Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/26/2021 - WORK SESSION
City of Fort Collins Page 1 Jeni Arndt, Mayor Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Gutowsky, District 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 Remote Meeting City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Tammi Pusheck City Attorney Interim City Manager Interim City Clerk Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 221-6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. City Council Work Session October 26, 2021 6:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER. 1. Recovery Plan Overview. (staff: SeonAh Kendall; 15 minute presentation; 60 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Fort Collins Recovery Plan (The Plan) and provide additional context of the American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (ARPA). While our primary focus continues to be protecting the health and safety of our community, a return to “business as usual” is not the goal of recovery. The Plan works to address the trauma that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on our community, reduce future shocks, and focus on the inclusion and well-being of our community to increase resilience and move toward a vibrant future. As many communities begin to structure their recovery plans on ARPA expenditures, the City’s intent is to be transformational vs transactional in recovery. The past 22+ months has shone a light on the vast inequities and disparities in our community, but also sparked innovation and regional collaboration to respond to the ever-changing health and economic circumstances. A bottom-up community engagement approach is being utilized to inform the Plan. ARPA funds are one tool to help the community achieve our vision that “Fort Collins residents and businesses ar e able to participate in a resilient, vibrant and inclusive future.” The Plan seeks to leverage this historic opportunity to make bold, long-term investments for recovery. City of Fort Collins Page 2 2. Housing Strategic Plan Implementation. (staff: Marcy Yoder, Meaghan Overton; 15 minute presentation; 45 minute discussion) 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. 3. East Mulberry Project Update. (staff: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Travis Storin; 15 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an overview of the plan update process thus far and gather feedback on the strategic approach to plan-making and annexation evaluation. Staff will share an update on public engagement, present the approach for guiding principles and share a preliminary financial analysis. • ANNOUNCEMENTS. • ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: October 26, 2021 SeonAh Kendall, Recovery Manager/Sr. Economic Health Manager Travis Storin, Chief Finance Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Recovery Plan Overview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Fort Collins Recovery Plan (The Plan) and provide additional context of the American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (ARPA). While our primary focus continues to be protecting the health and safety of our community, a return to “business as usual” is not the goal of recovery. The Plan works to address the trauma that the COVID -19 pandemic has had on our community, reduce future shocks, and focus on the inclusion and well-being of our community to increase resilience and move toward a vibrant future. As many communities begin to structure their recovery plans on ARPA expenditures, the City’s intent is to be transformational vs transactional in recovery. The past 22+ months has shone a light on the vast inequities and disparities in our community, but also sparked innovation and regional collaboration to respond to the ever - changing health and economic circumstances. A bottom-up community engagement approach is being utilized to inform the Plan. ARPA funds are one tool to help the community achieve our vision that “Fort Collins residents and businesses are able to participate in a resilient, vibrant and inclusive future.” The Plan seeks to leverage this historic opportunity to make bold, long -term investments for recovery. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What additional questions does Council have around the intended purpose s of ARPA in support of recovery? 2. Does Council support the development and staff recommended structure of the Recovery Plan? 3. Are there “big play” priorities at the local or regional level that City Council would specifically like to pursue? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Recovery Plan (The Plan) is being built with the community and being driven by community needs to build back better. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is a tool to help us achieve some of our recovery goals. Since March 2020, when the initial local emergency was declared, the City has worked swiftly and thoughtfully to address the COVID-19 pandemic. While our primary focus continues to be protecting the health and safety of our community, we have also administered new, innovative programs that help stabilize our local community to build the foundation for long-term resilience. The pandemic has taught us that these are uncharted times, with many unknowns about the future. We are mindful we cannot, nor should we, return to the pre-pandemic status quo. Northern Colorado benefits from years of regional collaboration such as the I -25 expansion, the Northern Colorado Law Enforcement Training Center, and many more. This need for collaboration was even more true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health orders impacted every aspect of our personal and work lives. Collaboration between County Environment Health, economic developers and businesses (Level Up) helped ease 1 Packet Pg. 3 October 26, 2021 Page 2 restrictions and lessen negative economic impact for those working together to create a safer environment for the overall community. Northern Colorado is resilient, smart, diverse, and entrepreneurial. Additionally, we are aware that the recovery cannot happen in a vacuum. We must work regionally and collaboratively with our institutional partners and neighboring municipal communities. A coordinated, collaborative regional recovery plan can provide the framework for local recovery enabling cooperation between the public and private sectors. Understanding and removing functional and structural barriers for residents, consumers, employees, and businesses is essential to our successful recovery. Vision Statement: Fort Collins residents and businesses are able to participate in a resilient, vibrant and inclusive future. In order to realize our vision, we must acknowledge the traumatic 18+ months the pandemic has had on our community to begin the healing process. Numerous studies and reports have shown that COVID -19 has had disparate impacts on different socioeconomic and demographic groups, even in our own community. The pandemic impacted our everyday lives, including physical, mental, and economic well -being to varying degrees. To better understand the work that needs to be done, we must acknowledge not everyone was affected equally. Legacy issues became even more prevalent as mandates in the early stages of the pandemic were felt disproportionately by businesses and community members of color, women and those without a four -year college degree. As highlighted in the Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Tool, lower-wage workers in the region (such as those in food preparation and service) bore the burden of the highest risk to earnings and personal health. (Attachment 1) PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESS 1. This work is both practical and symbolic. The symbolic nature of this work is equally powerful because it ensures the public and business know a coordinated, concerted effort is underway to help residents, consumers, business, the economy and workers. 2. Equity and inclusion is embedded in all areas of the recovery. To ensure inclusive access to opportunities, we need to put equity into action. 3. Let form follow function. The pursuit of perfect information and data should not become the enemy of forward motion. The structure for engaging in recovery planning should develop from the goals of the recovery process not vice versa. 4. Be data and experience driven. Do not lead with ‘solutions.’ Seek to gather and understand the data to drive strategies and tactics. Do not let the average mask the disproportionate impact on community (i.e., disaggregate data to understand our community’s lived experience). Search and scour for best practices (regionally, nationally, internationally) to identify solutions, lessons learned as implementing, and pitfalls to avoid. 5. Focus on Economic Recovery. Keep recovery work focused on economic recovery; avoid mission creep. Focus on the economy and the rest will follow. Non-profits deliver services not provided by government and business. Their recovery is important to the quality of life of our region. 6. Focus on resilience. Resilience is the ability for the economy to bounce back from, weather, and/or avoid shocks. The nature of this shock means that recovery may be uneven with setbacks. Businesses that have quickly adopted new approaches and models - the disrupters - seem to be avoiding the worst of the downturn. These new approaches should be understood and translated to support businesses throughout the economy. Existing inequities will be exacerbated by the pandemic and economic recession - inequities are barriers to resilience. Northern Colorado has a pioneering and entrepreneurial history that will aid residents and businesses to rebound through innovative adaptation. 7. Avoid being short-sighted. Focus on balancing the need to adapt due to spikes and lulls in variants while continuing to develop the long-term resilience strategy. Additionally, ensuring a balance to the triple bottom line (economic, social and environme nt) honors and reflects our community’s dedication to sustainability. 1 Packet Pg. 4 October 26, 2021 Page 3 Engagement and Feedback Summary Recovery will be realized best when residents, businesses, and institutions are engaged and working together to shape and develop the Plan. Assuring stakeholders are aware of and feel heard early in the engagement process will help to generate a better plan and decision making. The Recovery Team developed a multi -faceted approach designed to broaden public outreach and engagement. This approach includes working closely with community partners who have existing relationships with vulnerable segments of our community and providing resources so that recovery can be incorporated into other engagement efforts across the community. Additionally, understanding that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every facet of our lives and that recovery does not stop at city limits, the City has committed to developing and sharing the inputs with our institutional partners to ensure that access to information is available to all. (Attachment 2) Strategy: Recovery engagement has focused on understanding ongoing challenges and impacts of the pandemic, while also asking what long-term recovery looks like to our community. Intentional engagement strategies that center on inclusion of hard-hit, under-resourced, and marginalized communities, businesses and individuals are being utilized, with the specified goal of an equitable engagement process. For the Plan to be successful, we need to recognize there are varying lived experie nces in our community to understand different perspectives and solutions to recovery. The plan engagement is also aligned with engagement efforts for the 2022 Strategic Plan and 2022 Budget. Engagement data from Fort Collins is also being shared with Larim er County and other local partners to help shape regional recovery planning. Methods: ● OurCity project page with online engagement activities in both English / Spanish ● Online and mailed surveys in English / Spanish ● Dual language online forums and community conversations ● Website and social media promotion ● Digital, print and radio ads ● Stakeholder meetings ● Bilingual Engagement Guide ● Paid partnerships with community connectors and organizations Participation: as of Wednesday, October 8, 2021 • Surveys: o 1,875+ responses (from Larimer County and Fort Collins surveys) o 220+ responses from OurCity o 490 responses from Larimer County survey (specifically identified as Fort Collins residents) o 20+ paper survey responses • OurCity: o 3,500 total page visits o 2,200 aware visitors, 1,100 informed visitors, 715 engaged o 222 survey responses o 72 poll responses o 140 ideas submitted • Social Media: o Facebook 21,500+ reached o Twitter: 8,500 impressions o Total social media reach & impressions (all platforms): 30,000+ 1 Packet Pg. 5 October 26, 2021 Page 4 • Additional participation: o 30+ one-on-one conversations with stakeholders o 360+ ideas from events o 15+ open house attendees • Total 35,800+ community members engaged to date Feedback Summary: In depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of feedback is ongoing, however themes and priorities are already emerging. (Attachment 4) Recovery Plan Many communities have structured their plans based on the expenditure of ARPA r elief funds. However, the pandemic has taught us these are uncharted times, with many unknowns about the future. The intent of the Plan is to be transformational vs transactional and provide a flexible structure based on current community needs while utilizing ARPA funds as a tool. The Plan is NOT meant to be overly prescriptive while still achieving transformational change to help our whole community achieve resilience, and eventual vibrancy. The Plan provides an overview of organizational structures to address economic recovery, equity and community recovery, and health and environmental resilience for Fort Collins. Although equity is imbedded in all areas of the Plan, it was important to name it in the strategic structure. The impacts of COVID-19 have increased existing economic and racial inequalities. An Inclusive Recovery Framework (The Framework) was developed to assist city departments with process improvements, provide compliance support and create an opportunity for discussions regarding the most equitable and impactful way to use ARPA funds. The Framework is meant to further equitable recovery discussions and process improvements and not to be used as a decision for funding. (Attachment 3) Compliance and Reporting The $28.1M ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Guidance (SLFRF)1 are being administered by the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury). As part of the SLFRF, Treasury has released compliance and reporting guidance for all agencies receiving these funds. Staff has been review ing and closely monitoring all changes and updates to this guidance. As of October 12, 2021, there have been no updated to the Interim Final Rules (IFR) that was originally released on May 17, 2021, by Treasury. Treasury was taking public comments on the I FR until July 16, 2021, and expects to review comments into the fall and release the Final Rule in the coming weeks. Staff will closely monitor all uses of the SLFRF within the Plan to ensure compliance with all current and future guidance from Treasury. It is important to make sure all costs under SLFRF follow the Treasury guidance, or the City could be responsible to pay back a portion of the funds. The SLFRF guidance from Treasury includes quarterly required reporting. This reporting is more rigorous than what was required under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s Coronavirus Relief 1 Packet Pg. 6 October 26, 2021 Page 5 Fund (CVRF). The City received these federal dollars, through the County, as a subrecipient of the State of Colorado in 2020. The City was able to learn a number of best practices through the administration of the CVRF that will be leveraged in the administration of the SLFRF. Although the City received a clean audit of CVRF, best practices around documentation and oversight of funds to ensure all compliance measures are met continue to be at the forefront of process improvements. Short-Term ARPA Allocation Ordinance No. 079, 2021 Making Supplemental Appropriations of a Portion of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act Funding for Local Fiscal Recovery Related to Response to and Recovery From the COVID-19 Pandemic appropriated $4.2M (equivalent to fifteen percent) to be used to address immediate and short -term needs. In addition, the 2022 City Manager’s Recommended Budget for Council consideratio n includes approximately $3.6M of ARPA short-term support. Approximately $6M of the $7.8M identified short-term funds have been tentatively, with all anticipated these funds in 2021 and 2022 (any remaining will be utilized for the overall recovery). Mor e details and definitions will be forthcoming and reported to Council: • Economic Recovery ~$2.9M o Examples: ▪ Small Business Grants for events/safety, restaurants and industries, financial/accounting literacy and resilience, etc. ▪ Business and Entrepreneur Center to support small businesses including entrepreneurs of color, women and low-income businesses and meet them where they are at. ▪ Extension of For Fort Collins for the support local campaign and resources. • Equity and Community Recovery ~$2.1M o Examples: ▪ Continued support of the Eviction Legal Defense Fund, Support for 24/7 Shelter and Utility Direct Assistance Program. ▪ Programmatic support for the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office. ▪ Reduced fee scholarships for recreation and cultural programs. ▪ Childcare System Support and increase to the Human Services Program. ● Health and Environmental Resilience ~$1M o Examples: ▪ Innovate Fort Collins Challenge - Housing/Climate Nexus. ▪ Support of Police and Municipal Court Services in mental health, addiction, and teen diversion services. o Many emergency needs specific to health are being covered with the City’s remaining CARES funds that are not reflective of the approximate $1M cost above. Alignment with City Strategies and Council Priorities Internal activities include scanning existing plans, projects and programs being implemented within the City that align with recovery and the Plan development. The “plan scan” allows us to leverage engagement, data and prioritization that our community has shared previously while addressing current and future needs. Additionally, staff are working collaboratively to determine how the Plan will fit into the overall planning system and where there are opportunities for integration of overlapping work in recovery, budget and Strategic Plan. Inputs from the engagement have been collected collaboratively as mentioned above in the Engagement and Feedback Summary. Council Priority Alignment ● Juvenile diversion ● Advance transit initiatives that remove barriers 1 Packet Pg. 7 October 26, 2021 Page 6 ● Advance Regionalism - collaboration regionally while maintaining the unique character of Fort Collins ● Develop a Circular Economy Plan ● Partner with Poudre School District (PSD) for workforce development ● Affordable, quality and accessible childcare infrastructure ● Create a targeted, specific plan for community recovery ● Support homelessness initiatives Data, Reporting and Performance Measurement The Data, Reporting and Performance Measurement strategic initiative team has a goal to ensure the City measures the effectiveness of all programs and projects funded under the Recovery Plan. The team has been gathering information and conducting research to develop a plan to measure the performance of the City’s programs and projects tied to the City’s recovery. The focus of the team’s work is outlined below: ● Conduct a City data inventory of data sources and metrics that identify and describe residents who are under - represented or differentially impacted by COVID, and that may be used to help measure recovery impacts and outcomes. ● Research methodology for evaluating impact/outcomes of equity-based programming. ● Define the city’s data needs for mandatory ARPA reporting. ● Benchmark data sources used by cities required by US Treasury to conduct program evaluations on their ARPA-funded programs. Cities with a population of 200K+ are required to evaluate the effectiveness of their use of ARPA funds for recovery programs using data analysis and metrics. Next Steps ● Continue meeting with community connectors and partners to understand/learn more about lived experiences of our hard-to-reach and most vulnerable community members - first week of November 2021 (align with Larimer County engagement and outreach) ● Evaluation of all recovery engagement - November 2021 ● Super Issues Board Meeting - November 17, 2021 ● Internal Strategic/Recovery Plan mini charettes - throughout November 2021 ● Council Work Session to review draft Recovery Plan - January 11, 2022 ● Recovery Plan adoption - February 1, 2022 ATTACHMENTS 1. Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (PDF) 2. Recovery Plan Engagement Plan (PDF) 3. Themes and Responses (PDF) 4. DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (PDF) 5. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 8 OVERVIEW In the COVID-19 era, communities that understand the pain points of their local labor force are better equipped to respond effectively to the evolving needs of resident workers. The occupational risk tool combines data on jobs and residents to help users understand which workers are at risk in the current environment, where those workers are located, and their demographic context. To understand the risks workers are likely to face in the current crisis, we assign workers in each occupation a risk to personal health and a risk to earnings. The two scores are used to plot a position for each occupation that illustrates the amount of risk to earnings and health that workers may experience as a result of their job. Additionally, users may dive deeper into understanding the risks different workers experience by using filters to show occupations by their essential status, salaried status, median earni.. OCCUPATIONAL RISK PLOT To understand the risks workers are likely to face at work during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, we assign each job (or occupation) two risk scores: Risk to personal health. A higher risk to personal health means that workers in that occupation are at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19. This score is based four factors: 1. Frequent exposure to infections/disease increases personal health risk 2. Necessary close proximity to others increases personal health risk 3. Being an essential worker can increase personal health risk 4. Having the ability to work remotely decreases personal health risk Risk to earnings. A higher risk to earnings score means that workers in that occupation have an elevated risk of losing their jobs or are at risk of being furloughed without pay due to budget shortfalls. This score is based on four factors: 1. Being an essential worker decreases risk to earnings 2. Having the ability to work remotely decreases risk to earnings 3. Being salaried decreases risk to earnings 4. Larger increase in occupational unemployment relative to pre-COVID levels indicates an increased risk to earnings LOCAL OCCUPATIONAL DETAIL While the occupational risk map can help users understand which areas of a community have concentrations of at-risk workers, the occupational detail section shows in-depth breakdowns of major occupation groups by their component detailed occupations and their associated risk scores within one or more ZIP codes. This chart and associated map can also give users a better understanding of where specific at-risk occupations are located. OCCUPATIONAL RISK MAP For each ZIP code in the region we calculate the share of resident workers who fall into at-risk occupations. Users may use the same filters used in the risk plot to better understand these differences. Demographic data on residents are shown after hovering over a ZIP code to provide context for the.. OCCUPATIONAL RISK TOOL NORTHERN COLORADO REGION: LARIMER & WELD .. DATA FINDINGS Highlights from three key data findings on how occupational risk is distributed in the Northern Colorado region. SUMMARY TABLE This table summarizes demographic characteristics of Northern Colorado jobs by which risk quadrant their occupation falls into on the risk plot. Demographic characteristics of these regional jobs overall are also presented for context. TOP FIVE OCCUPATION GROUPS & INDUSTRIES Five largest occupation groups and industry sectors in the two-county Northern Colorado region by jobs in 2019. These groups and sectors are colored by the risk quadrants of their component detailed occupations. ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) KEY FINDINGS NEARLY 40% OF WORKERS IN NORTH COLORADO ARE IN JOBS WITH A HIGH RISK TO EARNINGS AND TO PERSONAL HEALTH. 37.1% of all workers (totaling just under 400,000) in the Northern Colorado region are in the highest risk quadrant with relatively high risk to personal health and earnings. This is just below the national rate of 37.7%, but above the Denver MSA that enjoys a lower share of high-risk workers of 34.1%. A few of the largest occupations in the highest risk quadrant include Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Personal Care Aids, and Waiters and Waitresses. WORKERS IN LOW-WAGE JOBS FACE DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGHER RISKS TO BOTH THEIR EARNINGS AND HEALTH. Risk is also disproportionately distributed among low-wage jobs. While 44% of the jobs in the region pay less than $20/hr, these jobs comprise 74% of jobs with the highest level of risk to both earnings and personal health. Often, black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) are disproportionately employed in these low-wage jobs. Not only are BIPOC employed jobs with greater exposure to risks, but they are also earning less in those jobs. COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE REGION HAVE VARYING LEVELS OF RISK EXPOSURE. The share of workers in high-risk categories varies widely across Larimer and Weld counties. Communities along the central urban corridor tend to have smaller shares of their workers in high-risk occupations compared to the more rural outlying areas. For instance, almost half (45%) of workers in Estes Park in Western Larimer county are in jobs with high health risk, compared to just over a third (35%) in Longmont. 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Notes: Percentages reflect shares of total number of jobs in each risk quadrant in the North CO region (columns within subheadings add to 100%). Shares are estimated and may not sum exactly to 100% due to rounding errors. Only detailed occupations with >10 resident workers in the region are included. In risk score calculations, unemployment by occupation group (2-digit SOC) is used, and selected occupations' "essential" and "salary" indicators have been modified from their initial designations by the St. Louis Fed. Sources: US Department of Labor (O*NET); ACS 2018 5-year sample via IPUMS; Emsi 2020.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, and Self-Employed; Gascon & Werner (April 3, 2020), "COVID-19 and Unemployment Risk: .. High Risk to Earnings & Personal Health Female (%) Male (%)55.1% 45.6% High Risk to Earnings, Low Personal Health Risk 61.6% 39.2% Low Risk to Earnings, High Personal Health Risk 44.8% 55.9% Low Risk to Earnings & Personal Health 54.1% 46.9% Northern Colorado Region 54.2% 45.8% Under 25 years (%) 25 to 34 years (%) 35 to 44 years (%) 45 to 54 years (%) 55 years & over (%)19.0% 16.5% 20.1% 23.4% 22.5% 26.0% 20.3% 21.4% 21.5% 13.1% 22.3% 20.0% 23.8% 23.8% 11.8% 28.6% 21.6% 23.0% 21.5% 7.5% 22.6% 18.7% 21.3% 22.2% 15.2% White (%) Hispanic or Latinx (%) Black or of African descent .. Asian (%) Other race or ethnicity (%)3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 23.1% 69.6% 3.3% 2.6% 2.9% 17.6% 76.4% 3.5% 3.1% 4.0% 19.6% 72.0% 2.8% 3.3% 2.3% 12.2% 81.9% 3.1% 2.9% 3.0% 18.7% 72.3% Under $10.00 $10.00 to $14.99 $15.00 to $19.99 $20.00 to $29.99 $30.00 to $39.99 $40.00 to $49.99 $50.00 and Over 0.4% 0.9% 4.7% 20.3% 31.2% 42.5% 0.0% 2.2% 8.3% 11.0% 34.6% 26.9% 16.5% 0.1% 3.3% 1.8% 19.2% 30.7% 23.9% 20.9% 6.7% 13.5% 30.1% 35.4% 8.9% 5.2% 3.2% 6.1% 16.3% 30.3% 22.8% 21.3% 0.0% OCCUPATIONAL RISK SUMMARY: NORTHERN COLORADO REGION This summary table breaks down North Colorado regional jobs in 2019 by their occupational risk quadrant and selected demographics. Darker cells indicate higher shares of jobs. 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Occupation Group Total Jo.. 0K 5K 10K 15K 20K 25K 30K 35K 40K 45K 50K 55K 60K 65K Jobs Office & Administrative Support 38,420 Sales & Related 31,190 Food Preparation & Serving Relat..27,766 Construction & Extraction 26,776 Transportation & Material Moving 25,019 41.4%31.5%18.2%8.8% 22.3%46.7%31.0% 100.0% 68.8%20.3% 33.6%31.4%35.0% TOP FIVE LARGEST OCCUPATION GROUPS Largest occupation groups in the Northern Colorado region by jobs in 2019 colored by the risk quadrants corresponding to their detailed occupational composition. Industry Sector Total Jo.. 0K 5K 10K 15K 20K 25K 30K 35K 40K 45K 50K 55K 60K 65K Jobs Government 63,134 Retail Trade 31,368 Manufacturing 29,667 Construction 28,787 Accommodation & Food Services 28,411 27.7%25.6%34.1%12.6% 31.9%47.1%16.1% 33.5%35.7%14.6%16.1% 55.5%23.9%12.6% 95.7% TOP FIVE LARGEST INDUSTRY SECTORS Largest industry sectors in the Northern Colorado region by jobs in 2019 colored by the risk quadrants corresponding to their detailed occupational composition. Notes: In risk score calculations, unemployment by occupation group (2-digit SOC) is used, and selected occupations' "essential" and "salary" indicators have been modified from their initial designations by the St. Louis Fed. Sources: US Department of Labor (O*NET); ACS 2018 5-year sample via IPUMS; Emsi 2020.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, and Self-Employed; Gascon & Werner (April 3, 2020), "COVID-19 and Unemployment Risk: State and MSA Differences," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; TIP Strategies, Inc. Low Risk to Earnings & Personal Health Low Risk to Earnings, High Personal Health R.. High Risk to Earnings, Low Personal Health R.. High Risk to Earnings & Personal Health TOP FIVE OCCUPATION GROUPS & INDUSTRY SECTORS 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Low Risk to Earnings & Personal Health 18.6% Low Risk to Earnings, High Personal Health Risk 19.5% High Risk to Earnings, Low Personal Health Risk 24.8% High Risk to Earnings & Personal Health 37.1% EMPLOYMENT SHARE BY RISK QUADRANT Shows share (%) of resident workers by their occupation's quadrant on the risk plot. Risk to earnings and health within a quadrant vary by occupation. Notes: Only detailed occupations >10 resident workers in the region are included. Unemployment is by occupation group (2-digit SOC). Selected occupations' "essential" and "salary" indicators have been modified from their initial designations by the St. Louis Fed. Sources: US Department of Labor (O*NET); ACS 2018 5-year sample via IPUMS; Emsi 2020.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, and Self-Employed; Gascon & Werner (April 3, 2020), "COVID-19 and Unemployment Ri.. ESSENTIAL WORKER STATUS All SALARIED STATUS All 2019 MEDIAN HOURLY EARNI.. All TYPICAL ENTRY EDUCATION All OCCUPATION GROUP All RISK TO EARNINGS All RISK TO HEALTH All -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 ←lower PERSONAL HEALTH RISK higher→ -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 ←lower RISK TO EARNINGS ..Higher Risk to Health & Earnings Lower Risk to Health & Earnings OCCUPATIONAL RISK PLOT: NORTHERN COLORADO REGION Each occupation is assigned two risk scores: risk to personal health (horizontal axis) and risk to earnings (vertical axis). Occupations scoring high on both metrics are the most at risk in the upper-right corner (more red); occupations scoring low on both metrics are the least at risk in the lower-left corner (more blue). Larger bubbles mean more resident workers. Charts will update with selections. 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) © 2021 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap OCCUPATIONAL RISK MAP: NORTHERN COLORADO REGION This interactive map shows the share (%) of workers in their resident ZIP code in occupations with High risk to earnings and High risk to health. Darker gray ZIP codes have higher shares. Chart and map will update with selections. RISK TO EARNINGS High RISK TO HEALTH High ESSENTIAL WORKER STATUS All SALARIED STATUS All 2019 MEDIAN HOURLY EARNI.. All TYPICAL ENTRY EDUCATION All OCCUPATION GROUP All Fast Food and Counter Workers Cashiers Waiters and Waitresses Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Cooks, Restaurant 7,779 5,826 6,166 9,846 4,045 TOP 5 LARGEST OCCUPATIONS IN SELECTED REGION Five largest detailed occupations in the selected ZIP code(s). Chart and map will update with selections. Notes: Only ZIP codes with at least 100 total resident workers and at least 1 resident worker matching the selection criteria are shown (PO Boxes or other single-address ZIP codes are also excluded). Only detailed occupations with >10 resident workers in the region are included. In risk score calculations, unemployment by occupation group (2-digit SOC) is used, and selected occupations' "essential" and "salary" indicators have been modified from their initialdesignations by the St. Louis Fed. Sources: US Department of Labor (O*NET); ACS 2018 5-year sample via IPUMS; ACS 2019 5-year sample; Emsi 2020.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, and Self-Employed; Gascon & Werner (April 3, 2020), "COVID.. 1.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Office & Administrative Support 45,594 Sales & Related 39,026 Food Preparation & Serving Related 33,842 Transportation & Material Moving 30,333 Construction & Extraction 28,238 Business & Financial Operations 23,084 Education, Training, & Library 22,892 Production 21,774 Management 19,233 Healthcare Practitioners & Technicians 19,205 TOP 10 LARGEST OCCUPATION GROUPS IN SELECTED REGION Largest occupation groups determined by total resident workers in selection. Detailed occupations within the group are are colored by their position on the risk plot. Larger boxes indicate more resident workers. Chart and map will update with selections. RISK TO EARNINGS All RISK TO HEALTH All ESSENTIAL WORKER STATUS All SALARIED STATUS All 2019 MEDIAN HOURLY EARNI.. All TYPICAL ENTRY EDUCATION All OCCUPATION GROUP All © 2021 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap RESIDENT WORKERS: NORTHERN COLORADO REGION This interactive map shows the location of workers by their resident ZIP code. Darker violet ZIP codes have more resident workers. Notes: Only ZIP codes with at least 100 total resident workers and at least 1 resident worker matching the selection criteria are shown. Only detailed occupations with >10 resident workers in the region are included. In risk score calculations, unemployment by occupation group (2-digit SOC) is used, and selected occupations' "essential" and "salary" indicators have been modified from their initial designations by the St. Louis Fed.Sources: US Department of Labor (O*NET); ACS 2018 5-year sample via IPUMS; Emsi 2020.4 – QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees, and Self-Employed; Gascon & Werner (April 3, 2020), "COVID-19 and Unemployment Risk: State and MSA Differences," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; TIP Strategies, Inc. 1.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Northern Colorado Occupational Risk Assessment 2020 (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT TITLE: FORT COLLINS COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVELS: INFORM, CONSULT, INVOLVE KEY AUDIENCES: Residents, employees, employers, business owners, property owners, renters, non-profit organizations, community partners, Business Associations, City of Fort Collins departments / staff, City Council, PSD, CSU, interested members of the public and local organizations. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: •Gather community input and needs to inform creation of recovery plan. •Explain plan goals, scope, process and purpose of recovery and recovery planning. •Provide information about existing conditions, policies, and highlight COVID response / recovery work that has already been done (dovetail with CARES storytelling and outreach efforts already occurring). •Connect with and gather feedback from underrepresented groups, focus on inclusive engagement and language access. •Incorporate feedback from other recent and ongoing engagement process to help inform recovery (data from City Plan, Our Climate Future etc. and include recovery as a topic in Community Survey and BFO). •Gather guidance on vision, guiding principles and framework of the recovery plan. •Gather ideas for recovery programs, identify community needs for recovery and a future that is resilient, vibrant and inclusive. •Develop clear recovery plan and recommendations to achieve vision based on community feedback. KEY STAKEHOLDERS: Fort Collins Community Members, Local Businesses and Business Owners, Business Associations, PSD, Boards and Commissions, Community Partners, City departments. Specific partners may include: •CDNS •EHO •EPS •Cultural Services •Larimer County •REDI •SSD •CSU •OEDIT •State of Colorado, e.g., DOLA, CRO, etc. •FC Utilities •CDOT •Affordable Housing & Human Service Providers •La Familia •Larimer County Food Bank •Murphy Center •Catholic Charities •Chamber of Commerce •Meals on Wheels •Boys & Girls Club •Neighborhood HOAs •Larimer County Workforce Dev. Ctr. •United Way •Neighbor to Neighbor •Larimer county Public Health and the Environment •Bohemian Foundation •Mighty Arrow Foundation (New Belgium) •Visit Fort Collins •Federal Transit Administration •NFRMPO •Salud Health ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Recovery Plan Engagement Plan (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 2 BUDGET: $30,000 TIMELINE: April 2021 – February 2022 PHASE 1: Develop engagement process, set up tools to gather community feedback on recovery vision and incorporate recovery related feedback from other engagement efforts. PHASE 2: Continue engagement efforts, with increased emphasis on stakeholder engagement. Move forward on engagement data analysis. PHASE 3: Further community engagement, specifically around identified priorities and draft plan. This is a second round “gut check” to make sure we fully heard and interpreted community needs. Incorporate final feedback into recovery plan and present to Council for potential adoption. PHASE 4: IMPLEMENTATION - Details TBD PHASE 1: April - August Develop engagement process, set up tools to gather community feedback on recovery vision and incorporate recovery related feedback from other engagement efforts. Identify and begin connecting with stakeholders, including internal City departments / contacts Form Recovery Team Connect with internal stakeholders / identify City staff who can help with engagement efforts Identify external stakeholders, assess which stakeholders have already shared feedback related to CARES spending or other COVID response efforts • Stakeholder Mapping Develop framework to gather feedback from stakeholders (Survey, matrix etc.) Update For FoCo Our City Page o Update content, add additional content related to CARES funding impacts and other response/recovery stories o Make this page the hub for recovery engagement o Establish idea board and survey to gather feedback on what recovery looks like. Incorporate recovery questions into other ongoing City engagement efforts – Community Survey and BFO Pull and begin to summarize recovery-related summarize recovery-related feedback from outreach efforts done in the last year (City Plan, Our Climate Future, Parks Master Plan, etc.) Engagement Tools and Techniques: Engagement OurCity.fcgov.com – ForFoCo page Idea board Develop Survey (to post in May/June) Incorporate data and community feedback from previous COVID/ CARES Surveys - Business survey Communication OurCity For FoCo CityNews Fcgov.com Business, Social Services, Neighborhood Services, Utilities and other city webpages / communication resources available to stakeholder departments 1.2 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Recovery Plan Engagement Plan (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 3 Incorporate community feedback related to recovery for use in Recovery Plan - OCF - Community Survey - Outdoor dining survey Recovery-focused questions in other engagement process: - Community Survey - Budget Engagement - Strategic Plan Engagement Meetings with internal stakeholders Meetings with key community stakeholders – business associations, PSD, CSU Events and Tabling Social Media For Fort Collins / NoCo Recovers Website City Newsletters (business, CAP, COVID etc.) Coloradoan Articles and Ads Radio and Spotify Digital and Print ads Through community partners PHASE 2: September - November Continue engagement efforts and shift into analysis and plan development. More extensive stakeholder outreach o Deploy engagement guide o Paid partnerships with community connectors - Partner with local community connectors (non-profits, organizations and/or individuals) who connect with vulnerable populations - Compensate them for doing recovery engagement to help inform the plan - Increase connections with community partners and those they serve Continue/finalize summarizing relevant engagement around recovery from other City engagement efforts Begin analysis of gathered feedback, use to guide plan development Continue to summarize recovery-related summarize recovery-related feedback from outreach efforts done in the last year (City Plan, Our Climate Future, Parks Master Plan, etc.) Engagement Tools and Techniques: Engagement OurCity.fcgov.com – ForFoCo page Survey and other tools Continued stakeholder meetings Recovery-focused questions in other engagement process: - Community Survey - BFO engagement Additional Engagement Activities: Paid engagement partnerships with stakeholders Open houses / Workshops Targeted workshops Communication OurCity For FoCo CityNews Fcgov.com Business, Social Services, Neighborhood Services, Utilities and other city webpages / communication resources available to stakeholder departments Social Media Coloradoan Article For Fort Collins / NoCo Recovers Website City Newsletters (business, CAP, COVID etc.) Print and digital ads Direct Mail Radio and Spotify Through community partners 1.2 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Recovery Plan Engagement Plan (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 4 Virtual presentations & idea workshops Roadshow to City Departments & stakeholders PHASE 3: November – February Further community engagement, specifically around draft plan. Incorporate final feedback and present to Council for potential adoption. o Gather additional community and stakeholder feedback around draft plan o Survey / other quick “gut check” tool o Rection to plan, what are we missing? o Final plan calibration o Plan approval, adoption and publishing o Outreach around plan adoption, including sharing commitments to updates and transparency o Develop plan for sharing updates about Recovery Plan implementation and recovery process Engagement Tools and Techniques: Engagement OurCity.fcgov.com – ForFoCo page - Surveys Stakeholder meetings / conversations Potential Additional Engagement Options: - Additional meetings and listening sessions Communication OurCity For FoCo CityNews Fcgov.com Business, Social Services, Neighborhood Services, Utilities and other city webpages / communication resources available to stakeholder departments Social Media For Fort Collins / NoCo Recovers Website City Newsletters (business, CAP, COVID etc.) Through community partners 1.2 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Recovery Plan Engagement Plan (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Fort Collins Recovery Plan: Themes and Responses Results Snapshot October 2021 In depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of feedback is ongoing, however themes and priorities are already emerging. Below is a representative snapshot of what has been heard from community members and businesses through surveys, open houses, events, and other engagement activities. Focus Areas for Recovery Source: Our City Online Priority Survey ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Pandemic Impacts & Needs Source: Our City Online Priority Survey, Paper Survey, Open Houses & Stakeholder Conversations What impacts of the pandemic are you still seeing or experiencing? Inflation and cost of living is rapidly increasing, dollars do not go as far. Increased debt Not wanting to go out in public due to unvaccinated/unmasked potential carriers Socializing loss of performance opportunities and associated income Colleagues with school-age or younger children - getting back to school or finding quality / affordable childcare The field of early care and education has been hit hard. People are leaving the field, which leaves early care and education sites unable to provide a crucial service to families. This impacts our economy. Increased government spending Affordability of housing Fear of the virus My kids (3 and 10) are not yet able to get the vaccine. As restrictions are lifted and community transmission increases, we’re back to feeling very limited in our options to go out safely. We miss going to restaurants, libraries, stores, movies, concerts, etc., but right now it feels too risky. In my opinion, the mask mandate was lifted too soon. Fear of the unknown and internal resistance to go to restaurants and businesses like before. We use delivery services but quality of life has changed and isolation has been in place for a long time Lack of childcare Lack of state, county, or city leadership on indoor mask mandates. Reluctance to be indoors at public venues because of fear of the unvaccinated. Wearing masks, being concerned that others are not vaccinated Lessened access to group mental health services. I am still very worried about my health and the health of those I love, even with some people getting vaccinated. This has partially contributed to a shortage of workers which has caused additional stress at my workplace or even trying to get to classes at CSU with reduced Transfort services. The inability to set up a health appointment to see a doctor because most health networks aren't currently accepting medicaid. The fear of getting COVID. lack of mask mandate in public buildings, gas prices, local COVID vaccine accessibility Two things that come to mind are the extraordinary cost of living in this area which has only been fueled by the pandemic (the lack of affordable housing is despicable and disheartening for someone trying to build a future here) and the lack of mental health resources. Adequate pay Rent is incredibly expensive Exercise classes Struggling with affordable/reachable food sources. Transportation and emergency funds. Clients are still needed food, help with rent and utilities. Not being able to be as social or enjoy participating in events or outings and feeling safe. Childcare! Childcare staff shortages causing reduced daycare hours. Kids being sent home with any minor Covid symptoms and having to be out for at least 48 hours is impacting ability to work. Work-from-home combined with strict daycare health protocols, resulting in toddler being required to stay home often Lack of workers diminishes the quality of everyone's lives Covid burn out. Long hours to accommodate lack of staff and the need for childcare. 1.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Very restrictive sick policies of childcare center / daycare. Children are not allowed into the care facility with even the most minor symptoms, meaning parents have to take far more time off work for the very unpredictable event of a child catching a cold. On top of that, the childcare facilities / daycare's still make those enrolled PAY for the sick days! After the pandemic, I am seeing a big increase to trail & park usage Some lack of consumer confidence Lack of affordable places for gig workers / lower wage workers to live and especially buy property in our community – many talented folks end up leaving town In person events, theatres and performance venues are trying to recover but were hit extremely hard Wages do not match cost of living Mental Health crisis for many in music and performance industry Affordable housing Food insecurity – specifically within out immigrant community Employee benefits – lack thereof – food service industry, migrant farmers, cleaning services, construction Lack of culturally appropriate and responsive mental health services – BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, youth, students with IEPs Housing instability and rental assistance need among immigrant community Mental health needs that remain unmet especially for populations who don’t have legal status What would help? Grants to pay of debt secured during pandemic We need places for only vaccinated people. We need masks to be mandated. We need sanitization stations. Everyone to be vaccinated require Covid19 vaccination id for entrance to musical events, restaurants, bars, other large gatherings of people. increased availability of quality / affordable childcare (early childhood education) Mental health services, job pathways, and incentives for early childhood educators, financial support for early childhood centers, access to affordable care options for families when centers cannot provide coverage. Work with the state to reduce/quiet extra unemployment payments to encourage people to get back to work and stop interfering with how businesses choose to operate and allow people to decide which businesses deserve their business based on policies regarding the pandemic i.e. choosing to require masking or not. Re-instate immediate pay raises that were missed and allow for overtime in parks department. This will help retain employees and reduce turnover. We won’t remain world class if we can’t retain world class people. Raise in income People to get vaccinated Funding to change/remodel the space to help keep everyone safe and serve customers more effectively. Everyone should get vaccinated 1.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) I need the county and city to realize that mask mandates, will negatively effect my business. I can’t have masks and function, I can’t do it online. I will have to close if mandates are put in place. More consistent approaches, contingency plans and technology to support remote learning, when necessary. I think at it's root spreading awareness of the importance of getting vaccinated to our community, or a vaccine mandate to do things like going out to eat, going to movies, etc. would help communicate how we have a solution to mitigating the spread of Covid if people would choose to take it. I hope that structurally, decisions made for resiliency and equity in economic and community recovery are made based on climate impact as a factor. It is important to answer the question “how can climate mitigation strategies apply for each decision?”. Are there opportunities to fund energy efficiency, electrification and/or renewable energy upgrades as part of new businesses moving in to spaces made vacant through the pandemic? Are there the same opportunities in new development to build all-electric, solar- and EV-ready? With winter approaching it is important to help restaurants and cafes to create warm outdoor eating when possible. Heat lamps can be very useful but many businesses can’t afford these or have nowhere to lock them at night. More public pre-k options available. Children should have equal access to pre-k and not be subject to income requirements. There is nothing anyone can do about this Politicians at every level who are educated on the very latest science. Everyone to get vaccinated and wear masks until the transmission rate is effectively zero. Outdoor seating Perhaps pay incentives passed directly to employees to work and be vaccinated. We need to get the vaccination rates up. Fort Collins needs more restrictions against unvaccinated people. My rights are being trampled by their refusal to vaccinate and the government’s inability to restrict unvaccinated people from public settings Funding to continue development, evolution and deployment of equity codesign with BIPOC champions, yielding healthier systems and healthier, more resilient people. Recruiting mental health providers to Fort Collins and offering more than 3 visits with a mental health professional, especially for the youth with the high suicide rates currently. Funding I need the media, even if just just local, to stop with the covid fear mongering and encourage people to get out and live normal lives Really push to get them vaccinated. Do what some places are requiring, proof of vaccination to attend functions. Their “rights” end where mine begin - where I can feel safe in my interactions and health care workers have greatly reduced stress Increased Public service message to promote vaccination and return to stricter mask mandates/requirements. Just more people to get vaccinated so that the community is safer and the pandemic can come to an end People to get vaccinated!! Knowing crowd numbers are controlled, proof of vaccination and masks required more training, higher wage Resources to continue to help our clients with food, rent, and utilities. And also figure out how we can better serve our community during these tough times. A government that recognizes that hand-outs are making things worse instead of better Keep looking for companies and organizations struggling. They are there. A funded arts council or group to help represent the industry (Not just CURB) Purchase Hughes stadium to increase trails & open-space to allow folks to get outside 1.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Mental health and personal service campaign to destigmatize asking for help Staff focused on the pandemic as opposed to trying to use money for new things Limited shared underwritten resources for small businesses like grant writers, accounting etc. A continued business leaders group that meets regularly to plan and keep informed (we already have it but make it permanent) An easily accessible and empowering min grant fund to invest in small community group ideas to aid in recovery Supporting and elevating local initiates – BIPOC lead and/or focused nonprofits (general operating $$), local Better communication and collaboration between the City of Fort Collins gov’t and Poudre School District Investment in accessibility and transportation assessments and opportunities for solutions to equitable engagement Generate list(s) of local BIPOC / LGBTQIA + businesses, resources It would be helpful, although arduous and daunting to somehow figure out a way to measure our vulnerable population Transformative justice for our youth – existing through pandemic(s) – racism, COVID-19, mental health vs. surveillance and punitive forms of discipline What would make Fort Collins stronger? Don't use as an opportunity to push a social agenda. Use funds to support small businesses which acquired massive debt to stay open thru no fault of their own. This is the only demographic which didn't receive a bailout. Social pressure for vaccinations. The cities expansion doesn’t seem to be consistent with the availability of water resources and air quality. ALL new construction must be built with renewable energy and water conservation! verifiable and traceable covid19 vaccination check using card or electronic means. I tried to select items related to healthy homes. We have tried various programs and outreach to help homeowners or renters to improve the health and energy efficiency of their home. If we took that $28M and just invested it in improving the existing building stock - through a super-simple application, whether you rent or own - if your house is leaky, unhealthy, wasting energy or water - this fund just comes along and fixes it! No loans. No complex applications or income qualifications - just fix the quality of the homes people already live in. When done, people are healthier. We created employment and economic development and activity. We reduce emissions through improved energy efficiency. We save precious water. Sort of an expanded, more comprehensive Larimer County Conservation Corp program. Denying developments in flood plains, potential natural areas or restoration areas. Affordable housing for those over 60. Workforce Whatever can be done to get people back to work and supporting small, local businesses Health education and equitable healthcare access - resilience of our healthcare systems. Personal responsibility More disc golf courses! Encouraging the community groups to help others WITHOUT funds from any government (city, county, state or federal) 1.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Add back the extra patio seating in downtown that used the parking spaces and sidewalks. Add back the quick parking spots for curbside pickup at restaurants. Make those programs permanent solutions for vibrant and safe outdoor dining in old town. You should consider more financial relief for small businesses. Equality and justice renewal and support How to include communities of color into the legislation process Grant Hughes Land back to Native American communities, honor the land agreement! Stop attacking immigrants and focusing on immigration related rhetoric regarding climate and economic issues Immigration advocacy and resources The East Mulberry corridor seems to have degraded quite rapidly over the last few years. I'd like to see the city annex this area, improve it, and provide help to those in need that are currently in the area. help our community heal racial and social injustice by hosting more international focused events and celebrations. The City should be promoting the work of businesses and non-profits that are the making a difference in our community. Use social media platforms to elevate the good work in our community, not just City projects and people.... that will help bring visibility of the make-up and issues in our community. Keep doing what you are doing and further develop the engagement piece Bring the community together via more concerts, festivals, etc. Collaborative spaces for different community and cultural groups to converge, maybe around art, music, etc. Use the pandemic as an opportunity to build community Look for expenditures that help with COVID19 impacts and at the same time hedge against the next pandemic Alternatives to public safety (i.e. non-police mental health crisis response) A framework that would allow for continuous engagement between the city and community organizations representing marginalized community members Health challenge for community members to stay healthy and get some mini rewards Valuing our creative industry like other sectors More dialogue across groups Investment, not just one time funds but ongoing support for important support organizations, a more strategic approach to support economic sectors and community Develop a central organization that identifies and communicates how we together deliver high quality and impactful human services. This would eliminate some redundancy and it would create a safety net for vulnerable populations across organizations, whether nonprofit or governmental Trusting and following leadership and action of BIPOC, youth groups and people – and using an equity lens when we think about our processes and methodologies of community engagement, decision-making Cultural diversity and opportunities to celebrate within our community Equity means pooling resources and prioritizing those left behind in the K shaped recovery… and how were already struggling pre-pandemic from a variety of systemic challenges Land acknowledgement and land action for our Native / Indigenous Investment in youth development opportunities 1.3 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Additional Themes and Focus Areas Source: Outreach events, stakeholder conversations One thing to prioritize or include in recovery: economic & social recovery affordable housing small biz recovery and jobs local help for small biz vaccine education for those resistant restoring employees mobile vaccination outdoor dining, keep expanding, make it quiet (noise ordinance) Free Internet for students workforce development (jobs) Small Biz Recovery Our small businesses please! Day care situation. To get back to work we need daycare. Focus on kids to help parents Mental Health for students, all ages Small Business Recovery. Rent relief to business, homeless issues helping students that were virtual at 2020-21 school year reintegrate to in person schools - mental health + academic Behavioral Health Support for Children Education for the hearing impaired in businesses Increased mental health awareness Health awareness Mental health outreach Mental health More bus transportation Health / vaccine incentives funded through higher taxes on the rich Road improvements Outdoor space preservation Connecting poudre trail all the way More outside activities Public transit east of I25 Support police dept Childcare more childcare resources, kids lost out socially, improve and build on parks, give people more opportunities to distance and still interact Don't watch the news Small business incentives family oriented events Accessibility to the outdoors, maybe events in parks Everyone vaccinated More public transportation, more electric bike rentals Better restaurant seating Better public transportation I would like to build / convert vacant buildings to micro apartments Get outside vaccinate Getting out there again! Work force training transition Common sense vaccine! Vaccination and freedom more volunteering opportunities to get outside and help our environment housing solutions for low income freedom community events, free masks with businesses be nice to each other more funding for wilderness related work like the cc in the ? More masks and ?? waste Set up a leftover mask donation Support for businesses Affordable housing, City partnership hug each other composting Support for the homeless Population control seal the cracks more water fountains help each other design traffic to avoid more idling. Time trains, overpass / underpass etc. Recycle Slow down traffic up horse tooth ?? less speed bumps open space Invest in recreation trails and open spaces Teach pandemic science / disease control to students 1.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Find a way to install connexion more rapidly link up trails for longer rides / hikes improve winter plowing continue with outdoor extra seating at old town restaurants Move towards sustainability community building and outreach for inclusion games community outreach outdoor concerts outdoor community / social events more public parks concerts more housing support stop being racist opportunities for rethinking city police more farmers markets small business sponsorship engaging grad students renting routers from library no more masks a big Asian market free mental health care K-12 give rental assistance protection for renters / rent control protection of mobile home parks - rents increasing more ADA funds Prepare dorms for isolation renewable energy Help for people who lost homes mental health resources someone to talk to Mental health helplines - peers more email reminders / assistance in service ? mental health promote the arts more community events ease up on the rent prices support diversity early childhood centers, teacher grants, subs for centers Affordable housing Ditch U+2 (it hurts young engaged students) Help small biz recovery Easier access to info Find effective recycling / use locally Regenerative agriculture and local food yoga in the park extend suniga to I25, need more E/W arteries Providence, RI model to support homeless $ to CSU student workers (min. wage) Support clean energy Fix sidewalks Affordable Housing Host forum (anti vaxxers and those who are vaccinated) After reading whole board - that sounds pretty much like I'm thinking Indoor mask mandate Build food systems for sustainability Early childhood centers, teacher grants, subs for teachers Compassion for others Partner with Larimer county to address our horrible air quality. Air quality monitoring on oil and gas wells, infrastructure More $ for air quality monitoring House those who need homes childcare childcare and after school support Slow down growth, control with water Indoor mask mandate public transport get everyone vaccinated Help restaurants expand outdoor dining be polite and support people, smile More $ for musicians music instead of food for public meetings have really good, for profit musicians pay musicians at farmers market Bring back the trolley Expand Air B&Bs beyond Loomis Long term health and wellness, respect one another Focus on areas besides Old Town - NE, NW etc. Students still stressed and at risk schools understaffed division in the community re: politics / pandemic 1.3 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Themes and Responses (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DRAFTTIP STRATEGIES- INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 1 INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK PURPOSE The purpose of the inclusive recovery framework is to provide the City of Fort Collins with a methodology for measuring the degree to which a funding proposal aligns with the city’s priorities for investing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars and creates a community benefit. The framework is intended to assist city departments with process improvements, provide compliance support, and create an opportunity for discussion regarding the most equitable and impactful way to use ARPA funds. The framework consists of three parts: an evaluation matrix, definitions, and metrics. These elements were created in alignment with the city’s Budgeting for Outcomes process and definitions, the city’s equity indicators, and national best practices. PROCESS The matrix provides a framework for evaluating funding proposals and discussing investment priorities. Each funding proposal is considered within the context of priority and supplemental considerations, receiving one of three designations (below) to describe the proposal’s ability to advance that consideration. 1.Advances: The funding proposal advances or positively impacts the priority or supplemental consideration 2.Neutral: The funding proposal has a neutral impact on the priority or supplemental consideration 3.Opportunity: The funding proposal has an opportunity to be more intentional in impacting or advancing the priority or supplemental consideration While each funding proposal will be evaluated, the evaluation is not considered to be a final directive or guarantee of approval.Rather, the evaluation process provides an opportunity to better understand, discuss, and evaluate the impact of a funding proposal and to identify areas of future improvement to ensure the greatest community benefit. A definitions section (see below)provides an explanation for each priority and supplemental consideration,and the metrics section provides guidance for reporting and measuring success for the funding proposal. ATTACHMENT 4 1.4 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DRAFT TIP STRATEGIES- INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 2 EVALUATION MATRIX PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS FUNDING PROPOSAL [NAME] (A) ADVANCES (N) NEUTRAL (O) OPPORTUNITY FUNDING PROPOSAL [NAME] (A) ADVANCES (N) NEUTRAL (O) OPPORTUNITY FUNDING PROPOSAL [NAME] (A) ADVANCES (N) NEUTRAL (O) OPPORTUNITY Increases equity for disproportionately impacted populations Aligns with at least [number] of recovery plan priorities *TBD when plan is complete Developed or designed with engagement from historically underrepresented groups Increases neighborhood livability or economic health Demonstrates the capacity to implement the proposed program or activity Incorporates a methodology for measuring and reporting metrics for success SUPPLEMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Prevents displacement of people from homes or businesses Increases affordable housing stability or availability Grows or stabilizes minority- and women- owned businesses Connects unemployed and low-wage workers with living wage jobs and careers Restores or expands public services or infrastructure to disadvantaged communities DEFINITIONS CONSIDERATION DEFINITION 1.4 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DRAFT TIP STRATEGIES- INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 3 Increases equity for disproportionately impacted populations The funding proposal is in alignment with the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government, and the City’s 2020 Strategic Objective, Neighborhood Livability and Social Health 1.4: Advance equity for all, leading with race so that a person’s identity or identities is not a predictor of outcomes. Equity is both a process and an outcome. It is a process in that policies, programs, and tools are developed to ensure the elimination of existing disparities and includes inclusive engagement that leverages diversity. Equity becomes an outcome once a person’s identity or identities, to include language(s) spoken, no longer impacts their ability to experience equality. Disproportionately impacted populations are: 1. Economically disadvantaged as defined by HUD’s Qualified Census Tract (QCT). The funding proposal includes a program or service provided in a physical location in a QCT, the primary beneficiaries live within a QCT, the primary beneficiaries earn less than 60 percent of the median income for Fort Collins or over 25 percent of the intended beneficiaries are below the federal poverty line. OR 2. Experiencing disproportionate impacts of the pandemic, which may include working in a high-risk occupation or experiencing disparities in access or outcomes related to health, affordable housing, educational opportunities, or childcare. The funding proposal should provide information that illustrates how the pandemic disproportionately impacted a beneficiary. Aligns with at least [number of] recovery plan priorities The funding proposal is in alignment with at least [number of] the City of Fort Collins Recovery Plan priorities… [add text once the recovery plan is complete] Developed or designed with engagement from impacted people, businesses, or communities The funding proposal is developed with input and engagement from the people, business owners, or communities who will be the primary beneficiaries of the program or service. Engagement can include meetings, surveys, focus groups, interviews, interactive mapping, or other information gathering techniques that influence the program or service design. Engagement that was part of a recent (within the last three years) planning or other outreach process that is directly related to the funding proposal may be considered. Developed or designed with engagement from historically underrepresented groups The funding proposal is developed by engaging with historically underrepresented groups who will be impacted by or directly access the program or service. Engagement could include public meetings, small or focus group discussions, surveys, or information gathered by affected stakeholders as part of a recent, related initiative. Historically underrepresented groups are underrepresented in both the level of influence and decision-making they hold in relationship to systems of power and in overall resource distribution. These groups include, but are not limited to, communities of color; community members under age 29; Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) communities; local indigenous communities; migrant communities; female head of household and single-parent families; people experiencing disabilities; veterans; religious- based minorities; people experiencing homelessness; commuter community; low-income communities; minority- and women-owned businesses. 1.4 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DRAFT TIP STRATEGIES- INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 4 Aligns with Fort Collins Strategic Plan priorities In alignment with the City of Fort Collins strategic plan, the funding proposal improves outcomes in neighborhood livability or economic health, culture and recreation, economic health, environmental health, safe community, transportation, or high performing government. Demonstrates capacity to implement the proposed program or activity The applicant’s program plan demonstrates the skill, capacity, and ability to implement the proposed program or activity through examples of past work or partnership with existing organizations who have a successful history of implementing similar programs or services. Incorporates a methodology for measuring and reporting metrics for success The funding proposal provides proposed metrics to measure progress, and a baseline measurement to assist in understanding the degree of impact. Prevents displacement of people from homes or businesses With a sudden reduction in or loss of income, many business owners, homeowners, and renters may have a hard time remaining in their current location. The funding proposal may provide funding or technical assistance that helps prevent displacement or may support the acquisition of new affordable housing. Increases affordable housing stability or availability The funding proposal will provide supportive housing or other services for individuals experiencing homelessness, develop affordable housing, or provide vouchers and assistance in relocating to neighborhoods with greater economic opportunity. Grows or stabilizes minority- owned businesses Public health guidelines led to reduced services or the closure or many businesses. Businesses owned by people of color and women were most impacted. In response, the funding proposal provides technical assistance, funding, or contracting and procurement opportunities that prioritize minority- and women-owned businesses. Connects unemployed and low- wage workers with living wage jobs and careers The funding proposal seeks to address negative impacts of COVID-19 by providing training, education, apprenticeship and other “learn while you earn” programs or living wage jobs to people who are currently unemployed or in lower wage jobs with the goal of connecting participants to living wage jobs or careers. Restores or expand public services or infrastructure to disadvantaged communities The funding proposal will restore or expand access to public services such as public transportation, water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure. The proposal may also respond to a specific negative economic impact of COVID-19, such as investing in facilities to deliver vaccines. 1.4 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DRAFT TIP STRATEGIES- INCLUSIVE RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 5 METRICS Each funding proposal should include a reporting methodology to gather data on the program or service’s impact; that data will be tied to metrics that can demonstrate progress from the baseline state. When possible, all metrics should be disaggregated by age, income, race or ethnicity and sex. Potential metrics include: ► Number of people, households, or small businesses who received funding or services, tracked by characteristics such as: ► Age: The age or range of ages of program or service recipients. ► Geography: This measure includes where the program or service is located, and where the program or service recipients are located; a potential metric is zip code. ► Race/ethnicity: The race or ethnicity, as defined by the US Census Bureau, of program or service recipients. ► Sex: The sex, as defined by the US Census Bureau, of program or service recipients. ► Poverty status: The percent of individuals living below the poverty level who participate in the program or services offered. ► Income: The income of program or service recipients. ► Language spoken at home: The primary language spoken in the home of program or service recipients. ► Median wage for graduates of job training, apprenticeship, or other workforce development programs. ► Median wage of workers providing funded programs or services. ► Number of housing units preserved or created. ► Median sales tax revenue of businesses that participate in programs or services. ► Change in business revenue or closure rates over time. ► Dollars invested and the monetary return on that investment, if applicable. ► Miles of infrastructure (water, sewer, broadband) completed, and number of people benefiting from the improved infrastructure. ► Percentage or numerical improvement in closing a disparity in areas such as health or education, or by mitigating specific effects of COVID-19. ► Participant level of satisfaction with the program or service provided. 1.4 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: DRAFT Inclusive Recovery Framework (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) City Recovery Plan10.26.2021Travis Storin, Chief Financial OfficerSeonAh Kendall, City Recovery ManagerATTACHMENT 51.5Packet Pg. 33Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Agenda1. Recovery Plan Structure Overview2. Engagement and Results3. American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (ARPA)• U.S. Treasury Guidance• Short-Term ARPA Allocation• Data, Reporting and Compliance4. Questions and Discussion1.5Packet Pg. 34Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 3Questions for CouncilWhat additional questions does Council have around the intended purposes of ARPA in support of recovery?Does Council support the development and staff recommended structure of the Recovery Plan?Are there ”big play” priorities at the local or regional level that City Council would specifically like to pursue?1.5Packet Pg. 35Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Recovery Plan -1.5Packet Pg. 36Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 5Recovery Plan VisionFort Collins residents and businesses are able to participate in a resilient,vibrantand inclusive future.HEALING INCLUSION RESILIENCE VIBRANCYDEFINITIONThe process of making or becoming sound or healthy again.An intention or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized. Inclusion requires removing barriers so all can thrive.The ability to better avoid, withstand or recover from difficult conditions of various scales.A sense of place and belonging for all. Full of energy and enthusiasm.1.5Packet Pg. 37Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 6Recovery Plan Guiding PrinciplesGUIDING PRINCIPLESLIVABILITY:Help our community rebound and thriveSUSTAINABILITY:Apply a triple bottom line lens to recoveryCOMMUNITY: Ensure a robust, inclusive, welcoming engagement to inform the recovery planAddress immediate responseand long-term recoveryneeds of our community through funding and transparency1.5Packet Pg. 38Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 7Pandemic Impacts• Not everyone was doing well pre-pandemic• Highlighted disparities & issues• Not everyone will recover at the same rate• Travel & Tourism• Arts & Entertainment• Food Services• Women• People of Color• Children1.5Packet Pg. 39Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 8TimelineKEY DATES:• October 26: Council Work Session• January 11: Council Work Session• February 1: Recovery Plan Adoption1.5Packet Pg. 40Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Teams9Economic RecoveryEquity and Community RecoveryHealth and Environmental ResiliencePerformance Measurement and ReportingEngagementProcess ImprovementRecovery Plan Strategic TeamsRecovery Plan Support Teams1.5Packet Pg. 41Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 10Plan Structure• Economic Recovery – goals and objectives• Equity & Community Recovery - goals and objectives• Health and Environmental Resilience - goals and objectivesProject Examples Healing Inclusion Resilience VibrancySmall Business Assistance ProgramXX XBusiness Entrepreneur CenterXXXProject Example Healing Inclusion Resilience VibrancyNeighborhood Resilience ProgramXX X XEviction Legal Defense FundXXProject Examples Healing Inclusion Resilience VibrancyInnovate Fort Collins –Housing/Climate NexusXXX XMental Health, Addiction, and Teen Diversion ServicesXXX XStrategic Anchors1.5Packet Pg. 42Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Recovery--Engagement-1.5Packet Pg. 43Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 12Recovery Plan Public Engagement• Methods• OurCity webpage • Online & mail surveys• Stakeholder meetings• Paid partnerships• Participation• 1,875+ survey responses• 3,500 visits to Our City• 30,000+ social media reach / impressions• 40+ stakeholder meetingsOurCity.Fcgov.com/ForFoCoFort Collins residents and businesses are able to participate in a resilient,vibrantand inclusive future.1.5Packet Pg. 44Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 13What We’ve HeardCreate spaces for mental healthCreate spaces for mental healthInvest in where people went during the pandemicInvest in where people went during the pandemicResources for music and art venuesResources for music and art venuesIncreased availability of quality / affordable childcareIncreased availability of quality / affordable childcareLong term climate planning, including mitigation and protecting access to waterLong term climate planning, including mitigation and protecting access to water1.5Packet Pg. 45Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 14Emerging Themes020406080100120140TOP 5 AREASMental & Behavioral HealthAffordable HousingSmall BusinessWorkforceClimate Resilience*Preliminary dataWhich areas should the City focus on the help Fort Collins recovery and thrive? *1.5Packet Pg. 46Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) American Rescue Plan Act Funds1.5Packet Pg. 47Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 16American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)• Other funds available within (ARPA) for:• Childcare, utility/water bills, libraries, small business, support for people experiencing homelessness and broadband•Collaboration with partners and the State vital to leverage all funds available for the community and avoid duplication of funds$410B Stimulus Checks$360BGovernment $246BExtended Unemployment Programs$194BOther$176BEducation$143BExpanded Tax Credits$123BCOVID-19 Response$105BHealth$59B Small Business$56B Transportation$16B Agriculture$360B Allocated forLocal Government1.5Packet Pg. 48Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 17ARPA State & Local Fiscal Recovery FundMust be related to response and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemicRegional Collaboration$28.1M allocated to Fort Collins1.5Packet Pg. 49Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 18Eligible Uses of FundsEquity-Focused Services• Serve hard-hit communities/families; equity in health; housing; educationPublic Health Response• Contain COVID-19; behavioral healthcare services; communicationNegative Economic Impacts• Assist/support workers & families; small businesses; impacted industries – tourism & hospitalityInfrastructure: Water, Sewer, & Broadband• Clean & drinking water revolving funds eligible projects; broadband for marginalized communityRevenue Loss• Formula-driven replacement of lost 2020 City revenuesINELIGIBLE• Pension fund contribution, debt service; fund reserves; federal match requirementsPer U.S. Treasury Interim Final Rules1.5Packet Pg. 50Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 19City’s ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund$28.1M allocation for Fort CollinsOrdinance .079, 2022: short-term, immediate needs$4.2M$3.6M $20.3MAllocation of FundsCouncil Approval of Fort Collins Recovery Plan, February 2022:long-term recovery and resilienceCity Manager’s Recommended Budget 20221.5Packet Pg. 51Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) Short-Term ARPA Allocation20$6M Tentatively Approved / $7.8M Allocated for ARPA ResponseEconomic Recovery Equity & Community Recovery Health & Environmental Resilience Small Business GrantsBusiness & Entrepreneur CenterExtension of For Fort CollinsParking Structure RepairsExpanded Technical Assistance for Small BusinessesEconomic Health Strategic Plan1.0 FTE City Planner1.0 FTE Cultural Services Community Programs Manager + program supportEviction Legal FundSupport for 24/7 ShelterUtility Direct Assistance ProgramChildcare System SupportExpanded Community Outreach & EngagementRecreation Reduce-Fee Scholarship ProgramDEI Office Program SupportLanguage Access ServicesAffordable Housing Fee Credit FundHomelessness Initiatives IncreaseHuman Service Program IncreaseCultural Services Access FundImmediate PPE and vaccine clinics are currently funded through (CARES)ANTICIPATED: Request for PPE to distribute internally and with community partnersInnovate Fort Collins Challenge –Housing / Climate NexusMental Health Response TeamMunicipal Court Services – Mental Health, Addiction, Teen DiversionOrdinance 079, 2022 ST Immediate Needs2022 BudgetCARES1.5Packet Pg. 52Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 21ARPA Allocation Across Strategic Anchors$1.8$0.6$0.0$1.1$1.5$1.0$7.0$7.9$7.1$0$2$4$6$8$10$12Economic Recovery Equity & Communitiy Recovery Health and Environmental ResilienceMillionsOrd. 079, 2022 Approved ST Needs2022 BudgetProposed Allocation Recovery PlanNOTE: Administrative costs spread throughout each strategic anchor1.5Packet Pg. 53Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 22Questions for CouncilWhat additional questions does Council have around the intended purposes of ARPA in support of recovery?Does Council support the development and staff recommended structure of the Recovery Plan?Are there ”big play” priorities at the local or regional level that City Council would specifically like to pursue?1.5Packet Pg. 54Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) For More Information, VisitTHANK YOU!Ourcity.fcgov.com/forfoco1.5Packet Pg. 55Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 24Pandemic Impact ExampleIncome Vulnerability Map1.5Packet Pg. 56Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 25Inclusive Recovery Framework1.5Packet Pg. 57Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) 26Other ARPA Funds Received Program Department FundsAssistance for People Experiencing HomelessnessSocial Sustainability $2.6M(HOME-ARP)Air Quality Monitoring and Pollution Clean UpEnvironmental Sustainability$200KPublic Transportation Transfort $7.6MShuttered Venue Operators Grant ProgramCultural Services $1.2MTotal as of 7.27.21 ~$11.6MAdditional available funds in housing such as emergency rental assistance, mortgage and utility assistance, National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, Low Income Home and Energy Assistance and Water Utility Bill Assistance, Paid Sick Leave Credit and Economic Development Administration.NOTE: State of Colorado has received ~$1B in supportive housing; a Planning Grant Program ($6.8M) for LUC Updates is available1.5Packet Pg. 58Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10791 : Recovery Plan Overview) DATE: 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). 2 Packet Pg. 59 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 2 Packet Pg. 60 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, 2 Packet Pg. 61 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. 2 Packet Pg. 62 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 2 Packet Pg. 63 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. 2 Packet Pg. 64 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 2 Packet Pg. 65 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. 2 Packet Pg. 66 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 2 Packet Pg. 67 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) 2 Packet Pg. 68 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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? 2.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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? 2.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) • 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 5 2.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 6 2.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 7 2.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 42.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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), 2.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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). 2.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.). 2.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 2.1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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. 2.1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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? 2.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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). 2.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: CU Denver Capstone Research: Rental Regulation and Occupancy (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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). 2.2 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.” 2.2 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.” 2.2 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.2 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.2 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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). 2.2 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Peer Community Research (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 32.3Packet Pg. 154Attachment: Occupancy Document and Code Review (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Household2.3Packet Pg. 155Attachment: Occupancy Document and Code Review (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Family2.3Packet Pg. 156Attachment: Occupancy Document and Code Review (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Family2.3Packet Pg. 157Attachment: Occupancy Document and Code Review (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2.4 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Rental Housing Minimum Requirements (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.4 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Rental Housing Minimum Requirements (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.4 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Rental Housing Minimum Requirements (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and Short-Term RentalsRental Market StudyATTACHMENT 52.5Packet Pg. 161Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Contents2Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyExecutive Summary3Introduction28Section 1: Rental Market Trends33Section 2: Ordinance Violators88Section 3: Short-Term Rentals126Section 4: Neighborhood Quality150Appendix1702.5Packet Pg. 162Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Executive Summary2.5Packet Pg. 163Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 164Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 increases2.5Packet Pg. 165Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 166Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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)2.5Packet Pg. 167Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2005-20172.5Packet Pg. 168Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Junction2.5Packet Pg. 169Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 2005.2.5Packet Pg. 170Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 171Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 172Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 173Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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)2.5Packet Pg. 174Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 175Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 176Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 opinion2.5Packet Pg. 177Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 5285245142.5Packet Pg. 178Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 179Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 rules2.5Packet Pg. 180Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 = excluded2.5Packet Pg. 181Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 0.652.5Packet Pg. 182Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 0.382.5Packet Pg. 183Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 0.282.5Packet Pg. 184Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Good2004200820182.5Packet Pg. 185Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 186Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 0.322.5Packet Pg. 187Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Introduction2.5Packet Pg. 188Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 189Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 190Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 191Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Rentals2.5Packet Pg. 192Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Section 1: Rental Market Trends2.5Packet Pg. 193Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Rent2.5Packet Pg. 194Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 195Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 36Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.1Change in Demand2.5Packet Pg. 196Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 22,7952.5Packet Pg. 197Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 198Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 JunctionGreeleyPueblo2.5Packet Pg. 199Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 200Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 41Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.2Change in Supply2.5Packet Pg. 201Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 SpringsGreeleyPueblo2.5Packet Pg. 202Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Units2.5Packet Pg. 203Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 204Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 45Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.3Change in Vacancies2.5Packet Pg. 205Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 20102.5Packet Pg. 206Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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-recession2.5Packet Pg. 207Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 SpringsGreeleyPueblo2.5Packet Pg. 208Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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).2.5Packet Pg. 209Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Campus2.5Packet Pg. 210Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 211Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 212Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 -0.32.5Packet Pg. 213Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 214Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 55Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.1.4Change in Average Rent2.5Packet Pg. 215Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 216Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 217Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 218Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 219Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 220Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 221Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 62Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.2Rental Market TrendsFort Collins Compared to Selected Nationwide Cities2.5Packet Pg. 222Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 223Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 224Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 225Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 226Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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). 2.5Packet Pg. 227Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 228Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 2.5Packet Pg. 229Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 230Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 231Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 232Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 233Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 234Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 235Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 236Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 77Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 1.3Rental Market TrendsRecent Trends in Fort Collins2.5Packet Pg. 237Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 238Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 239Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 240Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 241Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 242Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 243Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 244Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Campus2.5Packet Pg. 245Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 246Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 247Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Section 3. Occupancy Ordinance Violators2.5Packet Pg. 248Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 89Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.1Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsEstimated Number of Violator Households2.5Packet Pg. 249Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 250Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 251Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 people2.5Packet Pg. 252Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 253Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 94Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.2Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsProfile of Violator Households2.5Packet Pg. 254Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 255Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 256Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 257Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 258Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 259Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 260Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 261Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 262Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 263Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 264Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 females2.5Packet Pg. 265Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 266Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 267Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 payments2.5Packet Pg. 268Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 109Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsInvestigation Outcomes•2.3.1 Citywide Trends•2.3.2 Neighborhood Trends2.5Packet Pg. 269Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 270Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 111Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3.1Citywide Trends2.5Packet Pg. 271Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 272Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 273Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 114Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.3.2Neighborhood Trends2.5Packet Pg. 274Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 275Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 276Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 277Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 278Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 279Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 120Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 2.4Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsPublic Sentiment Towards Occupancy Ordinance2.5Packet Pg. 280Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 281Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 2.5Packet Pg. 282Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 283Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 284Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 2.5Packet Pg. 285Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 126Section 3 - Short Term Rentals2.5Packet Pg. 286Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 127Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.1Short-Term RentalsProfile of Units and Revenues2.5Packet Pg. 287Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 288Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 5285245142.5Packet Pg. 289Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 290Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 291Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 292Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 293Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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$1142.5Packet Pg. 294Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 $9,591,3052.5Packet Pg. 295Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 136Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.2Short-Term RentalsRental Hosts and Properties2.5Packet Pg. 296Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 297Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 298Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.”2.5Packet Pg. 299Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 300Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 301Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 302Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 303Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.”2.5Packet Pg. 304Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 rentals2.5Packet Pg. 305Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 146Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 3.3Short-Term RentalsPublic Sentiment Toward Short-Term Rental Rules2.5Packet Pg. 306Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 307Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 308Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 309Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 150Section 4 - Neighborhood Quality2.5Packet Pg. 310Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 151Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.1Neighborhood QualityCitywide2.5Packet Pg. 311Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 312Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 = excluded2.5Packet Pg. 313Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 314Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 315Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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” responses2.5Packet Pg. 316Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 157Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.2Neighborhood QualityProximity to Ordinance Violators2.5Packet Pg. 317Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 318Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 319Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 320Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Violators2004200820182.5Packet Pg. 321Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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.2.5Packet Pg. 322Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 323Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Good2.5Packet Pg. 324Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 165Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudySection 4.3Neighborhood QualityProximity to Short-Term Rentals2.5Packet Pg. 325Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 326Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 = excluded2.5Packet Pg. 327Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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” responses2.5Packet Pg. 328Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 329Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Appendix - Methodology2.5Packet Pg. 330Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 171Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodology Rental Market Trends•Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas•Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities2.5Packet Pg. 331Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 332Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 333Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 334Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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% 1.182.5Packet Pg. 335Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 4,8662.5Packet Pg. 336Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 177Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodology Ordinance Violators•Estimated Number•Profile of Violators•Investigation Outcomes2.5Packet Pg. 337Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 338Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 339Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 180Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyMethodologyShort-Term Rentals•Profile of Units and Revenues•Rental Host Survey2.5Packet Pg. 340Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 341Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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. 2.5Packet Pg. 342Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Rentals2.5Packet Pg. 343Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 344Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 345Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 346Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 Study2.5Packet Pg. 347Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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%2.5Packet Pg. 348Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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: 303.894.82462.5Packet Pg. 349Attachment: Rental Market Study (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) •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 2.6 Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Links to Referenced Documents (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) Council Work Session Housing Strategic Plan Implementation10-26-21Occupancy, Rental Licensing, and Small Landlord IncentivesMarcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services ManagerMeaghan Overton, Housing ManagerATTACHMENT 72.7Packet Pg. 351Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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?2.7Packet Pg. 352Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 units2.7Packet Pg. 353Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) •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)2.7Packet Pg. 354Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) • 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?2.7Packet Pg. 355Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) • 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.”2.7Packet Pg. 356Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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-occupied2.7Packet Pg. 357Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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?2.7Packet Pg. 358Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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?2.7Packet Pg. 359Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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)2.7Packet Pg. 360Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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: Pilot2.7Packet Pg. 361Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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, Inspect2.7Packet Pg. 362Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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, Adjust2.7Packet Pg. 363Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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: Enforce2.7Packet Pg. 364Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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 resources2.7Packet Pg. 365Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) 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?2.7Packet Pg. 366Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10795 : Housing Strategic Plan Implementation) DATE: STAFF: October 26, 2021 Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, City Planner Travis Storin, Chief Finance Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION East Mulberry Project Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an overview of the plan update process thus far, and gather feedback on the strategic approach to plan-making and annexation evaluation. Staff will share an update on public engagement, present the approach for guiding principles and share a preliminary financial analysis. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the plan direction and timeline? 2. What input would Councilmembers provide regarding the direction of annexation planning? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Project Outcomes Following adoption of an updated East Mulberry Plan, the fiscal impact analysis will provide information nece ssary for Council to consider possible annexation of the “enclave” portion of the East Mulberry area presently in Larimer County’s jurisdiction. The major deliverables of the project are: • Adoption of the East Mulberry Plan (previously known as the Eas t Mulberry Corridor Plan) that captures the community’s desired vision for the next 20-30 years, consistent with City Plan; • An assessment of existing infrastructure conditions and recommended future City infrastructure investments and programs, consistent with the East Mulberry Plan; • A revenue and cost estimate associated with future annexation and infrastructure and operational needs, including potential annexation phasing options by sub-area; • Recommendations for short-, mid- and long-term implementation strategies A successful Plan Update will express a vision for an attractive, unique part of our community that addresses important economic and housing goals. A thorough Annexation Assessment will provide a balanced understanding of the benefits a nd tradeoffs of implementing the East Mulberry Plan vision, should the area come into the City’s jurisdiction. It will also include several specific scenarios for how the potential annexation could be phased over time to address the additional cost to provide City services. 3 Packet Pg. 367 October 26, 2021 Page 2 History The last amendment to the East Mulberry Plan (previously referred to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan) was completed in 2003, which was jointly adopted by the City and Larimer County. A lot has changed in Fort Collins and the surrounding region since the time of the Plan’s adoption, including a major update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2019). A Plan update is needed to reexamine the East Mulberry area relative to emerging trends and key policy recommendations found in the City Plan Update and to ensure that the East Mulberry Plan is a relevant and useful tool for guiding public and private investment in the future. A three-square mile area of unincorporated County land completely surrounded by land within the city limits, referred to as an 'enclave’, was formed along East Mulberry in August 2018 that permits the City to annex the area after three years. Although not statutorily required to annex the enclave, the City has an agreement with Larimer County that such an enclave annexation will be pursued when it becomes eligible. Given the size of the East Mulberry enclave, such an annexation could be phased over several years. In preparation for Council’s future discussions of a potential enclave annexation, an analysis of new revenues and new service costs is being developed along with the operational impacts to the City and community benefits so that data -driven decisions can be made on annexation options. Our Shared Purpose The agreement mentioned above between the City and Larimer County has established a Growth Management Area (GMA) that concentrates urban development in areas that affords greater efficiency in urban service provision. As areas within the GMA have urbanized over time, the City has traditionally annexed t hose areas to match service needs with their level of development intensity. Because the East Mulberry area has become more densely populated, the area’s needs have evolved toward a more complete range of urban services for industrial, commercial, and residential uses. These services include, among others, public infrastructure updates and maintenance, police services, and connected urban design. In addition to an examination of urban service needs, a comprehensive community engagement plan is being implemented to guide the plan framework. Residents, business owners and others who are involved within the East Mulberry area are being engaged to think long-term about the vision and priorities for the future. The previous plan focused on the East Mulberry area as a “corridor” along the State Highway 14 frontage. This plan will focus more broadly on the area as a unique destination, which can embrace its existing character while envisioning long-term opportunities. This plan will also focus on ways to integrate the area into the broader Fort Collins community, with which it is already closely linked, and identify barriers to that vision. The East Mulberry area is unique within Northern Colorado. It is one of the largest industrial areas in the region and boasts over 500 businesses. Some of those businesses are known regionally, nationally, and even internationally for their products and services. The area also has several neighborhoods with housing that is, on average, more affordable than much of the broader Fort Collins area. EAST MULBERRY PROJECT UPDATE Community Engagement Community engagement for this plan has focused primarily on the business owners and residents within this area. While this area is important to the community of Fort Collins and the North ern Colorado region as a whole, Area Plan engagement usually occurs first with those who experience and interact with the place on a daily basis as an employee, business owner, resident or a combination of these. Sessions so far have included the following topics: • General Q&A Sessions on April 29th with 60 total participants • 6 listening sessions were held in June, July, and August • Community Visioning Sessions will occur at the end of October to establish a shared vision for the area • A Community Advisory Group has been formed with area business owners and residents • Outreach tools include a webpage, active newsletter and targeted business outreach through the Chamber of Commerce 3 Packet Pg. 368 October 26, 2021 Page 3 Some of the primary issues that have been highlighted thus far in the public engagement process and internal conversations include: • Respecting the unique character of the area • Exploring funding options to support infrastructure • Enhancing and protecting natural resources Guiding Assumptions for Principle and Strategy Development Public engagement and internal staff conversations have uncovered 3 “pillars” of this project and assumptions that will help to guide the formation of strategies to address the unique issues within the East Mulberry area: • Aspirational - Strategies that advance a shared City Vision • Legacy - Strategies that bring properties into “compliance” appropriate to the area context and proportional to the impact of the use • Foundational - Services that must be implemented as a top priority, aligned with annexation phasing Lenses for Annexation Evaluation Staff has taken a “triple bottom line” approach to the annexation evaluation. While financial considerations are very important in the decision-making process, there are other considerations to balance in this process. Therefore, staff has developed three distinct buckets of lenses for evaluation: • Economic (infrastructure, capacity, services, revenue, redevelopment) • Social (displacement, attainable housing, affordable business spaces, Industri al and Ag Land Uses) • Environmental (protection, enhancement, integration) These guiding assumptions and lenses will guide the work of defining the framework of the plan and the formation of strategies with community members and internal staff. Preliminary Financial Analysis The City has partnered with a financial consultant, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), who has developed an Excel-based scenario modeling tool to measure the fiscal impacts resulting from alternative phasing, sequencing and funding options related to potential annexation(s) of the enclave area. The fiscal model is structured to evaluate the impacts of providing the full suite of City services within the potential annexation area. Core assumptions include providing all existing govern mental services and electric, stormwater and broadband utility services. Water and wastewater services are excluded from the analysis and will continue to be delivered by the incumbent providers. The modeling is structured to capture all expected ongoing revenues and expenses (i.e. sales taxes, property taxes, street maintenance, patrol services, etc.). On the capital side, one-time revenues such as capital expansion fees (CEF) and plant impact fees (PIF) are modeled, as are required expenditures (i.e. stormwater infrastructure, new parks, etc.). The difference between expected revenues and expenses is the Net Fiscal Impact, an indication of whether new sources of revenue will be required. The potential annexation area was mapped using GIS data to break out the land parcels into logical planning units (following existing land use designations, historical area characterizations, City Plan guideposts, etc.) that allows for easier comparison of sequencing and phasing alternatives. The area currently has an inventory of approximately 1,100 housing units and 500 businesses. Significant growth in both segments can be expected over the next 20 to 30 years. Some projects are already in the early development stages. The following is a summary of the preliminar y, early-stage financial analysis. The results present a view of the full annexation of the area and potential growth buildout over a 20-year timeframe. Sequencing, alternative 3 Packet Pg. 369 October 26, 2021 Page 4 timeframes, land groupings and funding mechanisms are still in the very early stages of evaluation. This evaluation exercise includes significant resident, business owner, partner and other stakeholder outreach. The analysis breaks out the fiscal impacts for both governmental services and utility services. Preliminary Fiscal Impact Estimates The analysis assumes existing city rates, fees and cost structures will be applied to the potential annexation areas. No new fees or increases to rates are included in the base analysis. Operating impacts are shown both on an annualized basis and for the 20-year total. Capital impacts are shown for the 20-year total timeframe only. Estimates of the personnel requirements needed (at full-service levels) are included. The summary above assumes a 20-year development of the annexation area. The timing and need for services will be dependent on the types of services provided (police services, for example, would be required up front upon annexation; parks maintenance needs would be ramped up with the potential development of new facilities). On the governmental side, new capital expansion fees would help offset the increased operating costs needed for providing services. Timing and sequencing of potential annexation areas would determine if additional funding sources would be required. On the utility side, there is an expectation of heavier infrastructure requirements up front (both to acquire assets from existing providers and to buildout and connect to our existing systems). Offsets would be available from new development fees and potential rate adjustments to the customer base. Next Steps • Continued Public engagement • Continued Internal staff engagement • Continued Financial Assessment - Formation of annexation phasing options ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 370 East Mulberry Area UpdateOctober 26, 2021City Council Work SessionTravis Storin, Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Dave LenzATTACHMENT 13.1Packet Pg. 371Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 2Questions for Council1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the plan direction and timeline?2. What input would Councilmembers provide regarding the direction of annexation planning?DL23.1Packet Pg. 372Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Slide 2DL2 We need to frame this upfront for "what are we asking of council?" - I copied in the current questions form the AIS.David Lenz, 10/12/20213.1Packet Pg. 373Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Overview• Strategic Alignment• Project Guiding Assumptions• Annexation Phasing Options• Preliminary Financial Analysis33.1Packet Pg. 374Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Strategic Alignment3.1Packet Pg. 375Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) East Mulberry Map53.1Packet Pg. 376Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Engagement Update• Q&A Sessions April 29th: 60 total participants• 6 listening sessions in June, July and August• Outreach tools:• Webpage• Newsletter• Chamber Outreach• Community Visioning Sessions• Working Group Sessions• Community Advisory Group63.1Packet Pg. 377Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 7City Plan Core ValuesLivabilityAttainable Housing OptionsA vibrant economy with good jobsSafety and StabilityCommunityA culture of open, honest communicationA commitment to equity, diversity and inclusionStrong public and private social servicesSustainabilityA strong and diverse economyCareful management of growth and resourcesProtection of the Natural Environment3.1Packet Pg. 378Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Strategic Alignment8SAFE 5.2 - Meet the expected level of core and specialized police services as the community growsNLSH 1.7 - Develop options and assess the feasibility of the annexation of the Mulberry Corridor ECON 3.3 - Systematically engage the business community with an emphasis on starting, sustaining and renewing businesses NLSH 1.5 - Enhance the quality of life in neighborhoods, empower neighbors to solve problems, and foster respectful relations3.1Packet Pg. 379Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) East Mulberry Plan - Vision9How can the plan reflect unique area character?What are funding options to support infrastructure?How can natural resources be enhanced and protected?3.1Packet Pg. 380Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Existing Conditions10Infrastructure• Stormwater• Streets• ElectricalImprovements, Affordability, Character• Residential streets without sidewalks• Street maintenance, SIDs• Displacement SensitivityDesign Standards• Landscaping• Parking• Pedestrian/Bicycle Access3.1Packet Pg. 381Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 11Bottom Line• Fulfills Intergovernmental Agreement to Annex and expand services to urbanized areas• Mitigate displacement through thoughtful application of existing City standards• Integrate new “greenfield” development into existing area character and urban structureBenefits of Annexation• Costly for City as a whole• Increase in certain fees and taxes (stormwater fee & sales tax for some retail goods)Drawbacks of Annexation• Inequities of Services between City and East Mulberry Area continue to occur• Infrastructure continues to deteriorate• Urbanization continues to occur without urban services & standardsDrawbacks of not AnnexingKS13.1Packet Pg. 382Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Slide 11KS1 Kyle Stannert, 10/7/20213.1Packet Pg. 383Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Project Guiding Assumptions3.1Packet Pg. 384Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Key Considerations13• Community Members question efficacy of infrastructure maintenance/improvements• Community Members report a feeling of being left outOver focusing on affordability• Community Members express discomfort with options for financing improvements• Community Members express a feeling of loss of identityOver focusing on ImprovementsDesired Outcome: Community BuildingWhat to Avoid: Lose identity or accessibility of areaKey Considerations: Affordability and Improvements3.1Packet Pg. 385Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Guiding Assumptions: Foundational• Expand 24/7/365 services to this area, these business owners and residents• Prioritize health and safety issues and investments• Determine most impactful health and safety improvements based on area context• Prioritize strategies that meet the intent of a shared community vision143.1Packet Pg. 386Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Guiding Assumptions: Legacy• Develop approach for gradual compliance as upgrades occur (signage, uses, buildings)• Consider tiers of non-conforming status based on most pressing compliance issues • Prioritize infrastructure upgrades that address critical connectivity gaps and failing infrastructure issues153.1Packet Pg. 387Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Guiding Assumptions: Aspirational• Determine how this area fits within the broader Fort Collins community vision• Prioritize implementation of design improvements that promote walkability and sense of place Create opportunities for housing choices• Define character identities throughout the plan area to guide building design, wayfinding, branding investments163.1Packet Pg. 388Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Macro Project Timeline17Data Collection Area Plan/Financial Analysis Enclave Eligible for Annexation•2021 Deliverables: 1) Policy Recommendations and 2) Assessment of Costs and Revenue for Annexation Decision Making•2022 Deliverables: Land Use Plan (EMP) and Proposed Annexation Phasing PlanCommunity Engagement2021Q1 Q2 Q3Mulberry Project Timelines (Overview)Q42022Q3 Q4Annexation Evaluation3.1Packet Pg. 389Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Annexation Phasing Options3.1Packet Pg. 390Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 19Lenses• Infrastructure• Capacity• Services• Revenue• RedevelopmentEconomic• Displacement• Attainable Housing• Affordable Business Spaces• Industrial Land Use• Agricultural Land UseSocial• Protection• Enhancement• IntegrationEnvironmentalPublic Engagement 3.1Packet Pg. 391Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) East Mulberry Map: Sub-Area Characterization20INDUSTRIALI-25I-25Ag/GREENFIELDAg/GREENFIELDCOMMERCIALDL13.1Packet Pg. 392Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Slide 20DL1 Sylvia - we ned to adjust this one with new shapes to cover all the annexation areas re; Kelly D's commentsDavid Lenz, 10/11/20213.1Packet Pg. 393Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Preliminary Financial Analysis3.1Packet Pg. 394Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Fiscal Impact Model22Annexation AreaJobsHouseholds=Persons Served+RevenuesExpendituresNet Fiscal ImpactsOn-Going:TaxesProperty TaxSales/Use TaxFees/Permits/Charges for ServicesUtilitiesRate/fee revenueCapital:CEFTCEFPotential Sources:Improvement FeeService Area:Average factors for: financial, community, plan/dev/trans, executive, judicial, IT, legal, sustainability, otherCase StudiesPoliceStreet MaintenanceParksStormwaterBroadbandLight & PowerCapital ExpendituresOn-Going:Annual Net Fiscal Impact by Subarea10 and 20 Year Cumulative Utility BreakoutL&PBroadbandStormwaterCapital:Capital RevenuesExpenditures by Service and Subarea3.1Packet Pg. 395Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 23Existing and Future ConditionsExisting Growth Potential Total Future PotentialPremisesHousing Units ~ 1,100 3,400 - 4,000 4,500 – 5,100Businesses ~ 500 300 - 500 800 – 1,000StreetsCenterline Miles ~ 45 12 - 18 57 - 63Acreage~ 1,260 1,400 2,6603.1Packet Pg. 396Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 24Preliminary Fiscal Impact EstimatesGovernmental ServicesOperating Impacts Capital Impacts PersonnelAverage Annual($M per year)20 Year Total($M)20 Year Total($M)FTERevenues $5 - $7 $100 - $140 $80 - $12040 - 60Expenses $8 - $12$160 - $240$20 - $40Net Impact($3) - ($5) ($60) - ($100)$60 - $80Utility Services Operating Impacts Capital Impacts PersonnelAverage Annual($M per year)20 Year Total($M)20 Year Total($M)FTERevenues $9 – $15 $180 - $300 $20 - $4020 - 30Expenses $8 - $12$160 - $240$110 - $170Net Impact $1 - $3 $20 - $60($90) - ($130)3.1Packet Pg. 397Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) Summary25•Economic• Infrastructure investment• Guiding Cohesive and Responsible Urban Growth• Important Community Gateway• Driving Engine of Industrial Business•Social• Equity• Preservation• Anti-Displacement•Environmental• Preservation• Conservation• Appropriate Buffers3.1Packet Pg. 398Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 26Wrap Up1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the plan direction and timeline?2. What input would Councilmembers provide regarding the direction of annexation planning?3.1Packet Pg. 399Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update) 3.1Packet Pg. 400Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10796 : East Mulberry Project Update)