children under the age of 18 who may not be related to any or all of the other residents, but who are under the care and supervision of the adult family head. (c) Any combination of (a), or (b), above, not to exceed four individuals. (2) A group including not more than two adults, together with any number of children, related by blood or legal adoption to at least one of the adults; or (3) A group of not more than four unrelated or related and unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit. (4) A household shall not, except for adjudicated delinquent children in foster care, include more than one individual who is a registered sex offender unless related by blood or marriage. For the purpose of this subsection, "registered sex offender" means any person required to register as a sex offender in accordance with article 22 of title 16 of the Colorado Revised Statutes as amended.Downtown Golden and community mixed use zone districts: Each single‐family residence shall be provided with one parking spaceNon‐downtown areas: Each single‐family residence shall be provided with one parking space.HouseholdsFort Collins Larimer 2002 3 personsAn individual living alone, or either of the following groups living together as a single housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities: (1) any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or other duly authorized custodial relationship unless such number is otherwise specifically limited in the Land Use Code; or (2) any related group of persons consisting of: a. not more than 3 persons; or b. not more than 2 unrelated adults and their related children, if any. For each single‐family dwelling there shall be one (1) parking space on lots with greater than forty (40) feet of street frontage or two (2) parking spaces on lots with forty (40) feet or less of street frontage.FamilyLoveland Larimer 1974 3 personsAny individual or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage,or an unrelated group of not more than three persons living together in a dwelling unit, and includesfamily foster care of up to four children which is licensed according to the statutes of the state.2 spaces per dwelling unit (may count tandem and garage spaces to meet requirement)FamilyCastle Rock Douglas 2012 5 personsOne or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption, including any foster children; or a group of not more than five unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit by joint agreement on a nonprofit cost‐sharing basis; or a combination of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, including any foster children and unrelated adults, not to exceed five persons living together and occupying a single dwelling unit; or a group of persons with a disability or handicap and associated resident staff, subject to the occupancy and licensing requirements of the State.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyParker Douglas 1990 5 personsTwo (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or other legally recognized relationship, or a group not exceeding five (5) unrelated persons (excluding paid household staff such as nannies, cleaners and caregivers) living together as a single housekeeping unit in one (1) structure on one (1) lot, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this Land Development Ordinance, including, without limitation, Section 13.04.290 of this Title and its regulation of group homes, as may be amended from time to time, or by the provisions of state or federal law. This definition of family supersedes any definition of family in planned development documents, including, without limitation, development guides adopted by ordinance.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyEnglewood Arapahoe 2004 2 personsA household includes one (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, together in a dwelling unit; or two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together in a dwelling unit.2 spaces per dwelling unit Household
Littleton Arapahoe/Douglas/Jefferson 1992 3 personsAny number of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and normally, but not always, consisting of 2 parents and their children; or persons living together for the purpose of guardian, ward or foster family who may or may not be related by blood or marriage to the head of the household; or a group of not more than 3 unrelated individuals living together in a dwelling unit. A family shall not include more than one unrelated individual over the age of 12 years who is required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 18‐3‐412.5, as amended, nor shall this section apply to any child required to register as a sex offender under said statute who is placed pursuant to section 19‐1‐103(51.3), Colorado Revised Statutes in a foster care home certified or licensed pursuant to article 6 of title 26, Colorado Revised Statutes. Provided however, that this section shall not require a resident to leave the home upon becoming 12 years of age, nor shall this section apply to any child required to register as a sex offender under said statute who is placed pursuant to section 19‐1‐103(51.3), Colorado Revised Statutes in a foster care home certifiedor licensed pursuant to article 6 of title 26, Colorado Revised Statutes.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyLakewood Jefferson 2018 5 personsA household shall be made up of: 1. An individual living alone; or 2. Any number of individuals, who are related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, including foster children; or 3. Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per 500 gross square feet in a single family dwelling unit (including basements and excluding attached and/or detached garages) not to exceed five individuals per dwelling units; or 4. Any unrelated group of individuals living together in a multiple family dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per habitable room; or 5. Not more than two unrelated individuals and their related children and/or parents; or 6. A household shall not include more than one individual who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Article 22 of Title 16, Colorado Revised Statutes. This section shall not apply to a registered sex offender who is living with his immediate family. For purposes of this section, immediate family is defined as a person, the person’s spouse, the person’s parent, the person’s grandparent, the person’s brother or sister of the whole or half blood, the person’s child, the person’s step‐child or the person’s child by adoption and shall include children who have been placed in foster care, as defined by the Colorado Revised Statutes. For purposes of this definition, “living together as a single housekeeping unit” is generally characterized by a family‐like structure, and/or a sharing of responsibility associated with the household, and a concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency, as opposed to the transient nature of a bed and breakfast establishment, motel or hotel. Notwithstanding the square foot limitations above, no dwelling unit shall be limited to fewer than three individuals.Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per 500 gross square feet in a single family dwelling unit (including basements and excluding attached and/or detached garages) not to exceed five individuals per dwelling units; or Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per habitable roomNo Parking Requirements HouseholdColorado Springs El Paso 2018 5 personsAs used in this Zoning Code, an individual, two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or similar legal relationship, or a group of not more than five (5) persons who need not be so related, plus domestic staff employed for services on the premises, living together as a single housekeeping unit in one dwelling unit. The definition of "family" shall apply regardless of whether any member of such group receives outside services for mental, emotional, or physical disability.Space Required: Every dwelling unit shall contain at least: •125 square feet _ 1 person •200 square feet _ 2 persons •275 square feet _ 3 persons •350 square feet _ 4 persons •425 square feet _ 5 persons •500 square feet _ 6 persons •560 square feet _ 7 persons •620 square feet _ 8 persons •680 square feet _ 9 persons •740 square feet _ 10 personsand a minimum of forty (40) square feet for each additional person. The required floor space shall be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area. In no case shall more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet be required for one family.1 space per dwelling unit FamilyUnincorporated Adams N/A 2018 3 or more personsAn individual or three (3) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit. Persons not related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption shall be deemed to constitute a family where they are living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, but shall not include unrelated students attending colleges or universities.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyUnincorporated Arapahoe N/A 2011 5 personsAn individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption residing under one head of household, or a group of not more than five (5) persons, who need not be related, living as a single housekeeping unit. The definition of “Family” specifically excludes any group home licensed by the State for the use of four (4) to eight (8) persons.2 spaces per dwelling unit Family
City State Year Definition Adopted Maximum # of Unrelated Adults Definition/RegulationSquare Footage Req't / Bedroom Limitation?Single Unit Parking Requirement(s) TermSalt Lake City Utah 1995 3 personsOne or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or a group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, residential support dwelling, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyPhoenix Arizona 2011 5 personsAn individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and usual servants, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling units, or a group of not more than five (5) persons, who need not be related, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.2 spaces per 1 dwelling unit FamilyAlbuquerque New Mexico 2018 5 personsAn individual; or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal guardianship, or adoption, plus household staff; or any group of not more than 5 persons living together in a dwelling; or any group of 5 persons or more that has a right to live together pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (or as amended), as interpreted by the courts.For each dwelling not covered by another item of this division (24): one space per bath but not less than two spaces.(b) For each dwelling with net leasable area of less than 1,000 square feet and which is not covered by either divisions (c) or (b) of this division (24): one space per bath but not less than one and one‐half spaces.(c) Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas in the front yard setback area shall be either a dust free surface consisting of concrete, cement, brick, or sealed aggregate pavement; or three inches of crushed rock or crusher fines over a four inch compacted subgrade.(d) For each house or townhouse on a lot designated with the suffix "p1" on thesubdivision plat (on streets classified for Intermittent Parking as provided in theSubdivision Regulations set forth in Chapter 14, Article 14 of this code):1. Three spaces if the dwelling has up to two bedrooms; or2. Four spaces if the dwelling has three or four bedrooms; or3. Five spaces if the dwelling has five or more bedrooms.(e) For each house or townhouse, on lots designated with the suffix "p2" on the subdivision plat (on streets classified for Infrequent Parking as provided in the Subdivision Regulations set forth in Chapter 14, Article 14 of this code):1. Four spaces if the dwelling has up to two bedrooms; or2. Five spaces if the dwelling has three or four bedrooms; or3. Six spaces if the dwelling has five or more bedrooms.FamilySeattle Washington 2006 8 personsA housekeeping unit consisting of any number of related persons; eight or fewer non‐related, non‐transient persons; eight or fewer related and non‐related non‐transient persons, unless a grant of special or reasonable accommodation allows an additional number of persons.1 space per dwelling unit HouseholdPortland Oregon 2018 5 personsOne or more persons related by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, legal adoption or guardianship, plus not more than 5 additional persons, who live together in one dwelling unit; or one or more handicapped persons as defined in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, plus not more than 5 additional persons, who live together in one dwelling unit.No Parking Requirements HouseholdBoise Idaho 2013 5 personsA group of individuals related by blood, marriage, civil union, adoption, or guardianship functioning as a single and independent housekeeping unit or persons occupying a group home as defined in this ordinance. A dwelling unit may be occupied by a family by up to five unrelated individuals, or by persons with a disability or elderly persons living in a group home as defined in this ordinance. The term does not imply or include types of occupancy such as lodging or boarding house, club, sorority, fraternity, or hotel.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyAustin Texas 2016 6 personsIn this section: (1) ADULT means a person 18 years of age or older. (2) DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP means adults living in the same household and sharing common resources of life in a close, personal, and intimate relationship. (3) UNRELATED means not connected by consanguinity, marriage, domestic partnership or adoption. (B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, not more than six unrelated adults may reside in a dwelling unit. (C) The regulations in Subsection (D) apply in the area defined in Subchapter F: Residential Design and Compatibility Standards Section 1.2.1. (D) Except as provided in Subsection (E), for a conservation single family residential, single family attached residential, single family residential, small lot single family, duplex residential use, or two‐family residential use, not more than four unrelated adults may reside on a site, in the following zoning districts: (1) Lake Austin Residence District (LA) Zoning District; (2) Rural Residence District (RR) Zoning District; (3) Single Family Residence Large Lot (SF‐1) Zoning District; (4) Single Family Residence Standard Lot (SF‐2) Zoning District; (5) Family Residence (SF‐3) Zoning District; (6) Single Family Residence Small Lot (SF‐4A) Zoning District; (7) Single Family Residence Condominium (SF‐4B) Zoning District; (8) Urban Family Residence (SF‐5) Zoning District; and (9) Townhouse and Condominium Residence (SF‐6) Zoning District. (E) The requirements of Subsection (D) of this section do not apply if: (1) before March 31, 2014: (a) a building permit for the dwelling unit was issued; or (b) the use was established; and (2) after March 31, 2014: (a) the gross floor area does not increase more than 69 square feet, except to complete construction authorized before March 31, 2014 or to comply with the American with Disabilities Act, or (b) any interior remodel that requires a building permit does not result in additional sleeping rooms. (F) Not more than three unrelated adults may reside in a dwelling unit of a duplex residential use, unless: (1) before June 5, 2003; (a) a building permit for the duplex structure was issued; or (b) the use was established; and (2) after June 5, 2003, the gross floor area in the duplex structure does not increase more than 69 square feet, except for the completion of construction authorized before that date or to allow for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. (G) For a two‐family residential use or a site with a secondary apartment special use not more than four unrelated adults may reside in the principal structure, and not more than two unrelated adults may reside in the second dwelling unit, unless: (1) before November 18, 2004: (a) a building permit for the second dwelling unit was issued; or (b) the use was established; and (2) after November 18, 2004, the gross floor area does not increase more than 69 square feet, except for the completion of construction authorized before that date or to allow for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. (H) A structure located on a site subject to Subsection (B) that is partially or totally destroyed by a natural disaster, act of god or fire does not become subject to Subsection (D), if a building permit to repair or reconstruct the structure is applied for within one year of the date of the partial or total destruction. (I) A group of not more than ten unrelated adults may reside in a dwelling unit if: (1) a majority of the adults are 60 years of age or older; (2) the adults are self‐caring and self‐sufficient and participate in the daily operation of the dwelling unit; and (3) the adults live together as a single, non‐profit housekeeping unit.Source: Section 13‐2‐1; Ord. 990225‐70; Ord. 030605‐49; Ord. 031211‐11; Ord. 0411118‐59; Ord. 20100923‐127; Ord. 20140320‐062, Pts. 1, 3, 3‐31‐14 ; Ord. No. 20160223‐A.1, Pt. 3, 3‐5‐16 .2 spaces per dwelling unitDwelling Unit Occupancy LimitLas Vegas Nevada 2011 4 personsWith respect to the occupancy of a dwelling unit: One or more individuals related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or legal custody; or No more than four unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit.2 spaces per dwelling unit FamilyKansas City Missouri 2012 5 personsHousehold means an individual; or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption; or a group of not more than five persons, excluding servants, who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together and subsisting in common as a separate nonprofit housekeeping unit which provides one kitchen; or a group of eight or fewer unrelated mentally or physically handicapped persons, which may include two additional persons acting as houseparents or guardians who need not be related to each other or to any of the mentally or physically handicapped persons residing in the home.1 space per dwelling unit HouseholdOklahoma City Oklahoma 2007 5 personsOne or more persons related by blood or marriage, including adopted children, or a group of, not to exceed, five unrelated persons (not related by blood or marriage), occupying the premises and living as a single non‐profit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boardinghouse, lodging house or hotel.2 spaces per dwelling unit + garage FamilyWashington District of Columbia 2016 6 personsHousehold: Shall be defined as one (1) of the following:(a) One (1) family related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster agreement;(b) Not more than six (6) persons who are not so related, living together as a single house‐keeping unit;(c) A religious community having not more than fifteen (15) members; or(d) A residential facility providing housing for up to six (6) persons with disabilities and two (2) caregivers. For purposes of this subsection, a "disability" means, with respect to a person, a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of such person's major life activities, or a record of having, or being regarded as having, such an impairment, but such item does not include current, illegal use of a controlled substance.1 space per dwelling unit HouseholdBoston Massachussetts 2008 2+ personsFamily. One person or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other analogous family union occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single non‐profit housekeeping unit, provided that a group of five or more persons who are enrolled as full‐time, undergraduate students at a post‐secondary educational institution shall not be deemed to constitute a family. A group residence, limited, as defined in "Group residence, limited" of this Section 2‐1 shall be deemed a family.1 space per residential use (FAR 0.3 or 0.5) FamilyMinneapolis Minnesota 2012 2‐5 persons (dependent on Residential vs Non‐Residential Zone Districts)Family. An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, domestic partnership as defined in Chapter 142 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, or adoption, including foster children and domestic staff employed on a full‐time basis, living together as a permanent household. This definition of family is established for the purpose of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods by controlling population density, noise, disturbance and traffic congestion, and shall not be applied so as to prevent the city from making reasonable accommodation where the city determines it necessary to afford handicapped persons living together in a permanent household equal access to housing pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.Residence DistrictsMaximum occupancy.(a) Dwelling units. The maximum occupancy of a dwelling unit located in the R1 through R3 Districts shall not exceed one (1) family plus up to two (2) unrelated persons living together as a permanent household, provided that the family plus the unrelated persons shall not exceed a total of five (5) persons. The maximum occupancy of a dwelling unit located in the R4 through R6 Districts shall not exceed one (1) family plus four (4) unrelated persons living together as a permanent household, provided that the family plus the unrelated persons shall not exceed a total of five (5) persons.Commercial, Downtown, and Overlay DistrictsMaximum occupancy.(a) Dwelling units. The maximum occupancy of a dwelling unit located in the commercial districts shall not exceed one (1) family plus four (4) unrelated persons living together as a permanent household, provided that the family plus the unrelated persons shall not exceed a total of five (5) persons.Requires 150 sf for first occupant, 70 additional sf for second occupant, and 100 sf for each occupant in excess of 21 space per dwelling unit Family
Rental Housing Minimum Requirements
Required Items in ALL Rental Housing
Exterior General
1.Building, sidewalks, outbuildings and fences generally must be in good repair and
free from hazards like damaged and loose building components.
2.Yards must not have rodent, vermin or insect infestation and free from hazards
such as open holes or broken sidewalks.
3.Stairways must not have loose or broken steps and have handrails solidly
attached.
4.Decks and porches 30 inches above the ground must have guardrails that are
solidly attached.
5.Window wells within 3 feet of driveways or sidewalks must be protected with
guard rails or grate covers.
Interior General
1.Windows and doors must be capable of keeping wind and elements out.
2.Insect screens are required on windows and doors used for ventilation May to
November.
3.Entry doors are required to have locks for security; locks shall operate from inside
without a key or special knowledge.
4.Windows located within 6 feet of ground are required to have locks for security.
5.All floors, walls, stairs, doors and windows to be maintained in good repair and
free from decay or defective surfaces.
6.All stairs must have handrails and guardrails installed and solidly attached.
7.All interior doors must be securely attached and open and close properly.
8.All interior spaces must be free from rodent, vermin or insect infestation.
9.All walking surfaces must be in generally good repair.
Light
1.Every habitable space must have a window for natural light with a glazed area
sized not less than 8% of the floor area of the room.
2.In buildings containing 3 or more dwelling units, the common hallways and
stairways must be provided with one 60 watt bulb per every 200 square feet.
Ventilation
1.Every habitable space must have at least one openable window for natural
ventilation sized not less than 4% of the floor area of the room.
2.Every bathroom and toilet room must have an openable window to the exterior or
have an exhaust fan, ducted to the exterior.
3.Every clothes dryer must be exhausted to the exterior through independent ducts.
ATTACHMENT 4
Occupancy General
1. Dwelling units must be arranged to provide privacy from adjoining spaces.
2. Every bedroom must have access to at least one water closet and lavatory without
passing through another bedroom.
3. Spaces used for food preparation must contain suitable space and equipment to
store, prepare and serve foods in a sanitary manner.
4. Adequate facilities for temporary storage and sanitary disposal of food waste and
refuse are required.
Plumbing Facilities
1. Every dwelling unit must contain its own bathtub or shower, lavatory, water
closet and kitchen sink, maintained in safe and sanitary condition.
2. A kitchen sink must not be used as a substitute for the required lavatory.
3. Toilet rooms and bathrooms must provide privacy
4. All plumbing fixtures must be maintained in a safe, sanitary and functional
condition, free from obstructions, leaks and defects.
5. All kitchen sinks, lavatories, laundry facilities, bathtubs and showers must have
hot and cold running water.
6. The water supply system must have sufficient volume and pressure for proper
function of plumbing fixtures.
7. Water heated to a temperature of not less than 110 degrees must be provided.
8. All plumbing fixtures must be connected to an approved sewer system without
obstructions, leaks and defects.
Mechanical Facilities
1. Habitable spaces must have heat during the period from September 15 to May 15
and maintain a temperature of not less than 68 degrees F.
2. All mechanical appliances must be properly installed and maintained in a safe
working condition.
3. All fuel-burning equipment and appliances except for gas-cooking appliances,
must be connected to an approved chimney or vent.
4. All mechanical equipment must have an approved automatic safety fuel shutoff,
an accessible manual fuel shutoff valve and a listed appliance fuel connector.
5. Gas cooking appliances must not be used for space heating of any portion of a
dwelling or guestroom, and, portable fuel burning appliances are prohibited.
6. Every rental housing unit containing fuel-burning appliances(s) or constructed
with an attached garage must have an approved carbon monoxide alarm
maintained in sound operational condition.
Electrical Facilities
1. Dwelling units must have a three-wire, 120/240 volt, electrical service having a
rating of not less than 60 amperes.
2. All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances must be properly installed and
maintained in a safe and approved manner.
3. Every habitable space in a dwelling must contain at least (2) separate and remote
receptacle outlets.
4. Every laundry area must contain at least (1) grounded receptacle or a receptacle
protected with a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI).
5. Every bathroom must contain at least (1) receptacle protected with a ground fault
circuit interrupter.
6. Receptacle outlets installed in kitchens, garages, unfinished basements and
exterior locations must be protected by ground fault circuit interrupters.
7. Every public hall, interior stairway, toilet room, kitchen, bathroom, laundry room,
boiler room and furnace room must contain at least (1) electric light fixture.
8. Extensions cords must not be wired directly to permanent wiring or installed
inside walls, through floors, under carpets or attached to trim or walls.
Fire Safety Requirements
1. All means of egress doors must be openable from the inside without the need for
keys, special knowledge or effort.
2. Every rental dwelling unit or guestroom must have access directly to the outside
or to a public corridor which leads to an exterior exit.
3. Below grade sleeping rooms must be provided with emergency escape window
having a maximum sill height of (48) inches above the floor and a minimum
openable area of (720) square inches.
4. Smoke alarms (electric or battery operated) must be installed in each of the
following areas:
a. On the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the
immediate vicinity of bedrooms.
b. In each room used for sleeping purposes.
c. In each story within a dwelling unit, including basements.
5. Carbon Monoxide Detectors
Any single- family dwelling or dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling used for
rental purposes and that includes fuel-fired appliances or and attached garage, on
or after July 1, 2009 shall be required to have carbon monoxide detectors
installed.
The location shall be on each level that has a lawful sleeping room and shall be
located within 15 ft of the entrance to each sleeping room.
Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and Short-Term RentalsRental Market StudyATTACHMENT 5
Contents2Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyExecutive Summary3Introduction28Section 1: Rental Market Trends33Section 2: Ordinance Violators88Section 3: Short-Term Rentals126Section 4: Neighborhood Quality150Appendix170
Executive Summary
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market Overview, 2005 to 2010Market 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
Executive Summary: Snapshot – 2005 to 20125Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study2005 to 2007 EraRental Vacancy Rate 5.4%Excess Rental Units Above Ideal Vacancies+100 units1,200 violator households2010 to 2012 EraRental Vacancy Rate 1.2%Rental Unit Shortage Below Ideal Vacancies-1,000 units550 violator householdsIntervening EventsThe 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 issuesOrdinance EnforcementIncreased rental demand as households reformedPopulation GrowthIncreased natural rental demand3.9 percent per year rental cost increases
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market Overview, 2010 to 2018A slow recovery over the past several yearsAs 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
Executive Summary: Snapshot – 2010 to 20177Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study2010 to 2012 EraRental Vacancy Rate 1.2%Excess Rental Units-1,000 units550 violator households2015 to 2017 EraRental Vacancy Rate 2.4%Excess Rental Units-800 units1,200 violator householdsIntervening EventsConstruction BoomTripling of home construction ratesAffordabilitySlower road to home ownership, more ordinance violatorsPopulation GrowthContinued population growthShort-Term RentalsNew demands on housing stock (though small compared to other forces)4.2 percent per year rental cost increases OrdinanceCompliance continued to increase rental demand and contribute to low vacancy rates (and thus cost increases)
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market TrendsThe population has grown faster than the housing supply8Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyA 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, ColoradoJoliet, IllinoisFort Wayne, IndianaLincoln, NebraskaDurham, North CarolinaGreensboro, North CarolinaRaleigh, North CarolinaWinston-Salem, North …Eugene, OregonSalem, OregonColumbia, South CarolinaSioux Falls, South DakotaProvo, UtahPueblo, ColoradoColorado Springs, ColoradoGreeley, Colorado0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0123456789Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing UnitSupply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market TrendsFort Collins has lower vacancy rates than other comparable markets in Colorado*9Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study024681012142006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)Fort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloWhile 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
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market TrendsFort Collins’ rental costs have increased faster than other comparable markets in Colorado*10Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study80%90%100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017Average 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.
Executive Summary: Key FindingsRental Market DynamicsRental households are getting larger, and owner occupancy is declining11Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyOver 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.EraRental HouseholdsRental PopulationAverage Renter Household SizeProportion of HHouseholds Who Are Renters2005-200723,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%2010-201226,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%2015-201728,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
Executive Summary: Key FindingsOccupancy Ordinance ComplianceThe number of households not in compliance with the Occupancy Ordinance has increased12Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThree 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.
Executive Summary: Key FindingsProfile of Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsCollege students are no longer the most common type of violator13Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyIn 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 Students2% Graduate Students42%Adult non-students10 % Pre-K to 12thgrade students** These are minor school-age children of other segments.
Executive Summary: Key FindingsProfile of Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsViolator households are mobile, generally unrelated, and live in houses14Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyViolator 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 months40%are age 18 to 2173%live in single-family homes or duplexes25%of households have children13%are children61%have no related people (all roommates)
Executive Summary: Key FindingsProfile of Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsViolator households tend to have numerous vehicles15Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyWhen 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.
Executive Summary: Key FindingsPerceptions of Occupancy OrdinanceSupport outweighs opposition, though many are neutral16Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThe 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.TotalRegion Dwelling Type TenureCollege Student in HomeAware of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of citySingle familyMulti-familyOwnerRenter Yes No Yes NoBaseUnweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123Opinion of Occupancy OrdinanceSupport42%38% 44% 43% 45% 37% 53% 30% 19% 47% 43% 28%Neutral31%34% 26% 31% 29% 34% 25% 38% 31% 31% 29% 40%Oppose24%26% 25% 23% 22% 27% 19% 29% 44% 19% 24% 27%No opinion3%3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 5%
Executive Summary: Key FindingsPerceptions of Occupancy OrdinanceMost residents don’t see the ordinance impacting their neighborhood and are split on enforcement.17Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyNearly 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 impact38%like the current level of enforcement•17% want more strict enforcement•18% want less strict enforcement•28% have no opinion
Executive Summary: Key FindingsThe Short-Term Rental MarketShort-Term Rentals (STRs) are a growing market18Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySTRs 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).MonthYear123456789101112201486 881002015109 99103117 140148176 176185192 2132412016256 266277282 329343364 376414434 4454652017477 473501491 533524549 541525527 5415622018556 528524514
Executive Summary: Key FindingsThe Short-Term Rental MarketShort-Term Rentals (STRs) partially cannibalize units from the rental supply19Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyIn 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 Market30%Pulled From Housing Market, Either Rental or Ownership30%Would Not Be In the Rental Market If Not Short-Term Rental40%
Executive Summary: Key FindingsPerceptions of STR Licensing RulesSupport generally outweighs opposition, though many aren’t aware of the rules20Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyOnly 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 rules39%have no opinion19%oppose current STR rules
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Quality - CitywideResidents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities21Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFour 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.TotalRegion TenureCollege Student in HomeWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityOwner Renter Yes NoPeace and quiet1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11Maintenance of lawns1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04Maintenance of houses1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10Sense of community0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Quality and Ordinance ViolatorsProximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower neighborhood quality ratings22Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyEven 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 = excludedTotalWest of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceEast of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceRemainder of city-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceYes No Yes No Yes NoPeace and quiet1.130.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3Maintenance of lawns1.080.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28Maintenance of houses1.080.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31Sense of community0.49-0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Quality and Short-Term RentalsProximity to suspected STRs in areas where they are not allowed is correlated with lower neighborhood quality ratings23Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyOverall, 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 = excludedTotalNeighbor(s) operate STRsNo STRs allowed-Neighbor(s) operate STRsPrimary STRs only-Neighbor(s) operate STRsYes No Yes No Yes NoPeace and quiet1.131.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08Maintenance of lawns1.070.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09Maintenance of houses1.070.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98Sense of community0.50.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Issues - CitywideResidents generally observe few problems amongst their neighbors24Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyAmong 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.TotalRegion Tenure Opinion of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityOwner Renter Support Neutral OpposeUncontrolled pets running loose0.510.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39Criminal activity0.330.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27Disruptive parties0.360.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.591.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59Parking vehicles inappropriately0.661.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.540.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36Trash or junk in the yard0.490.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39Poorly maintained house0.360.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Executive Summary: Key FindingsTrends in Neighborhood Quality- CitywideResidents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities25Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyNeighborhood 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 communityPercentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good200420082018
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Issues and Ordinance ViolatorsProximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with more incidents of neighborhood issues26Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyLoud noise and inappropriately parked vehicles stand out as issues that seem associated with proximity, particularly in the area west of campus.TotalWest of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceEast of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceRemainder of city-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceYes No Yes No Yes NoUncontrolled pets running loose0.511.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4Criminal activity0.311.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14Disruptive parties0.361.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.591.75 0.84 1.490.39 0.76 0.35Parking vehicles inappropriately0.631.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.531.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35Trash or junk in the yard0.481.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25Poorly maintained house0.351.07 0.33 1.190.42 0.89 0.15Figures represent average reported number of incidents per respondent.
Executive Summary: Key FindingsNeighborhood Quality and Short-Term RentalsProximity to suspected STRs is correlated with more incidents of neighborhood issues27Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThe 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.TotalNeighbor(s) operate STRsNo STRs allowed-Neighbor(s) operate STRsPrimary STRs only-Neighbor(s) operate STRsYes No Yes No Yes NoUncontrolled pets running loose0.510.82 0.47 0.850.47 0.78 0.46Criminal activity0.30.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35Disruptive parties0.350.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.570.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63Parking vehicles inappropriately0.630.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.530.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54Trash or junk in the yard0.470.67 0.44 0.760.38 0.65 0.45Poorly maintained house0.350.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Introduction
Introduction: BackgroundIn 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?yOur conclusions are shown on Page 4 and 7 of the Executive Summary.>Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?yOur 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
Introduction: Occupancy OrdinanceThe 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;ORone 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
Introduction: Geographical Analysis AreasBecause 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
Introduction: Report LayoutThe 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 StudySection 1. Rental Market TrendsComparisons to Other Colorado Metro AreasComparison to a Selection of Nationwide CitiesRecent Trends in Fort CollinsSection 2. Ordinance ViolatorsEstimated NumberProfile of ViolatorsInvestigation OutcomesPublic Sentiment Toward OrdinanceSection 3. Short-Term RentalsProfile of Units and RevenuesRental Hosts and PropertiesPublic Sentiment Toward STR RulesSection 4. Neighborhood QualityCitywide Quality MeasuresProximity to Ordinance ViolatorsProximity to Short-Term Rentals
Section 1: Rental Market Trends
34Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1Rental Market TrendsFort Collins Compared to Other Colorado Metro Areas1.1.1 Change in Demand1.1.2 Change in Supply1.1.3 Change in Vacancies1.1.4 Change in Average Rent
Key Findings: Colorado ComparisonsÂWhile population growth in Fort Collins is higher than most comparable areas, the highest rates in the city were concentrated pre-ordinance.ÂThe average size of rental households increased over the long term.ÂThe proportion of homes that were renter-occupied increased over the long term.ÂHousing 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.ÂWhile 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. ÂWhile 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
36Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.1Change in Demand
Population growth in Fort Collins is fairly consistent with similar metro areas37Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyAverage Population from State DemographerAverage Population1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017I II III IV VFort Collins/Loveland169,179 188,187 202,794 217,593 236,169Fort Collins118,195 129,874 138,852 148,360 161,421Loveland50,985 58,313 63,942 69,233 74,749Colorado Springs359,794 379,203 400,872 430,156 455,163Grand Junction45,188 49,417 55,839 61,029 63,677Greeley76,804 84,062 89,758 94,571 101,572Pueblo140,737 148,286 155,100 160,084 163,532Population ChangeI-II II-III III-IV IV-V I-VFort Collins/Loveland11% 19,008 8% 14,607 7% 14,800 9% 18,576 40% 66,990Fort Collins10% 11,679 7% 8,978 7% 9,508 9% 13,061 37% 43,226Loveland14% 7,329 10% 5,629 8% 5,291 8% 5,516 47% 23,764Colorado Springs5% 19,409 6% 21,669 7% 29,285 6% 25,007 27% 95,369Grand Junction9% 4,229 13% 6,422 9% 5,190 4% 2,648 41% 18,489Greeley9% 7,258 7% 5,696 5% 4,813 7% 7,001 32% 24,767Pueblo5% 7,548 5% 6,814 3% 4,984 2% 3,448 16% 22,795
Fort Collins’ population has converged with Pueblo38Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000Population from State Demographer Fort CollinsColorado SpringsGrand JunctionGreeleyPueblo cityLoveland cityThe 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.
Population growth rate in Fort Collins is consistent with similar metro areas39Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyYearly 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 DemographerFort CollinsColorado SpringsGrand JunctionGreeleyPueblo
The renter population is growing, and so is the average number of people living in rented homes40Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyBecause 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.EraRental HouseholdsRental PopulationAverage Renter Household SizeProportion of HHouseholds Who Are Renters2005-200723,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%2010-201226,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%2015-201728,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
41Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.2Change in Supply
Growth in housing unit supply has increased significantly since 201342Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThis 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 2016Total Housing Units as a Percentage of 2006 Value (Three Year Average)Fort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPueblo
Housing development in Fort Collins bottomed out in 200943Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThe 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. 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0002004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized in Fort Collins Metro AreaTotalSingle Family Units
Growth in renter occupied units is consistent with similar metro areas 44Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study80%90%100%110%120%130%140%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Renter Occupied Units as a Percentage of 2005 ValueFort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloAll 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.
45Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.3Change in Vacancies
Colorado Springs and Greeley are converging to Fort Collins’ high occupancy rate46Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study80%85%90%95%100%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017Percentage of Housing Units OccupiedFort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloThese 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
Renters are making up a higher percentage of occupied units in Fort Collins47Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study30%35%40%45%50%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters (Three Year Average)Fort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloCompared 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
Colorado has seen a steep increase in home values over the last six years48Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyWhile 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 $366,50080%90%100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017Median Home Value as a Percentage of 2005 ValueFort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPueblo
Sale-to-list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over the last few years49Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study96%97%98%99%100%101%102%2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Sale-to-List Price for Residential HomesFort CollinsWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from CampusDetailed 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).
Sale-to-list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over the last few years50Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyAverage 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).024681012142012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Average Monthly Home Sales Per NeighborhoodWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from Campus
Multifamily vacancy rates in Fort Collins are low across unit types51Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study05101520252004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172018Fort Collins Multifamily Unit Rental Vacancy Rate by Unit TypeEfficiencyOne BedroomTwo Bed, One BathTwo Bed, Two BathThree BedroomAllRental 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.
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 Study02468101214161999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rates (One Year Average)Fort Collins/LovelandAverage of Four Comparable MarketsThe 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.
Recent vacancy rates in Fort Collins have been lower than similar cities53Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyAverage Vacancy Rates - Multi-Family UnitsAverage Vacancy Rate1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017I II III IV VFort Collins/Loveland3% 12% 7% 4% 3%Colorado Springs5% 11% 10% 6% 5%Grand Junction5% 7% 4% 9% 4%Greeley3% 10% 7% 4% 3%Pueblo5% 8% 8% 10% 5%Average Vacancy Rate ChangeI-II II-III III-IV IV-IV I-VFort Collins/Loveland8.6 -5.1 -3.0 -1.2 -0.7Colorado Springs6.3 -0.6 -3.9 -0.8 0.9Grand Junction2.1 -3.5 5.0 -4.9 -1.3Greeley7.0 -3.0 -3.1 -1.4 -0.5Pueblo3.6 -0.4 1.8 -5.2 -0.3
Total renter vacancy rates in Fort Collins are very low54Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study024681012142006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)Fort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloExamining 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.
55Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.4Change in Average Rent
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$1,800Fort Collins Rent by Multifamily Unit TypeEfficiencyOne BedroomTwo Bed, One BathTwo Bed, Two BathThree BedroomRent 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.
Average rent increased in Fort Collins at a higher rate than similar metro areas, especially between 2006-201357Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyRental Prices - Multi-Family UnitsAverage Rent1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017I II III IV VFort Collins/Loveland$656.90 $733.22 $799.85 $956.93 $1,237.35Colorado Springs$613.51 $665.32 $700.37 $768.00 $970.91Grand Junction$465.27 $486.76 $620.62 $626.14 $514.95Greeley$537.49 $606.97 $630.59 $680.35 $942.25Pueblo$434.08 $479.29 $513.34 $567.87 $655.00Rental Price ChangeI-II II-III III-IV IV-V Total Change I-VFort Collins/Loveland12% $76.33 9% $66.63 20% $157.08 29% $280.41 88% $580.45Colorado Springs8% $51.80 5% $35.05 10% $67.63 26% $202.92 58% $357.40Grand Junction5% $21.49 28% $133.86 1% $5.52 -18% -$111.19 11% $49.68Greeley13% $69.48 4% $23.62 8% $49.76 38% $261.90 75% $404.76Pueblo10% $45.20 7% $34.05 11% $54.54 15% $87.13 51% $220.92Breaking 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.
Average rent in Fort Collins increased at a higher rate than similar metro areas58Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,200$1,400Average Rent of Multifamily Units by Market AreaFort Collins/LovelandColorado SpringsGrand JunctionGreeleyPuebloWhile 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.
Post 2005 rent has increased in Fort Collins at a higher rate than similar metro areas59Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study80%90%100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of 2005 RentFort Collins/LovelandColorado SpringsGrand JunctionGreeleyPuebloExamining 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.
Calculating total median rent from the Census confirms the trend60Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study$400$500$600$700$800$900$1,000$1,100$1,200$1,300$1,4002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Average Median Gross Rent by Market Area From CensusFort CollinsColorado SpringsGreeleyPuebloExamining 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.
Despite similar population trends, rent in Fort Collins increased at a higher rate than similar areas post-ordinance 61Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPopulation and Multifamily Unit Rent Change Pre and Post-Ordinance Average Yearly Change in Rent Average Yearly Change in Population1997-2005 2006-14 Difference 1997-2005 2006-14 DifferenceFort Collins/Loveland2.76% 5.28% 2.51% 2.70% 1.92% -0.77%Colorado Springs2.73% 2.60% -0.14% 1.45% 1.49% 0.04%Grand Junction1.52% -0.89% -2.42% 2.01% 1.88% -0.12%Greeley2.63% 3.54% 0.91% 2.53% 1.39% -1.14%Pueblo1.34% 2.49% 1.15% 1.34% 0.72% -0.62%Average change calculated: (last year/first year)^(1/# years in period)ÂThe 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.ÂThe 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.
62Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.2Rental Market TrendsFort Collins Compared to Selected Nationwide Cities
Key Findings: Nationwide ComparisonsÂWhile 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. ÂFort 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. ÂThe rate that renters have occupied housing units in Fort Collins is higher in absolute and relative terms post-ordinance.ÂFort Collins’ rental vacancy rates are lower (in relative and absolute terms) than similar cities in the post ordinance era.ÂFort Collins’ expansion in demand (population growth) has exceeded supply (housing units). ÂRental 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
How to read a box plot64Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Studyoutliermaximumthird quartilemedianfirst quartilemeanminimumÂBox plots offer a quick and effective way to identify differences between groups of populations.ÂThey show the median value of each population (marked with a line) and a surrounding box that stretches from the 25thto 75thpercentile. The “middle half” of observations are contained in the box. ÂThe “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 75thand 25thpercentile value), it is deemed an outlier.ÂThe City of Fort Collins logo shows where the city falls on the distribution.
Fort Collins’ population growth has regressed toward the mean65Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort 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.
The rate of Fort Collins’ housing stock growth has significantly decreased66Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort 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.
Fort Collins’ housing growth lags population growth67Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort Collins, ColoradoLakewood, ColoradoJoliet, IllinoisFort Wayne, IndianaLincoln, NebraskaDurham, North CarolinaGreensboro, North CarolinaRaleigh, North CarolinaWinston-Salem, North CarolinaEugene, OregonSalem, OregonColumbia, South CarolinaSioux Falls, South DakotaProvo, UtahPueblo, ColoradoColorado Springs, ColoradoGreeley, Colorado0%10%20%30%40%50%60%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Change in Population 2005-2017Change in Housing Units 2005-2017Supply and Demand Trends in the Housing MarketThis 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).
In general, the percentage of renters is on the rise68Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort 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.
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%
However, Fort Collins’ vacancy rates are subject to a “floor effect” 70Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyComparing 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.
Rent continues to grow at a relatively high rate in Fort Collins71Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort 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.
Fort Collins’ rent increase is unmatched by comparable national cities72Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study90%100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Median Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2006 Value (Three Year Average)Fort Collins, ColoradoLakewood, ColoradoJoliet, IllinoisFort Wayne, IndianaLincoln, NebraskaDurham, North CarolinaGreensboro, North CarolinaRaleigh, North CarolinaWinston-Salem North CarolinaEugene, OregonSalem, OregonColumbia, South CarolinaSioux Falls, South DakotaMesquite, TexasProvo, UtahThe 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.
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply and demand73Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort Collins, ColoradoLakewood, ColoradoJoliet, IllinoisFort Wayne, IndianaLincoln, NebraskaDurham, North CarolinaGreensboro, North CarolinaRaleigh, North CarolinaWinston-Salem, North CarolinaEugene, OregonSalem, OregonColumbia, South CarolinaSioux Falls, South DakotaProvo, UtahPueblo, ColoradoColorado Springs, ColoradoGreeley, Colorado0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0 2 4 6 8 1012141618Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing UnitDemand/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.
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply and demand (removing Lakewood as an outlier)74Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort Collins, ColoradoJoliet, IllinoisFort Wayne, IndianaLincoln, NebraskaDurham, North CarolinaGreensboro, North CarolinaRaleigh, North CarolinaWinston-Salem, North CarolinaEugene, OregonSalem, OregonColumbia, South CarolinaSioux Falls, South DakotaProvo, UtahPueblo, ColoradoColorado Springs, ColoradoGreeley, Colorado0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0123456789Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing UnitSupply/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.
Increase in rent has been mirrored by home values 75Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyFort 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.
Fort Collins and Lakewood follow similar trajectories in home values 76Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study90%100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017Percent of 2005 Median Home ValuesFort Collins, ColoradoLakewood, ColoradoAverage of 13 other citiesThe 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.
77Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.3Rental Market TrendsRecent Trends in Fort Collins
Key Findings: Recent Trends in Fort CollinsÂAcross 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.ÂRented homes with four or more bedrooms is relatively uncommon, typically around 12%.ÂA typical rented home has about 1.6 to 1.7 cars availableÂOver time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit structures stayed about the same78Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
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.793,2014,4882,4403,0493,7813,18022,34523,73322,18223,93924,91826,57213%16%10%11%13%11%0%25%50%75%100%010,00020,00030,00040,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Rentals by Number of Occupants Per Household# rented homes with1 to 3 people# rented homes with4+ people% rented homes with4+ people (right axis)Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The proportion of rented homes with four or more bedrooms dipped slightly in 2016The 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.803,3523,9692,9633,6233,4052,49322,19424,25221,65923,36525,29427,25913%14%12%13%12%8%0%25%50%75%100%010,00020,00030,00040,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Rentals by Number of Bedrooms Per Household# rented homes with0 to 3 bedrooms# rented homes with4+ bedrooms% rented homeswith 4+ bedrooms(right axis)Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The proportion of homes rented by non-families increased very slightly from 2011In 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.819,65610,3017,6978,5259,20110,20315,89017,92016,92518,46319,49819,54962%63%69%68%68%66%0%25%50%75%100%010,00020,00030,00040,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Rentals by Household Family StatusNonfamily rentalsFamily rentals% nonfamily (right axis)Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
There have been about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available per rented household since 2011The 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 2016.8240,56846,36842,23345,15548,15648,4901.61.61.71.71.71.61.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.0010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Cars Available to Renters and Cars Per Rented HouseholdTotal Cars Available toRentersCars Per Rented Household(right axis)Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit structures stayed about the sameSince 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.8346%48%35%39%35%35%32%31%0%25%50%75%100%2005-2009 2008-2012 2012-2016Proportion of Homes that are Multi-UnitWest of CampusEast of CampusFort CollinsAway from CampusFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
School children (nursery-12) make up a smaller percentage of population in the areas around campus post-ordinance84Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyDue 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 2011-15Percentage of Population Enrolled in Nursery School -12th GradeFort CollinsWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from Campus21%23%42%51%18%21%12%13%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%2000 2006-10 2011-15Percentage of Population Enrolled in College - Graduate SchoolFort CollinsWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from CampusEnforcement 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 -12thgrade) over the past 15 years, though most of that change occurred pre-enforcement.
The price of median home sales has been significantly increasing across neighborhoods in Fort Collins 85Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyThe 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$6002012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Median Home Sale Price in Thousands Fort CollinsWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from Campus
Renters have been filling occupied units at higher rates across neighborhoods86Report Name/Customer/Project60%63%53%57%44%46%41%42%0%25%50%75%100%2008-2012 2013-2017Percentage of Occupied Units by RentersWest ofCampusEast ofCampusFort CollinsAway fromCampusWhile the percentage of renters in occupied units has been increasing across all neighborhoods, the largest increase has been seen around campus.
The percentage of four or more person rental households has decreased around campus87Report Name/Customer/Project15%10%14%6%13%13%12%13%0%25%50%2008-2012 2013-2017Percentage of Renter Occupied Units that are Four or More Person HouseholdsWest ofCampusEast ofCampusFortCollinsAwayfromCampusWhile 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.
Section 3. Occupancy Ordinance Violators
89Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.1Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsEstimated Number of Violator Households
Key Findings: Number of Violator HouseholdsÂThe 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
Estimating the Number of Violator HouseholdsTwo 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
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 StudySurvey DataCensus DataHigh Range 4,291x Violator HouseholdsLow Range 2,727x Violator HouseholdsSubstantiation Rate 38%x Occupancy InvestigationsHigh Range 1,630 1,285 Estimated Violator HousholdsLow Range 1,036 986 Estimated Violator HousholdsEstimate 1,234Average Household Size - 5.06 people
The number of violators has fluctuated over timeIn 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
94Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.2Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsProfile of Violator Households
Key Findings: Profile of Violator HouseholdsÂThe 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.ÂThe 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
A slight majority of violator households are rentalsViolator 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 StudyOwned HomeRented HomeSingle-Family Home 560 343Multi-Family Home 6 326Owned HomeRented HomeSingle-Family Home 45% 28%Multi-Family Home 1% 26%
Violator households tend to share larger homesMost 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
Violator households tend to live in single family homesAs 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
Violator households are higher on the rent spectrumBecause 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
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
Tenant relationships are generally non-bloodViolator 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.
RelationshipsWhen 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
Violator households generally form quickly or move frequentlyNearly 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
There is no relationship of household income to violator statusViolator 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
Violator households are often young adultsForty 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 Study50-50 split of males and females
College students represent nearly half the violator populationA 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 StudyTen 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.
College students are younger, while non-students are olderIf 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
Residents of violator households are generally workingThis 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 Study5% are disabled4% receive SNAP0% receive public assistance payments
109Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsInvestigation Outcomes•2.3.1 Citywide Trends•2.3.2 Neighborhood Trends
Key Findings: Investigation OutcomesÂThere was notable year to year variation in the number of over occupancy investigations.ÂCitywide, the number of investigationstrended upward, while the number of violationsremained about the same; thus, the percentage of investigations with unfounded outcomes increased.ÂThe greatest number of violations were in the West of Campus region.ÂThe 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.ÂThe proportion of violations increased in the West of Campus region, from 57% of all violations in 2011 to 68% of all violations in 2017. ÂThe 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
111Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3.1Citywide Trends
The number of over occupancy investigations increased, but the number of violations did not changeThe 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.1124688427462764738694673761289784157881471382041440501001502002502011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Number of Over Occupancy Investigations by OutcomeTotalUnfoundedViolation2 per. Mov. Avg. (Violation)2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total)Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The percentage of unfounded investigations increasedAmong all investigations, the proportion of violations decreased from 55% in 2011 to 33% in 2017.11355%56%48%50%45%37%33%45%44%52%50%55%63%67%0%25%50%75%100%2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Percentage of Outcomes from Over Occupancy InvestigationsUnfoundedViolationFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
114Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3.2Neighborhood Trends
Neighborhood SummaryNeighborhoodPercentage of occupied homes that are rentedPercentage of occupied homes that are multi-unit (more than one unit in structure)Away from Campus35% 31%East of Campus57% 39%West of Campus70% 48%Fort Collins46%35%115Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The greatest number of violations were always west of campusThe 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. 116172212141719103123456526542756405132010203040506070802011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Violations by Study AreaAway from CampusEast of CampusWest of CampusFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The area west of campus has the highest violation per home ratioThe 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.11766%26%11%9%23%66%0%25%50%75%100%Homes(2012-2016 avg.)Violations(2011 to 2017)Homes Compared to ViolationsWest of CampusEast of CampusRemained of CityFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Over time, violations became more likely west of campusThe proportion of violations increased in the neighborhoods West of campus, from 57% of all violations in 2011 to 68% of all violations in 2017. 11837%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 2017Percentage of Violations by Study AreaWest of CampusEast of CampusAway from CampusFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The greatest number of unfounded cases were typically away from campusThe 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. 119182720283350537188815111613241836286728010203040506070802011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Unfounded Cases by Study AreaAway from CampusEast of CampusWest of CampusFort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
120Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.4Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsPublic Sentiment Towards Occupancy Ordinance
Key Findings: Public SentimentÂThe public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance than oppose it (42% versus 24%). ÂHowever, 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%).ÂTwo-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
Most residents were aware of the occupancy ordinanceMost 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 StudyTotalRegion Dwelling TypeCollege Student in HomeOpinion of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of citySingle familyMulti-family Yes NoSupportNeutralOpposeNo opinionBaseUnweighted 1323 350 495 478 1029 294 205 1061 620 323 304 43Weighted 1329 318 142 868 836 493 241 1030 539 394 311 45Aware of Occupancy OrdinanceYes89%90% 88% 89% 91% 85% 91% 88% 93% 86% 88% 85%No11%10% 12% 11% 9% 15% 9% 12% 7% 14% 12% 15%
Student homes and non-student homes oppose each other on the ordinanceOverall, 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 StudyTotalRegion Dwelling Type TenureCollege Student in HomeAware of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of citySingle familyMulti-familyOwnerRenter Yes No Yes NoBaseUnweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123Opinion of Occupancy OrdinanceSupport42%38% 44% 43% 45% 37% 53% 30% 19% 47% 43% 28%Neutral31%34% 26% 31% 29% 34% 25% 38% 31% 31% 29% 40%Oppose24%26% 25% 23% 22% 27% 19% 29% 44% 19% 24% 27%No opinion3%3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 5%
The ordinance does not impact most residentsOnly 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 StudyTotalRegion TenureCollege Student in HomeWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityOwner Renter Yes NoBaseUnweighted 1283 342 477 464 1018 257 196 1029Weighted 1266 301 128 837 700 560 226 983Positive impact15%23% 17% 11% 15% 14% 11% 15%No significant impact78%61% 76% 84% 79% 77% 72% 79%Negative impact8%16% 7% 5% 7% 9% 17% 6%
Support for ordinance changes is splitTwo-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 StudyTotalRegionCollege Student in HomeOpinion of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityYes No Support Neutral OpposeNo opinionBaseUnweighted 1319 354 491 474 200 1058 640 327 306 42Weighted 1314 316 139 859 236 1021 554 405 311 41More strictly than now17%20% 18% 15% 8% 19% 33% 4% 5% 5%Same as now38%40% 33% 37% 31% 38% 49% 46% 9% 19%Less strictly than now18%20% 27% 16% 34% 14% 0% 9% 63% 6%Don’t know28%21% 21% 32% 27% 29% 18% 41% 23% 70%
126Section 3 - Short Term Rentals
127Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.1Short-Term RentalsProfile of Units and Revenues
Key Findings: Profile of Units and RevenueÂThe number of STRs increased strongly between 2015 and 2017. The number is still growing, though the growth rate has slowed into 2018.ÂA majority of STRs are full-time rentals. They are increasingly entire homes, as opposed to rooms in primary residences.ÂRevenues 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
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 StudyMonthYear123456789101112201486 881002015109 99103117 140148176 176185192 2132412016256 266277282 329343364 376414434 4454652017477 473501491 533524549 541525527 5415622018556 528524514
STRs are vacant more often than notWe 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 StudyOccupancy Rate Month123456789101112Total201427%25% 20%24%201521%17% 22%24%34% 38%50%41% 26%27%22% 21%28%201620%18% 23%25%34% 43%49%43% 31%32%25% 26%31%201720%20% 25%26%35% 46%57%52% 38%37%29% 30%35%201823%24% 30%32% 27%Total21%21% 26%28%34% 44%53%48% 33%33%26% 26%32%
Most STRs are available as full-time rentalsOver 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 StudyAvailability1234567891011122014Full 58%64% 61%Less Than Half 9%13% 11%More Than Half 33%24% 28%2015Full 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%2016Full 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%2017Full 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%2018Full 60%63% 61%60%Less Than Half 14%13% 13%8%More Than Half 26%24% 26%32%
STR units are dispersed across the cityRoughly 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 StudyEast of Campus Month123456789101112201422% 23%27%201524% 23%24%27% 26%25%24% 22%23%23% 22%22%201621% 19%21%21% 20%20%18% 20%23%23% 23%22%201722% 22%21%21% 21%21%20% 22%22%22% 21%21%201821% 21%21%22%West of Campus123456789101112201424% 27%26%201524% 24%21%21% 21%22%21% 23%20%20% 23%23%201625% 24%21%24% 26%24%24% 22%20%20% 20%22%201721% 21%21%20% 21%19%19% 16%16%16% 16%16%201817% 17%17%16%Remainder of City123456789101112201453% 50%47%201552% 53%54%52% 53%53%55% 55%57%57% 55%55%201653% 57%58%55% 54%56%57% 58%57%57% 57%56%201757% 58%58%58% 58%60%61% 62%62%63% 63%63%201862% 62%62%62%
The types of STR units are evolvingPrivate 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 StudyEntire home/aptPrivate roomShared room201434% 57%9%201537% 56%6%201641% 54%4%201744% 52%5%201846% 50%4%
Prices are rising over timeLength 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 StudyAverage Nights Per ReservationMonth123456789101112Total20144.37.0 6.0 5.520157.5 3.63.83.8 3.03.03.4 3.02.8 3.13.8 3.4 3.320163.9 3.53.53.0 3.23.33.4 3.23.0 3.03.5 3.6 3.320173.6 3.33.43.2 3.23.23.7 3.13.1 3.03.2 3.8 3.320183.7 3.53.33.2Average Dollars Per Night ReservedMonth123456789101112Total2014$82$89 $81 $842015$90 $94$86$86 $88$91$89 $87$92 $89$86 $100 $902016$88 $86$84$90 $99$103$106 $101$99 $102$99 $102 $992017$92 $96$104$105 $119$120$120 $118$123 $123$130 $124 $1172018$108 $107$112$114
Total revenues are growing rapidlyRevenues 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 StudyRevenue Per Property Month Citywide Revenues123456789101112Measured TTotalEstimated AAnnnual Total2014$599 $566$429$144,297 $489,5192015$498 $376$486$495 $692$764$923 $752$528$571 $466$524$1,137,225 $1,137,2252016$452 $391$499$579 $880$1,120$1,319 $1,087$783$884 $641$691$3,398,016 $3,398,0162017$479 $461$696$718 $1,088$1,357$1,748 $1,581$1,187$1,201 $960$990$6,586,274 $6,586,2742018$673 $625$884$981 $1,671,493 $9,591,305
136Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.2Short-Term RentalsRental Hosts and Properties
Key Findings: Rental Hosts and PropertiesÂThe 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.ÂHosts mention income, culture, and the unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for buying property for this purpose.ÂAround 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
The majority of city-licensed hosts operate only one STR138Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyOnly Operates 1 STR85%Operates 2 STRs8%Operates 3 or More STRs7%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.
City-licensed STRs in Fort Collins are distributed evenly across unit type139Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyEntire house27%Entire condo/apartment/townhouse26%Bedroom(s) in a house30%Bedroom(s) in a condo/apartment/townhouse2%Other15%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.”
Few city-licensed STR hosts have plans to own new properties140Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyHost Activity Please check each statement that applies to you.I currently own long-term rentals in Fort Collins38%I currently own a second, unrented home for personal use8%I plan on purchasing more properties to use as short-term rentals in Fort Collins in the next two years10%I plan on purchasing more properties to use as long-term rentals in Fort Collins in the next two years13%I plan on selling properties I own that are currently short-term rentals in Fort Collins in the next two years4%I plan on selling properties I own that are currently long-term rentals in Fort Collins in the next two years5%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 years4%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 years3%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.
The average city-licensed STR in Fort Collins rents for $125 a night141Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyHosts 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 TypesAverage rent per nightLess than $65$65 -$100$101 -$150More than $150Entire house- 7% 30% 63%Entire condo/apartment/townhouse6% 42% 33% 19%Bedroom(s) in a house65% 24% 6% 6%
Most city-licensed STRs are hosts’ primary residence 142Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySTR is also my primary residence62%STR is not my primary residence38%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.
A majority of city-licensed STRs were previously primary residences 143Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyLong-term rental24%Primary residence57%Second residence0%Other13%Unsure/don’t know6%Previous use Before OwnershipLong-term rental20%Primary residence55%Second residence1%Other18%Unsure/don’t know6%Previous use While OwnedWhen 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.
City-licensed Hosts mention income, culture, and the unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for renting 144Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study14%26%40%62%0% 20% 40% 60% 80%CultureCompeting with LTRsUnique STR appealIncomePercentage 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, share stories, and learn about the town you're visiting.”
145Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyEstimation Strategies to Calculate Percentage of STRs that Came from the LTR MarketUnitsBedroomsSwitched STRsTotal STRsPercentSwitched RoomsTotal RoomsPercentQ7: Previous Use While Owned was LTR26 123 21% 57 236 24%Q8: Original Intent at Purchase was LTR20 122 16% 45 236 19%Q10: Decision Process Considered LTR23 122 19% 50 232 22%Q12: Recall Previous Owner LTR31 122 25% 71 235 30%Average 25 122 20% 56 235 24%Any Switch Indicator52 122 43% 107 236 45%Q7, Q8, or Q1036 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
146Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.3Short-Term RentalsPublic Sentiment Toward Short-Term Rental Rules
Key Findings: Public SentimentÂAbout one-third of residents are aware of STR licensing rules. ÂSupport 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
Most residents are not aware of STR licensing rulesAbout 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 StudyTotalRegion STR ZoneWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityNo STRs allowedPrimary STRs onlyPrimary and non-primary STRs allowedBaseUnweighted 1366 361 513 492 851 468 47Weighted 1362 323 145 894 640 622 101MissingNo reply5%5% 4% 5% 2% 7% 7%Aware of STR LicensingYes31%29% 39% 31% 34% 27% 37%No64%67% 57% 65% 64% 66% 56%
The public generally supports STR rulesWhile 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 StudyTotalRegionAware of STR LicensingImpact of STRs on Neighborhood Household IncomeWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityYes NoPositive impactNo significant impactNegative impactNot applicableLess than $50,000$50,000 or moreDecline to specifyBaseUnweighted 1344354 506 484 487 817 31 673 144 438 287 777 215Weighted 1337316 144 877 422 863 23 647 170 439 401 661 213Opinion of STR RulesSupport41%38% 41% 42% 50% 37% 31% 38% 61% 38% 35% 44% 43%Neutral or no opinion39%42% 41% 38% 34% 42% 39% 43% 23% 42% 44% 36% 40%Oppose19%20% 18% 20% 16% 21% 31% 19% 16% 20% 21% 20% 17%
150Section 4 - Neighborhood Quality
151Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.1Neighborhood QualityCitywide
Key Findings: Citywide Neighborhood QualityÂResidents give generally high ratings to neighborhood quality, though ratings have decline over the past 15 years.ÂParking 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
Neighborhood quality was generally highOn 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 StudyTotalRegion TenureCollege Student in HomeOpinion of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityOwner Renter Yes NoSupportNeutralOpposeNo opinionPeace and quiet1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.941.17 1.11 1.06 1.11 1.21 1.40Maintenance of lawns1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04 0.99 1.01 1.25 1.19Maintenance of houses1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10 1.04 1.04 1.12 1.28Sense of community0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.52 0.69Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Some neighborhood problems have increased over the last decade154Fort 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%Uncontrolledpets runningloose*Criminal activity DisruptivepartiesLoud noise otherthan parties, suchas stereos oryellingMore than threeunrelated peopleliving in a houseParking vehiclesinappropriatelyTrash or junk inthe yardPoorlymaintained housePercentage of Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems200420082018While 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.
While neighborhood ratings are high, the percentage of residents rating their neighborhood good or very good has reverted to, or dropped below, pre-ordinance levels155Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study84%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 communityPercentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good200420082018While 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.
Inappropriately parked vehicles are the most common neighborhood issueParking 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 StudyTotalRegion Tenure Opinion of Occupancy OrdinanceWest of campusEast of campusRemainder of cityOwner Renter Support Neutral OpposeUncontrolled pets running loose0.510.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39Criminal activity0.330.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27Disruptive parties0.360.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.591.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59Parking vehicles inappropriately0.661.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.540.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36Trash or junk in the yard0.490.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39Poorly maintained house0.360.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
157Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.2Neighborhood QualityProximity to Ordinance Violators
Key Findings: Proximity to Ordinance ViolatorsÂLower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are strongly correlated with being neighbors to a suspected ordinance-violating household. ÂHowever, 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
Neighborhood impacts were linked to perceptions of a violating neighborTotalWest of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceEast of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceRemainder of city-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceYes No Yes No Yes NoPeace and quiet1.130.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3Maintenance of lawns1.080.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28Maintenance of houses1.080.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31Sense of community0.49-0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65159Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyVery good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excludedResidents 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.
Within neighborhoods, proximity to violator households led to differences in neighborhood issues160TotalWest of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceEast of campus-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceRemainder of city-Neighbor(s) violating occupancy ordinanceYes No Yes No Yes NoUncontrolled pets running loose0.511.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4Criminal activity0.311.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14Disruptive parties0.361.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.591.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35Parking vehicles inappropriately0.631.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.531.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35Trash or junk in the yard0.481.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25Poorly maintained house0.351.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyResidents 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.
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:OneObserved ViolatorThe presence of violators in 2018 increased reported neighborhood problems, but often at a lower rate than 2008161Fort 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 petsrunning loose*Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other thanparties, such as stereosor yellingParking vehiclesinappropriatelyTrash or junk in theyardPoorly maintainedhouseTwo or MoreObserved Violators200420082018
Decreases in neighborhood ratings were observed in the absence of violator households162Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study91% 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 communitySingle Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good with no Observed Violators200420082018While 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.
Increases in neighborhood problems were observed in the absence of violator households163Fort 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 petsrunning loose*Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other thanparties, such as stereosor yellingParking vehiclesinappropriatelyTrash or junk in theyardPoorly maintainedhouseSingle Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:NoObserved Violators200420082018The 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.
The presence of violating households decreases the percentage of good or very good neighborhood ratings164Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study72%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 communityOneObserved Violator20042008201864%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 communityTwo or MoreObserved Violators200420082018Living 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
165Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.3Neighborhood QualityProximity to Short-Term Rentals
Key Findings: Proximity to Short-Term RentalsÂLower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are also correlated with being neighbors to an STR property. ÂHowever, 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
STR presence correlates with lower neighborhood qualityÂResidents report somewhat lower neighborhood quality when they live near an STR, with the largest impact being on sense of community.ÂWhile 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 StudyTotalNeighbor(s) operate STRsNo STRs allowed-Neighbor(s) operate STRsPrimary STRs only-Neighbor(s) operate STRsYes No Yes No Yes NoPeace and quiet1.131.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08Maintenance of lawns1.070.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09Maintenance of houses1.070.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98Sense of community0.50.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38Small sample sizesVery good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Neighborhood issues are correlated with STR presenceResidents 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 StudyTotalNeighbor(s) operate STRsNo STRs allowed-Neighbor(s) operate STRsPrimary STRs only-Neighbor(s) operate STRsYes No Yes No Yes NoUncontrolled pets running loose0.510.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46Criminal activity0.30.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35Disruptive parties0.350.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37Loud noise other than parties, such as stereos or yelling0.570.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63Parking vehicles inappropriately0.630.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66Snow on sidewalks (snow not shoveled)0.530.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54Trash or junk in the yard0.470.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45Poorly maintained house0.350.64 0.32 0.710.33 0.63 0.32Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
The impact of STRs is narrowSTRs 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 StudyTotalNeighbor(s) Operate STRsSTR ZoneAware of STR LicensingOpinion of STR RulesYes NoNo STRsallowedPrimary STRsonlyPrimary and non-primary STRs allowed Yes NoSupportNeutralOpposeNo opinionBaseUnweighted 1366147 1152851 468 47 491 825 558 388 274 124Weighted 1362145 1134640 622 101 423 877 547 391 260 138MissingNo reply7%3% 3%5% 7% 15% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 4%Positive impact2%1% 2%2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 6%No significant impact47%61% 49%45% 50% 50% 57% 45% 45% 56% 47% 42%Negative impact13%31% 10%12% 14% 8% 14% 13% 19% 9% 10% 2%Not applicable33%4% 38% 37% 29% 25% 24% 38% 30% 31% 34% 46%
Appendix - Methodology
171Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodology Rental Market Trends•Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas•Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Methodology: Rental Market Trends Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro AreasIn 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
Methodology: Rental Market Trends Comparisons to a Selection of Nationwide CitiesThe 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
Methodology: Rental Market Trends Case Selection for National Market AnalysisÂThis section details the case selection process for the national market analysis. ÂAs 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 growthfrom 1990 through 2000, with rates of over 6.8% per year. >Corona eliminated two cities in Puerto Ricofor which standard data were not available. ÂThese 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
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 StudySimilar Growth CitiesAnnual Household GrowthAnnual Household Growth, Ages 15-24Ratio of Young/Total HHousehold Growth Columbia, South Carolina2.19% 4.14% 1.89Durham, North Carolina2.95% 3.33% 1.13Eugene, Oregon2.26% 3.68% 1.63Fort Collins, Colorado3.07% 3.34% 1.08Fort Wayne, Indiana1.86% 3.20% 1.72Greensboro, North Carolina2.12% 3.34% 1.58Joliet, Illinois3.06% 3.10% 1.01Lakewood, Colorado1.59% 2.74% 1.73Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky*1.93% 3.73% 1.93Lincoln, Nebraska1.83% 2.73% 1.49Mesquite, Texas2.03% 2.52% 1.24Provo, Utah2.13% 3.06% 1.44Raleigh, North Carolina2.77% 2.69% 0.97Salem, Oregon2.09% 3.39% 1.63Sioux Falls, South Dakota2.22% 2.93% 1.32Winston-Salem, North Carolina2.49% 2.94% 1.18
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 StudySimilar Growth CitiesLargest UniversityNumber of UndergraduatesColumbia, South Carolina*University of South Carolina 24,941Durham, North CarolinaDuke 6,501Eugene, Oregon*University of Oregon 20,220Fort Collins, Colorado*Colorado State University 22,727Fort Wayne, IndianaPurdue Fort Wayne 8,746Greensboro, North Carolina*The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 15,158Joliet, IllinoisNALakewood, ColoradoColorado Christian University 3,885Lincoln, Nebraska*University of Nebraska Lincoln 20,182Mesquite, TexasNAProvo, Utah*Brigham Young University 30,221Raleigh, North Carolina*North Carolina State University 22,458Salem, OregonWillamette University 1,925Sioux Falls, South DakotaUniversity of Sioux Falls 1,185Winston-Salem, North CarolinaWake Forest Unversity 4,866
177Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodology Ordinance Violators•Estimated Number•Profile of Violators•Investigation Outcomes
Methodology: Violator Estimates and ProfilesEstimates 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
Methodology: Investigation OutcomesOver 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
180Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodologyShort-Term Rentals•Profile of Units and Revenues•Rental Host Survey
Methodology: Profile of Units and RevenueFor 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
Methodology: Short-Term Rental Host SurveyThe 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 StudyComparing Response and Non-Response by Residency TotalResidency PrimaryNon-PrimaryNon-Response111 67% 33%In Survey143 68% 32%Comparing Response and Non-Response by Title RegisteredTotalTitle Registered BusinessPersonal AddressOtherNon-Response111 32% 48% 6% 14%In Survey143 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.
183Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodologyResident Survey•Public Sentiment Toward Occupancy Ordinance•Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules•Citywide Quality Measures•Proximity to Ordinance Violators•Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Methodology: Resident SurveySurvey InstrumentTo 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
Methodology: Resident SurveySamplingSelecting 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 StudyRegion% of Homes % of SampleAway from Campus66% 34%East of Campus11% 33%West of Campus23% 33%Fort Collins100% 100%
Methodology: Resident SurveySurvey AdministrationSurvey 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 Rate1,053 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 StudyRegion% of Delivered Surveys% of Returned SurveysAdjusted Response RateAway from Campus35% 36% 26%East of Campus33% 38% 29%West of Campus32% 26% 21%Fort Collins100% 100% 25%
Methodology: Resident SurveyWeightingIn 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
Methodology: Resident SurveyMargin of ErrorThe 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 StudyRegionCorrected Margin of ErrorAway from Campus±6.1%East of Campus±8.0%West of Campus±9.1%Fort Collins±4.6%
About Corona Insights189Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyOur founder named the companyCorona because the word means “light.”It’s the knowledge that surrounds andilluminates an issue; exactly what weprovide. Our firm’s mission is to provideaccurate and unbiased information andcounsel to decision makers. We providemarket research, evaluation, and strategicconsulting for organizations both smalland large.Learn more at www.CoronaInsights.com1580 Lincoln StreetSuite 510Denver, CO 80203Phone: 303.894.8246
•December 2020 Ad-Hoc Housing Committee - Discussion of Occupancy and Rental Regulations
•February 2019 Work Session - Occupancy Limit Enforcement and Chronic Nuisance Properties Update
•January 2019 Work Session - Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (results)
•December 2016 Work Session - Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (scope of study)
•February 2016 Work Session Summary - Rental Licensing (decision to pursue options outside of rental
licensing)
•February 2016 Work Session - Rental Licensing
•November 2014 Work Session - Housing Affordability Policy Study (evaluated U+2 and recommended
modifications to extra occupancy processes)
•October 2009 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance Two-Year Review and Policy Discussion
•August 2009 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance “Economic and Market Impact Study”
•August 2007 Work Session - Review and update of the Over-Occupancy Enforcement Program
•November 2005 Hearing (Second Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
•November 2005 Hearing (First Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
•August 2005 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance
•October 2004 Work Session - Rental Licensing Alternatives
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Work Session Housing Strategic Plan Implementation10-26-21Occupancy, Rental Licensing, and Small Landlord IncentivesMarcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services ManagerMeaghan Overton, Housing ManagerATTACHMENT 7
2Questions for Council1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed roadmap for rental licensing and inspections, occupancy ordinance revisions, and small landlord incentives?2. What additional information would be helpful to inform Council’s dialogue and decision-making process about these strategies?
Strategic Alignment3•Big Move 6: Efficient, Emissions Free Buildings •EEFB3: Continue and expand home and business energy efficiency programs.•Big Move 7: Healthy, Affordable Housing•HAH2: Explore revisions to the City’s occupancy ordinance•HAH6: Explore mandated rental license/rental registry•Strategy 20 - Explore the option of a mandated rental license/ registry program and pair with best practice rental regulations.•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.•Strategy 26 – Develop small landlord incentives.•LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices•LIV 6: Improve access to housing …regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, ability, or background•LIV 6.7: Encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives…for the construction and rehabilitation of long-term affordable housing units
•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• Fear of retaliation or loss of housing if renters report substandard or unsafe units• Concerns about discrimination• Lack of choices and affordable optionsattributed to current occupancy restrictions• Many opinions about the best approach to “right-sizing” the City’s occupancy ordinance4Housing Strategic PlanWhy are we looking at rental licensing, occupancy, and small landlord incentives?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)
• Policy • 1963 – Adoption of Occupancy Ordinance (U+2)• 2005 – Decriminalization of occupancy violations• 2016 – Decision to pursue options outside of rental licensing• Research• Corona Insights Economic and Impact Studies completed in 2005, 2009, 2019• Demographics of violator households, perceptions of neighborhood livability, and impact on housing market• Ad Hoc Housing Committee• December 2020 exploration• Direction for further work on rental licensing/registration, occupancy, and landlord incentives5Previous Council DirectionWhy are we looking at rental licensing, occupancy, and small landlord incentives?
• Dramatic demographic shifts since 2005 in households violating U+2:• Price escalation (68% rent increase since 2011) and very low rental vacancy rates (around 3%) are likely resulting in “doubling up” to afford housing for a wide range of household configurations6Demographic and Market AnalysisWho is impacted?2005 2018Total (est) households in violation 1,238 1,234Percentage college students 71% 47%Percentage children under 18 Negligible 13%“I have had no option but to consistently violate U+2 since I moved out of my parents’ home ten years ago. It was not until I was 28 years old that I could afford to rent a home with only two unrelated housemates. Even then, rent consumed approximately 60% of my income, leaving me unable to afford health insurance for two years.”
Estimated # of homes*Estimated % of all housingTotal (citywide) 87,863 100%Owned Units 49,775 57%Rental Units 38,088 43%Single-Household, detached rentals 14,41916%(38% of all rentals)Multi-household, mixed-use or manufactured housing rentals23,66927%(62% of all rentals)7Demographic and Market AnalysisWho is impacted?*Note: This data is the best available information at present but should be interpreted as an estimate because of potential data gaps or lags in reporting property information.• Over 40% of all housing in Fort Collins is renter-occupied
Investigated rental programming and occupancy approaches for 40+ cities, 22 in ColoradoKey take-aways: Implement a rental licensing program that includes:• Inspection of units• A fee structure designed to cover program costs• Training for staff, landlords, and tenants• Involve landlords and tenants in program design and implementation Revise the current occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness.8Peer City ResearchWhat do other communities do? What are the best practices?
9Proposed Roadmap: TimelineYear 1 • Occupancy changes, remove “family” basis• LUC changes to extra occupancy• Pilot program• Finalize fees, staffing needsYear 2 • Mandatory licensing, training, fees• Inspections – 25%• Voluntary complianceYear 3• Mandatory licensing, training, fees• Inspections – 25%• Pilot landlord incentives• Voluntary compliance• EvaluateYear 4• Mandatory licensing, training, fees• Inspections – 25%• Pilot landlord incentives• Voluntary compliance• EvaluateYear 5 • Mandatory licensing, training, fees• Inspections – 25%• Enforcement• Decision on occupancy limitsPilotLicense and Inspect; Evaluate and AdjustEnforceHow and when could implementation happen?
10Proposed Roadmap: Cost ConsiderationsLicense and Inspect; Evaluate and AdjustHow and when could implementation happen?• Research to date suggests that programs should be designed to create full cost recovery; however, initial program funding will be needed.• If Council wishes to implement rental registration, funding will be pursued as part of the Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) process in the 2023-2024 budget cycle. • Decision points that influence total startup cost:• Number or percentage of rental units inspected annually• Frequency of inspections• Fee structure – assessed per unit or tiered based on number of units, affordable units, etc.• Costs of tracking software • Number and types of staffing needed (inspectors, program manager, admin support)
Explore options for adjusting occupancy code from family definitions to household functionality. As part of Land Use Code changes, evaluate a shift for extra occupancy approval from a development review process to an administrative permit process. Pilot a rental licensing program, inviting and incentivizing voluntary licensing. Finalize a fee structure that will cover program costs. Select and pilot a tracking software system. Develop landlord training to be incorporated into licensing process. Recruit, select and train third party inspectors. Council Policy decision on full program implementationProposed Roadmap11Year 1: Pilot
Year one of rental licensing program Annual renewal of rental licensing information with inspections every 4 years. 25% of inspections will be completed by 3rd party contractors• Complaints on rental units will be handled by City Building inspectors.• Any units not passing inspection by the 3rd party contractors will be referred to City building inspectors to ensure compliance is reached. Educate and work toward voluntary complianceProposed Roadmap12Year 2: License, Inspect
Rental licensing program continues 25% of inspections completed each year Pilot landlord incentives• Begin with health and safety issues• Consider incentives for landlords utilizing affordable housing programs• Explore options for landlords upgrading energy efficiency, historic preservation, etc. Educate and work toward voluntary compliance Council check-in to evaluate and adjust rental programming and occupancy issuesProposed Roadmap13Years 3-4: Evaluate, Adjust
Final 25% of inspections are completed. Begin enforcement for properties that do not pass inspections or are not in compliance with administrative components. Evaluate licensing program effectiveness, fee structure, training, etc. Council policy decision on occupancy ordinance.Proposed Roadmap14Year 5: Enforce
15Potential Next Steps• Public engagement – early 2022• Landlords, property management companies• Renters, neighborhood groups, HOAs• Other key stakeholders - realtors, Boards and Commissions, etc.• Form advisory stakeholder group or committee• Future Council involvement – Year 1 (after public engagement is complete)• Work Session to review engagement and finalize pilot program design• Consideration of code revisions to occupancy ordinance • Consideration of code revisions to extra occupancy process• Policy decision about full program implementation after review of pilot• Review of budget offer for initial program resources
16Questions for Council1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed roadmap for rental licensing and inspections, occupancy ordinance revisions, and small landlord incentives?2. What additional information would be helpful to inform Council’s dialogue and decision-making process about these strategies?