HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/09/2023 - WORK SESSIONFort Collins City Council
Work Session Agenda
6:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Colorado River Community Room, 222 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
NOTICE:
Work Sessions of the City Council are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month in
the Colorado Room of the 222 Building. Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, however
there is no public participation permitted in a work session.
City Council members may participate in this meeting via electronic means pursuant to
their adopted policies and protocol.
How to view this Meeting::
Meetings are open to the public
and can be attended in person
by anyone.
Meetings are televised live
on Channels 14 & 881 on cable
television.
Meetings are livestreamed on
the City's website, fcgov.com/fctv
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 970.221.6515 (V/TDD:
Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice. Requests for
interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A solicitud, 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 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por
favor proporcione aviso previo. Las solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben
realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Meeting agendas, minutes, and archived videos are available on the City's meeting portal at
https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/
While work sessions do not include public comment,
mail comments about any item on the agenda to
cityleaders@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
City Council
Work Session Agenda
May 9, 2023 at 6:00 PM
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
Colorado River Community Room
222 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 PM
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. 2022 Visit Fort Collins Annual Report and Update.
The 2022 Visit Fort Collins Annual Report will be presented to Council.
2. Potential Charter Amendments for November 2023 Ballot Consideration.
The purpose of this item is to provide Council a list of potential identified Charter changes that
could be taken to a ballot in 2023 or in future years.
3. Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Occupancy Regulations.
The primary purpose of this work session item is to receive Council guidance on potential changes
to the City’s occupancy regulations. The work session will include an overview of existing
conditions, policy analysis completed to date, and a summary of community engagement. Key
policy topics for this work session include: (1) the current family definition used in the City’s
occupancy regulations; (2) the maximum number of occupants in a home; and (3) the City’s current
extra occupancy process. Staff will also seek Council direction on a proposed approach to future
community engagement on occupancy regulations.
4. Fort Collins Water Storage Overview.
The purpose of this work session is to discuss the water supply and storage challenges faced by
the Fort Collins community and to seek direction on future engagement wit h Northern Water
regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). Fort Collins is served by multiple water
service providers and the challenges of significant growth and climate change will impact the entire
community. Fort Collins Utilities is focused on the Halligan Water Supply Project, which will only
serve the Utilities’ service area. Other water service providers in the community are relying on
different efforts, such as NISP, to ensure adequate supply for their customers, which includes
about 24,000 Fort Collins residents.
Page 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
The discussion will provide an overview of the Fort Collins Utilities’ water system; water supply
challenges including drought, growth, and the Colorado River Compact; current water storage
projects; and the City’s role as a regional partner with other water service providers in Northern
Colorado.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS
D) ADJOURNMENT
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 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Please provide advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day
before.
A solicitud, 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
970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione aviso previo. Las
solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Page 2
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 1
May 9, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Amanda King, Interim IES Director
Cynthia Eichler, Visit Fort Collins President and CEO
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2022 Visit Fort Collins Annual Report and Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2022 Visit Fort Collins Annual Report will be presented to Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Annual Report
2. Visit Fort Collins 2022 Annual Report
3. Visit Fort Collins Presentation
Page 3
Item 1.
1
ANNUAL REPORT
2022 introduced the first full year of the Fort Collins Tourism Improvement District. The first half of
the year was a gathering of momentum and Covid recovery, the second half, an upward trajectory with
increased hotel occupancy.
With twenty-two members in the district, and a service agreement in place with Visit Fort Collins, the
district supports two additional dedicated team members specifically assigned to sales activities. This
has significantly increased the ability to participate in new initiatives, trade shows, sales missions and
to grow long term relationships.
The Fort Collins Tourism Improvement District is supported through its own board of directors and
strategic business plan.
ONLINE
Email:
information@ftcollins.com
Website:s:
visitftcollins.com
fctid.com
PHONE
(970) 232-3840
ADDRESS
1 Old Town Square Suite 107
Fort Collins, CO 80524
2022
Page 4
Item 1.
2
MARKETING
HIGHLIGHTS
Visit Fort Collins was awarded
$175K from the CTO Tourism
Recovery Marketing Grant Program.
This grant will have an emphasis on
Rebuilding for Resiliency. Visit Fort Collins
was one of seven awarded organizations,
and this is the largest award Visit Fort
Collins has received in its history.
VISIT FORT COLLINS
CYCLING CAMPAIGN
Visit Fort Collins received a
Marketing Matching Grant from
Colorado Tourism Office to
create and market a campaign
focused on the breadth of
cycling options available
in the area.
A four-season cycling-focused
campaign using social media,
video pre-roll and printed
guides resulted in
2.6 million
IMPRESSIONS
WEBSITE TRAFFIC
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
PAID SOCIAL
5.5 million
IMPRESSIONS
COLORADO TOURISM
CO-OP ADVERTISING
Co-op advertising with Colorado
Tourism Office included seven
months of e-newsletters,
Colorado.com native ads,
Colorado.com welcome leads,
video pre-roll and a print ad in
the Love, Colorado publication.
Efforts resulted in:
40,240
PAGE VIEWS
1,218,141
IMPRESSIONS
+58%
YOY
Page 5
Item 1.
3
LEISURE SALES
HIGHLIGHTS
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
• Hosted Tour Colorado annual membership meeting with forty destinations
and tour company representatives in attendance.
• Attended IPW in Orlando, FL, where team members participated in over 30
appointments with international tour operators and media.
• Hosted nine International tour operators and media throughout the year to
expand awareness of Fort Collins as an international destination.
For the first time since 2019, Visit Fort Collins accompanied the Colorado Tourism
Office on two sales missions in the UK, Germany and Switzerland.
2022 TID Collections
JAN $ 72,957.00
FEB $ 62,229.42
MAR $ 67,458.34
APR $ 93,347.62
MAY $ 97,127.80
JUN $ 155,792.69
JUL $ 185,680.36
AUG $ 181,162.00
SEP $ 192,656.09
OCT $ 153,441.43
NOV $ 160,886.24
DEC $ 88,319.07
The Fort Collins Tourism
Improvement District exceeded
year one expectations. Initial
projections were estimated
at $800K.
Total fee collections for
2022 were $1,511,556.
Strategic planning with
targeted investments helped
the district continue to
grow, increasing business
opportunities with sales,
marketing, public relations
and employee capital.
Page 6
Item 1.
4
SALES
HIGHLIGHTS
2,500+
engaged trade show
attendees
130+
individual meeting
and event planner
appointments
8
trade shows attended
throughout the U.S.
3
markets represented:
sports, corporate and
association
TRADE SHOWS
WON THE BID TO BE THE HOST CITY FOR THE
2023 GOVERNOR’S TOURISM CONFERENCE.
The Colorado Governor’s Tourism Conference is an annual three-day event for
tourism professionals and industry leaders to learn and network. Participants
assess current activities and find new approaches to market the state, locales, and
businesses. This will be the first time the conference is hosted in Fort Collins
with 500 expected in attendance.
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
Visit Fort Collins welcomed
Bri Seifert and Marci Kurronen
to the sales team. Connect with
them at bri@ftcollins.com and
marci@ftcollins.com for meeting and
conference opportunities.
SALES TEAM UPDATES
Page 7
Item 1.
5
PUBLIC RELATIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
over $8.9 million
VISIT FORT COLLINS ACHIEVED A
RECORD HIGH AD EQUIVALENCY OF
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
FEATURES INCLUDING ...
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
Page 8
Item 1.
6
DOWNTOWN
WELCOME CENTER
4,732
VISITORS
VISITOR SERVICES
Visit Fort Collins manages two welcome centers. The Colorado
Welcome Center located at Prospect Road and I-25 welcomes
international and domestic guests. The Visit Fort Collins
Welcome Center is in downtown Fort Collins, located on
Mountain Avenue. Visitation at both locations continued to
rebound in 2022.
Visitor Services also facilitates the hospitality program for
Colorado State University during each football season with
the Rambassador Program. Staff and volunteers welcome
attendees to campus and Fort Collins with green and gold
pride.
VISITOR SERVICES
HIGHLIGHTS
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
COLORADO
WELCOME CENTER
5,569
VISITORS
“EVERYONE WELCOME” WAS INTRODUCED TO THE VISITOR GUIDE AS A DESIRED OUTCOME
FROM THE DESTINATION MASTER PLAN AS VISIT FORT COLLINS STRIVES FOR INCLUSION.
THESE PAGES HIGHLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES TO CONNECT THROUGH A CULTURAL LENS WITH
FOOD, FUN, SERVICES, EVENTS AND RETAIL OPTIONS IN FORT COLLINS.
Page 9
Item 1.
7
DESTINATION
MASTER PLAN
Partnership means connections.
Connections between businesses,
community, residents, individuals
and visitors.
Visit Fort Collins connects with national
organizations and independent businesses at
the regional, state, county, and city level.
Fort Collins is a community where collaboration,
partnership and innovation thrive.
PARTNERSHIP
HIGHLIGHTS
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
The intent of the Visit Fort Collins
Destination Master Plan is to drive
a sustainable tourism development
model and stimulate economic activity
capable of generating inclusive
employment. This will best prepare
Fort Collins for future destination
opportunities and develop quality of
place across all parts of Fort Collins.
The Destination Master Plan was
delivered in 2020 with a defined set
of priorities. The pandemic created a
need for additional definition of
priorities to meet the challenge.
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
“If you want to go fast, go alone;
if you want to go far, go together.
SECURE
FUNDING
LEVERAGE
BRAND PROMISE
DIFFERENT
BASECAMP FC
COMMUNITY
CONNECTION
STRIVING
FOR INCLUSION
QUALITY
OF PLACE
Armstrong Hotel
Budget Host Inn
Cambria Suites
Candlewood Suites
Comfort Suites
Courtyard by Marriott
Edwards House
El Palomino
Fairfield Inn
Fort Collins Inn
Fort Collins Marriott
Hampton Inn
Hilton Fort Collins
Hilton Garden Inn Fort Collins
Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
Home2Suites
Homewood Suites by Hilton
Montclair Lodge
Quality Inn & Suites University
Residence Inn by Marriott
The Elizabeth Hotel
Thank you to our 22 distric members
Page 10
Item 1.
8
INVESTING IN QUALITY OF PLACE
In partnership with Tribe, a feasibility study is in process to assess community need
for gathering spaces. There is an opportunity to continue to invest in our quality of
place. This study will provide potential options for additional decision-making and
direction within the community.
STRIVING FOR INCLUSION
Work is underway through a partnership with Travel Unity to ensure Fort Collins is truly
representative of the community. An internal audit of existing resources and community
connections are informing the development of a formal plan and road map for the
organizations work with diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility and belonging.
BRANDING OUR COMMUNITY
Visit Fort Collins partnered with MMGY Global to identify the community’s brand promise.
The ability to differentiate Fort Collins with a brand promise will lead to further
opportunities in marketing, sales and public relations. The work will be completed and
shared with the community, partners and stakeholders in May 2023.
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
While the existing concept “Basecamp Fort Collins” is helping to position the area as a hub for
recreational activities, craft beverages and leisure outings, itinerary-based marketing helps
encourage visitor interaction and spending throughout the city. Marketing, public relations
and sales have utilized language and visuals reflecting the focus on Basecamp Fort Collins.
Community connections are reflected through ongoing and new partnerships, and in
collaborations to build from within to become more resilient. A focus on local industry
connections, associations and youth sports is underway. The Fort Collins Tourism
Improvement District was created and launched in 2021. Fee collections began in October
2021, completing the priority to secure funding.
SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS FOR 2022
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
DESTINATION
MASTER PLAN CONT’D
Page 11
Item 1.
9
VISIT FORT COLLINS STAFF
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
Cynthia Eichler
President and CEO
Katy Schneider
Vice President of Marketing
Erik Barstow
Vice President of Sales
Melissa Draxler
Director of Business Administration
Marshall Floyd
Visitor and Conference Services Manager
Bri Seifert
Sales Manager
Marci Kurronen
Sales Manager
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
George Prine
General Manager, The Armstrong Hotel
Danielle Lowery
Secretary/Treasurer, General Manager, Fort Collins Hampton Inn
Daniel Benton
General Manager, Hyatt Regency
Abbie Stout
Owner of the Edwards House
Aryell Mattern
VP of Operations, Spirit Hospitality
Carl Pratt
General Manager, The Elizabeth
THANK YOU
Page 12
Item 1.
1
ANNUALREPORT
As recovery within the tourism industry evolved in 2022, the Fort Collins leisure market led the way.
Meetings and conferences began to explore a return to in-person events. The first half of the year was a
gathering of momentum, the second half, an upward trajectory and return to positive hotel occupancy.
Year-end lodging tax collections increased to exceed the previous high-water benchmark set in 2019.
Lodging tax collections totaled over $2 million in 2022.
Execution of priorities from the Destination Master Plan, Recovery Plan and the Fort Collins Tourism
Improvement District delivered clear results and economic value to our community.
ONLINE
Email: information@ftcollins.com
Website: www.visitftcollins.com
PHONE
(970) 232-3840
ADDRESS
1 Old Town Square Suite 107
Fort Collins, CO 80524
2022
Page 13
Item 1.
2
MARKETING
HIGHLIGHTS
Visit Fort Collins was awarded
$175K from the CTO Tourism
Recovery Marketing Grant Program.
This grant will have an emphasis on
Rebuilding for Resiliency. Visit Fort Collins
was one of seven awarded organizations,
and this is the largest award Visit Fort
Collins has received in its history.
VISIT FORT COLLINS
CYCLING CAMPAIGN
Visit Fort Collins received a
Marketing Matching Grant from
Colorado Tourism Office to
create and market a campaign
focused on the breadth of
cycling options available
in the area.
A four-season cycling-focused
campaign using social media,
video pre-roll and printed
guides resulted in
2.6 million
IMPRESSIONS
WEBSITE TRAFFIC
+58%
YOY
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
PAID SOCIAL
5.5 million
IMPRESSIONS
COLORADO TOURISM
CO-OP ADVERTISING
Co-op advertising with Colorado
Tourism Office included seven
months of e-newsletters,
Colorado.com native ads,
Colorado.com welcome leads,
video pre-roll and a print ad in
the Love, Colorado publication.
Efforts resulted in:
40,240
PAGE VIEWS
1,218,141
IMPRESSIONS
Page 14
Item 1.
3
SALES
HIGHLIGHTS
2,500+
engaged trade show
attendees
130+
individual meeting
and event planner
appointments
8
trade shows attended
throughout the U.S.
3
markets represented:
sports, corporate and
association
TRADE SHOWS
WON THE BID TO BE THE HOST CITY FOR THE
2023 GOVERNOR’S TOURISM CONFERENCE.
The Colorado Governor’s Tourism Conference is an annual three-day event for tourism
professionals and industry leaders to learn and network. Participants assess current activities
and find new approaches to market the state, locales, and businesses. This will be the first
time the conference is hosted in Fort Collins with 500 expected in attendance.
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
Visit Fort Collins welcomed
Bri Seifert and Marci Kurronen
to the sales team. Connect with
them at bri@ftcollins.com and
marci@ftcollins.com for meeting and
conference opportunities.
SALES TEAM UPDATES
• Hosted Tour Colorado annual membership meeting. Forty destination and tour company
representatives were in attendance.
• Attended IPW in Orlando, FL, where team members participated in over 30 appointments with
international tour operators and media.
• Hosted nine International tour operators and media throughout the year to expand awareness of
Fort Collins as an international destination. In addition, Visit Fort Collins was able to accompany
the Colorado Tourism Office on two sales missions for the first time since 2019.
Page 15
Item 1.
4
PUBLIC RELATIONS
HIGHLIGHTS
over $8.9 million
VISIT FORT COLLINS ACHIEVED A
RECORD HIGH AD EQUIVALENCY OF
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
FEATURES INCLUDING ...
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
Page 16
Item 1.
5
DOWNTOWN
WELCOME CENTER
4,732
VISITORS
VISITOR SERVICES
Visit Fort Collins manages two welcome centers. The Colorado
Welcome Center located at Prospect Road and I-25 welcomes
international and domestic guests. The Visit Fort Collins
Welcome Center is in downtown Fort Collins, located on
Mountain Avenue. Visitation at both locations continued to
rebound in 2022.
Visitor Services also facilitates the hospitality program for
Colorado State University during each football season with
the Rambassador Program. Staff and volunteers welcome
attendees to campus and Fort Collins with green and gold
pride.
VISITOR SERVICES
HIGHLIGHTS
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
COLORADO
WELCOME CENTER
5,569
VISITORS
“EVERYONE WELCOME” WAS INTRODUCED TO THE VISITOR GUIDE AS A DESIRED OUTCOME
FROM THE DESTINATION MASTER PLAN AS VISIT FORT COLLINS STRIVES FOR INCLUSION.
THESE PAGES HIGHLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES TO CONNECT THROUGH A CULTURAL LENS WITH
FOOD, FUN, SERVICES, EVENTS AND RETAIL OPTIONS IN FORT COLLINS.
Page 17
Item 1.
6
DESTINATION
MASTER PLAN
Partnership means connections.
Connections between businesses,
community, residents, individuals
and visitors.
Visit Fort Collins connects with national
organizations and independent businesses at
the regional, state, county, and city level.
Fort Collins is a community where collaboration,
partnership and innovation thrive.
PARTNERSHIP
HIGHLIGHTS
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
The intent of the Visit Fort Collins
Destination Master Plan is to drive
a sustainable tourism development
model and stimulate economic activity
capable of generating inclusive
employment. This will best prepare
Fort Collins for future destination
opportunities and develop quality of
place across all parts of Fort Collins.
The Destination Master Plan was
delivered in 2020 with a defined set
of priorities. The pandemic created a
need for additional definition of
priorities to meet the challenge.
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
“If you want to go fast, go alone;
if you want to go far, go together.
SECURE
FUNDING
LEVERAGE
BRAND PROMISE
DIFFERENT
BASECAMP FC
COMMUNITY
CONNECTION
STRIVING
FOR INCLUSION
QUALITY
OF PLACE
Page 18
Item 1.
7
INVESTING IN QUALITY OF PLACE
In partnership with Tribe, a feasibility study is in process to assess community need
for gathering spaces. There is an opportunity to continue to invest in our quality of
place. This study will provide potential options for additional decision-making and
direction within the community.
STRIVING FOR INCLUSION
Work is underway through a partnership with Travel Unity to ensure Fort Collins is truly
representative of the community. An internal audit of existing resources and community
connections are informing the development of a formal plan and road map for the
organizations work with diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility and belonging.
BRANDING OUR COMMUNITY
Visit Fort Collins partnered with MMGY Global to identify the community’s brand promise.
The ability to differentiate Fort Collins with a brand promise will lead to further
opportunities in marketing, sales and public relations. The work will be completed and
shared with the community, partners and stakeholders in May 2023.
www.visitftcollins.com | (970) 232-3840 | information@fortcollins.com
While the existing concept “Basecamp Fort Collins” is helping to position the area as a hub for
recreational activities, craft beverages and leisure outings, itinerary-based marketing helps
encourage visitor interaction and spending throughout the city. Marketing, public relations
and sales have utilized language and visuals reflecting the focus on Basecamp Fort Collins.
Community connections are reflected through ongoing and new partnerships, and in
collaborations to build from within to become more resilient. A focus on local industry
connections, associations and youth sports is underway. The Fort Collins Tourism
Improvement District was created and launched in 2021. Fee collections began in October
2021, completing the priority to secure funding.
SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS FOR 2022
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
DESTINATION
MASTER PLAN CONT’D
Page 19
Item 1.
8
VISIT FORT COLLINS STAFF
2022 ANNUAL REPORT
Cynthia Eichler
President and CEO
Katy Schneider
Vice President of Marketing
Erik Barstow
Vice President of Sales
Melissa Draxler
Director of Business Administration
Marshall Floyd
Visitor and Conference Services Manager
Bri Seifert
Sales Manager
Marci Kurronen
Sales
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Molly Skold, Chair
Vice President Marketing & Communications, East Campus Realty, LLC
Gary Ozzello, Immediate Past Chair
Director of University Relations, Canvas Credit Union
Kate Cooper, Secretary
Director of Events & Community Engagement, Ginger & Baker
Daylan Figgs, Treasurer
Department Director, Larimer County Natural Resources
Daniel Benton
General Manager, Hilton Fort Collins
George Prine
General Manager, The Armstrong Hotel
Mike Hooker
Community Engagement, Colorado State University
Clyde Wood
VP of Commercial Development Northern Colorado, McWhinney
Bethany Cloud
Tap Room Manager, Odell Brewing Company
Sean Godbey
Owner, Old Town Spice Shop
Lauren Gleason
Director of Events & Conference Services, Colorado State University
Matt Robenalt
Executive Director, Downtown Development Authority
Amanda King
Communications Director, City of Fort Collins
THANK YOU
Page 20
Item 1.
2022 RECAP/2023 UPDATE
Page 21
Item 1.
ANNUAL
REPORTS
Annual Reports
highlight strategic objectives
delivered during 2022 for
Visit Fort Collins
and the
Fort Collins Tourism
Improvement District
Page 22
Item 1.
DESTINATION
MASTER PLAN
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
p r i o r i t i e s a n d d r i v i n g
e c o n o m i c i m p a c t
S t r a t e g i c p r i o r i t i e s
f o r i n c r e a s e d
o v e r n i g h t s t a y s a n d
m a r k e t r e c o v e r y
V i s i t F o r t C o l l i n s
F o r t C o l l i n s
T o u r s i m I m p r o v e m e n t
D i s t r i c t 2 0 2 3 U P D A T E S
Page 23
Item 1.
2022 2023 % of
Increase
January $141,889 $209,587 47%
February $74,805 $159,140 112%
March $91,868 $118,582 29%
Q1 Total $308,562 $487,309
YTD Lodging Tax
Collection Comparison
Page 24
Item 1.
2022 2023 % of
Increase
January $72,957 $137,631 88%
February $62,229 $70,413 13%
March $67,458 $77,525 15%
Q1 Total $202,644 $285,570
YTD Fort Collins TID Fee
Collection Comparison
Page 25
Item 1.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES . . .
Brand Promise Aspirational Concept
Page 26
Item 1.
Hired a Marketing Manager and Partnership Manager
VFC is now staffed at prepandemic levels.
Premiere of destination anthem
Website refresh will accompany brand promise work
Robust, comprehensive seasonal campaigns will
enhance visitor awareness of the community
2023 allowed for participation in first consumer show
at Denver's Adventure Travel and Tourism Show.
MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS
Post Paradise
Page 27
Item 1.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
PR strategy includes highlighting four pillars of our
messaging:
Outdoor offerings
Accessible Arts
Innovation and Creativity
Music, festivals and entertainment
Host regional, national and international media in
Fort Collins to garner positive publicity for the
community.
Participating in Australian satellite media tour to
promote Fort Collins to an active, high value
international traveler.
Page 28
Item 1.
LEISURE SALES
T r a d e s h o w sAmerica n B u s A s s o c i a t i o n -N E WNational T o u r A s s o c i a t i o n - N E WReceptive T o u r O p e r a t o r (R T O )- N E W
S a l e s M i s s i o n s - N E WGermanyUnited K i n g d o mCanada
Page 29
Item 1.
SALES - MEETINGS/CONFERENCES/SPORTS
International Town & Gown
Association June 7-9 2023
Annual Colorado Muncipial
Clerks Association
October 2024
Society of Wood Science &
Technology June 2025
Page 30
Item 1.
HOSPITALITY SECTOR PARTNERSHIP
NoCo Hospitality Sector is about partnership and the power of working together.
Hotel Resturant Retail
The agenda is defined by the
partnership members.
Sector partnerships focus on
items or issues that no single
company or individual can fully
tackle on its own.
Collaboration leads to success.
Page 31
Item 1.
2023 TRAVEL & TOURISM WEEK
May 11, 2023 5 - 7:30
Odell Brewing & OBC Wine Project
Brand Promise Reveal
Host Site:
Stewart Colovin Clayton Reid
Page 32
Item 1.
THANKYOU
Page 33
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 4
May 9, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Potential Charter Amendments for November 2023 Ballot Consideration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council a list of potential identified Charter changes that could be
taken to a ballot in 2023 or in future years.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions or feedback do Councilmembers have on the items identified?
2. Which, if any, Charter changes do Councilmembers support bringing forward and when?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Charter is the governing document that defines the City organization and the powers and
functions of the City. The current Charter was first enacted by a vote of the people in 1954, and can only
be amended by a vote of the people.
Over time, Charter provisions may become obsolete, contradictory, or desired to be changed to address
needs, trends, or desires. The City often has several Charter changes, both large and small, on
municipal ballots. Analyzing recent election history, there is not a demonstrable link between the number
or placement of ballot questions or initiatives and voter participation in given questions. Rather, the
content of individual questions is the clear driver of how many voters choose to participate in a given
question.
The Charter changes presented here include one ballot question already referred (relating to candidate
and councilmember qualifications) and the following additional suggested possibilities:
Referendum Process Clean up
Ordinance Publication Requirements
Computation of Time Provision
Residency Requirements
Page 34
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 4
POTENTIAL BALLOT QUESTIONS AND INITIATIVES
Candidate Qualifications
At Issue: Current language regarding qualifications for City Council candidates and members prohibits
anyone who has been convicted of a felony from eligibility. This contradicts applicable eligibility
requirements in the State Constitution.
Proposed Action: Amending the qualification language in Article II. City Council, Section 2. Qualifications
of candidates and members; challenges, to match the State Constitution language.
Current Status: Ordinance to refer this question to the voters on the November ballot was adopted on
second reading on April 18, 2023. Will be on the November ballot.
Referendum Process Clean-up
At Issue: There are two potential areas of changes to referendum provisions to consider.
A) Current language includes some contradictory language between Sections 2 and 5 of Article X.
Initiative and Referendum, regarding when an ordinance subject to a referendum is presented to the
Council for reconsideration. The language in Section 5. Petitions, relates to both initiatives and
referendums, and states a petition is presented to the Council only once it has been certified as sufficient
by the City Clerk, after any amendments or protest proceedings.
Section 2(e) Action by Council, indicates both that:
the presentation to Council of a petition certified as sufficient automatically suspends the
operation of the ordinance in question pending repeal by the Council or final determination by the
electors, and
that the Council shall reconsider the ordinance at the next regular or special meeting of Council
following receipt of the petition by the City Clerk.
That specific requirement in Section 2 for Council to reconsider the ordinance at its next meeting after
receipt of the petition by the Clerk contradicts Section 5 in both:
specifying different events for action on a referendum petition to reach Council, which in practice
occur at different time points, and
indicating in one place that the action can return to the next regular or special meeting while the
other citation requires action to occur at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
B) The last referendum process in December of 2022 also highlighted potential concerns around
ordinances going into effect before being stayed. The timelines in the Charter for many steps of the
referendum process mirror those found in state statute for the process as it applies to statutory
municipalities or home rule municipalities without their own provisions. Because Fort Collins has also
established its own shorter timeframe under Charter for when ordinances take effect upon adoption,
these timelines do not take into account that ordinances subject to a petition for referendum will go into
effect before the referendum process can be completed.
Proposed Action: Options A and/or B could be selected to move forward.
A) Cleaning up contradictions in Article X of the Charter between Sections 2 and 5 by removing the
conflicting provision from Section 2, currently requiring the Council to reconsider the ordinance at the
next regular or special meeting of the Council following the receipt of the petition by the City Clerk.
Page 35
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 4
B) Adjusting timing provisions associated with the referendum process in Article X, Sections 2 and 5,
and/or clarifying in Section 2 when an ordinance subject to a pending referendum petition is suspended
from operation.
Current Status: The potential need for changes to the referendum provisions has been discussed at the
Election Code Committee but no Council action has been taken. Proposed ballot language for one or
both options would need to be developed and adopted by ordinance to refer to the November ballot.
Ordinance Publication Requirements
At Issue: Currently, ordinances are required to be published in full on the City’s official website both
before and after final adoption. In addition, the Charter maintains a requirement to also publish all
ordinances by number and title only in a newspaper of general circulation within the same time frames.
With declining newspaper subscription rates and reduced publication schedules creating challenges at
times with meeting the timing requirements for this more limited form of publication, staff is
recommending discussion of removing this requirement while maintaining transparency through existing
City channels.
Proposed Action: Removing requirement from Article II. City Council, Section 7. Ordinances, publication
and effective date, to publish ordinances by number and title in a newspaper of general circulation at
least seven days before final passage and again within seven days after final passage.
Current Status: This has not yet been discussed. Proposed ballot language would need to be developed
and adopted by ordinance to refer to the November ballot.
Computation of Time Provision
At Issue: Various timing requirements and deadlines in the Charter create uncertainty due to a lack of
general provision for computation of time.
Proposed Action: Adding a section to the Charter that provides computation of time provisions that apply
to any references to time allowed for something in the Code or Charter without its own specificity.
Current Status: This has been discussed on occasion as an issue; no specific direction has been given.
Proposed ballot language would need to be developed and adopted by ordinance to refer to the
November ballot.
Residency Requirements
At Issue: The Charter currently contains residency requirements for certain positions. Based on identified
position title, these requirements include living in Fort Collins, living within the Urban Growth Area (now
known as the Growth Management Area (GMA)), living within 5 miles of the city limits as measured by a
straight line connecting the property to the nearest city boundary line.
Current requirements are found in four different sections of the Charter, applying to different subsets of
positions. As the City organization has grown over time, these provisions have not remained in alignment
with how the organization operates today, with a lack of equity for positions that are and are not subject
to specific residency requirements. In addition, the Urban Growth Area has been known as the Growth
Management Area since late 2000. The dated citation has the potential to create confusion and lacks
clarity. These issues are potentially illustrative of the value in provisions of this sort being placed in Code
rather than the Charter to preserve a greater ability for responsiveness to structural and other changes
within the organization as well as the broader community context.
Proposed Actions: Options A or B could be selected to move forward.
Page 36
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 4
A) If there is not a desire to remove any residency provisions from the Charter, Article II. City Council,
Section 12. City Clerk, and Article IV. General Provisions. Section 3. Residency Requirement, both
contain references to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area that should be updated to Growth Management
Area.
B) Based on past Council discussion on this topic, should the Council consider a proposed change to
remove most residency requirements from the Charter, staff recommends keeping the City Manager
requirements in the Charter and bringing Code language that mirrors the Charter requir ements for the
other positions. This would ensure no immediate change and allow the Council an opportunity for further
policy level considerations and discussion.
Current Status: Option B was discussed and considered in 2021 and 2022. Proposed ballot language for
either option would need to be developed and adopted by ordinance to refer to the November ballot.
NEXT STEPS
Any Charter-related ballot question(s) will need to be considered on first reading by late July to meet the
deadline for certification of ballot language. Charter changes are referred by ordinance which requires
two readings.
Tax initiative questions are referred by Resolution and only require one reading. These would need to be
done in mid-August.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recent Ballot Question History
2. Potential Referendum Charter Changes Additional Information
3. Residency Requirements Charter Provisions
4. Chart of Positions Subject to Residency Requirements
5. Presentation
Page 37
Item 2.
Recent Ballot Question History
April 6, 2021
•5 City-ini�ated Charter Amendments
o 4 of 5 passed
o Undervotes range d from 4,143 to 5,855
•1 Council-Referred Ordinance
o Passed
o 1,148 undervotes
•1 Proposed Ci�zen-Ini�ated Ordinance
o Passed
o 748 undervotes
April 2, 2019
•1 City-ini�ated Ballot Issue Ques�on
o Passed
o 307 undervotes
•1 Ci�zen-ini�ated Charter Amendment
o Failed
o 1,504 undervotes
April 4, 2017
•4 City-ini�ated Charter Amendments
o 4 of 4 passed
o Undervotes ranged from 1,256-2,660
April 7, 2015
•2 City-ini�ated Ballot Issue Ques�ons
o 2 of 2 passed
o Undervotes ranged from 663-914
•4 City-ini�ated Charter Amendments
o 4 of 4 passed
o Undervotes ranged from 3,518-5,746
April 5, 2011
•1 City-ini�ated Charter Amendment
o Passed
o 1,525 undervotes
•2 Ci�zen-ini�ated Ordinances
o 1 passed and 1 failed
o Undervotes ranged from 347-829
Recent Ballot Question History Page 1 of 10
Page 38
Item 2.
-I
———————— —— —— — — ——— ———— — — ————— —— — —a —
—WARNING:—
Any person who,by use of force or other means, unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting or who falsely
makes, alters,forges,or counterfeits any mail batlot before or after it has been cast,or who destroys,defaces mutilates, or tampers with a ballot is sub ect
upon conviction to imprisonment or to a fine or both.”
—
—
—
Precinct 1-2
—
—
—
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
APRIL 5,2011
Wanda M.Krajicek,City Cierk
Fort Coiiins,Colorado
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
—
Completely fill In the oval to the left of your choice
DO NOT USE A RED PEN,)
like this:•(Use a No.2 pencIl or black pen,—
—
—
FR0N’r Card I RptPci I ‘Precinct 1-2”
—
a ———
——
—
——
MAYOR
Two -Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
o Ross Cunniff
o Eric Sutherland
O Karen K.Weitkunat
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.I
Shall Article II,Section 1 of the Fort
Collins City Charter be amended to
change the method for adjusting City
Council distnct boundaries so that the size
and configuration of Council districts Will
be based upon the number of people
residing in each district rather than the
number of registered electors?
YES
eNo 1,52-5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
PROPOSED CITIZEN-INITIATED
ORDINANCE
AMENDING PEOPLE’S
ORDINANCE NO.2,1975
PERTAINING
TO CONSTRUCTION IN
LIBRARY PARK
An ordinance modifying People’s
Ordinance No.2,1975 ---which
ordinance presently states that Block
142 (previously known as Lincoln
Park and now known as Library Park)
shall continue to be a public park and
that no more than 5%of the area
devoted to open-space park purposes
shall be used as the site for
construction of additional buildings or
parking facilities ---to state instead
that 85%of Library Park will remain
open park space so that the ground
floor of the library building can be
expanded,using exist’ng Library
District funds by build ng down from
the existing overhangs of the building,
thereby adding 6 000 square feet to
the building.Vnivvok;’
3’t1
FOR THE ORDINANCE
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
PROPOSED CITIZEN-INITIATED
ORDINANCE PERTAINING
TO RANKED VOTING
An ordinance amending the City Code by
the addition of a new section 7-104
requiring that all races for Mayor or
Councilmember which include at least
three (3)candidates be conducted using a
ranked voting method that is consistent
with the requirements of state law
Ondci~
e FOR THE ORDINANCE
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE
——
—REVIEW YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PROPERLY MARKED YOUR CHOICES —
Voted ballot must be returned to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 7:00 p.m.on April 5,2011.
a —
-J
Recent Ballot Question History Page 2 of 10
Page 39
Item 2.
~1
—
—
—
—
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
APRIL 7,2015
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Precinct I
—
—
tO~znzk /c’flt~la —
Wanda K.Nelson,City Clerk
Fort Collins,Colorado
—
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:Completely fill In the oval to the left of your choIce like this e
(Use black or blue pen.DO NOT USE A PENCIL OR RED PEN.)
MAYOR
Two -Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
——
FRONTCard I RptPct 10 “Precinct I”
a — — —
——— —————— —— ——a a aa a a —a — — —a a —— — —a a
“WARNING:
Any person who,by use of force or other means,unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting,or who falsely
a makes,alters forges or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been cast or who destroys, defaces, mutilates,or tampers with a ballot is subject,
upon conviction to imprisonment or to a fne,or bath.”
C Ward Luthi
C Michael Pruznick
o Wade Troxell
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
—
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a REVIEW YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE PROPERLY MARKED YOUR CHOICES
a Voted ballot must be returned to the City Clerk’s
Office no later than 7:00 p.m.on April 7,2015,a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
BALLOT ISSUE NO,I
A CITY-INITIATED QUESTION
WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES,SHALL THE CITY’S EXISTING 025%SALES
AND USE TAX (25 CENTS ON A $100 PURCHASE) APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN
2005 FOR THE ‘BUILDING ON BASICS” CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM BE
EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION AT THE END OF DECEMBER 31,2015,
THROUGH THE END OF DECEMBER 31,2025,PROVIDED THAT THE REVENUE
DERIVED FROM THE EXTENSION OF SUCH TAX SHALL BE USED TO PAY THE COSTS
OF PLANNING,DESIGN REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION,AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS AS PART OF THE “COMMUNITY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM”,AND TO PAY FIVE(S)YEARS OF OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE (“O&M’)FOR CERTAIN OF THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS AS SPECIFIED
BELOW, ALL SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROPOSED
ORDINANCE NO,013,2015:
•PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
COMPLIANCE -SAFE ROUTES TO EVERYWHERE
•BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS -SAFE ROUTES TO
EVERYWHERE
•BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS -SAFE ROUTES TO EVERYWHERE
•DOWNTOWN POUDRE RIVER ENHANCEMENTS AND KAYAK PARK (WITH
O&M)
•BIKE/PED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS FUND (WITH O&M)
•TRANSFORT BUS FLEET REPLACEMENT
•ARTERIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FUND
•IMPLEMENTING NATURE IN THE CITY (WITH O&M)
•GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK VISITOR’S CENTER EXPANSION (WITH O&M)
•SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY CENTER WITH OUTDOOR POOL (WITH O&M)
•AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
• LINCOLN AVENUE WEST SEGMENT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (WITH O&M)
•CITY PARK TRAIN
RENOVATION OF THE HISTORIC CARNEGIE BUILDING (WITH O&M)
LINDEN STREET RENOVATIONS DESIGN &CONSTRUCTION (WITH O&M)
CLUB TICO RENOVATION
WILLOW STREET RENOVATIONS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (WITH O&M)
AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE FULL REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE TAX
MAY BE RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES,
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,THE LIM TATION IN ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES On ‘7i’~
eNO
-J
Recent Ballot Question History Page 3 of 10
Page 40
Item 2.
~1
——— ————— —— —————— —— — — ——— —— — — ——— —— ——
BALLOT ISSUE NO.2
A CITY-INITIATED QUESTION
WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL
TAXES,SHALL THE CITY’S EXISTING
0.25%SALES AND USE TAX (25 CENTS
ON A $100 PURCHASE)APPROVED BY
THE VOTERS IN 2005 FOR THE
STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM BE
EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT
EXPIRATION AT THE END OF
DECEMBER 31,2015,THROUGH THE
END OF DECEMBER 31,2025;
PROVIDED THAT THE REVENUES
DERIVED FROM SUCH TAX
EXTENSION SHALL BE USED TO PAY
THE COSTS OF PLANNING,DESIGN,
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION,
INCIDENTAL UPGRADES AND OTHER
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH:
•THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION
OF CITY STREETS,
INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED
TO,CURBS,GUTTERS,
BRIDGES,SIDEWALKS,
PARKWAYS,SHOULDERS AND
MEDIANS;
AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE
FULL AMOUNT OF REVENUES
DERIVED FROM THE TAX EXTENSION
MAYBE RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY
THE CITY NOTWITHSTANDING ANY
STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE
LIMITATION,INCLUDING,BUT NOT
LIMITED TO,THE LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X,SECTION
20 OF THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION?
YES
e NO b~3
BALLOT QUESTION NO.3
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
NO.I
Shall various sections of Article X of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
pertaining to initiative and referendum,be
amended to clarify certain procedural
requirements as follows: increase from
sixty to ninety days the amount of time an
initiative petition must be filed with the City
Clerk before a regular City election;
provide that if a voter signs a petition more
than once,the first signature shall be
counted and all subsequent signatures
rejected;to clarify that signatures may be
added to a petition during the designated
cure period;to clarify that a registered
elector may protest the sufficiency or
insufficiency of a petition;to provide for the
City Manager to appoint a hearing officer
other than the City Clerk to conduct the
hearing in the event of a protest;and to
change the wording of a submission
clause to “Yes/For”and “No/Against”in
response to each measure?
YES
e NO
BALLOT QUESTION NO.4
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
NO.2
Shall Article VIII,Section 4(b) of the Fort
Collins City Charter be amended to
eliminate provisions from the Charter
providing that a circulator is required to
certify the number of signatures on a
petition nominating a candidate for City
Council and that the last signatures in
excess of the number certified shall be
disregarded and to simplify the process for
the City Clerk’s examination of a
nominating petition?
__YES u)~de,’.iok5~
BALLOT QUESTION NO.5
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.3
Shall Article IX,Section 3(c)of the
Fort Collins City Charter,pertaining to
votes cast in the event of a recall,be
amended to e!iminate the requirement
that no vote cast for a candidate to
replace a recalled City
Councilmember shall be counted
unless the voter also voted for or
against the recall of the person sought
to be recalled from the office (which
amendment is made necessary by a
recent decision of the Colorado
Supreme Court that prohibits such a
requirement)?
YES
e NO 4J,’7D1
BALLOT QUESTION NO.6
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.4
Shall the definition of “service area”in
Article XIII of the Fort Collins City
Charter be amended to state that
‘service area”means a major city
administrative unit designated as a
service area by the City Council by
ordinance?
Onc&,-do)ec;
5:7~1~.
—— ———a — — — —a
BACK Card I RpIPct IC “Precinct I”
a —— — ———— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
a
a
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
YES
ONO
eNo
-J
Recent Ballot Question History Page 4 of 10
Page 41
Item 2.
-I
Instructions to Voters
To vote,fill in the oval completely.
Please use black ink.
Correct
If you mark in any of the incorrect
ways shown below it may be
difficult to determine your intent.
you make a mistake, please call
the City Clerk’s Office at
970.221.6515 for instructions.
Incorrect
—Your ballot continues on the back.
—
—
—
—
—
—
Additional instructions for voting
and returning your ballot are
included in your ballot packet.
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
APRIL 4,2017
MAYOR
Two -Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
0 Kwon Atlas
O Elizabeth Wilson Hudetz
C Michael Pruznick
o Wade Troxell
e Gordon Coombes
e Ken Summers
Questions
a —
FRONT Card I Rptl’c 280 “Precinct 28’
— —a ——
—a —a — —— — — ———a —a aa — —— —— — —a a a a a a a — —
a “WARNING:
Any person who,by use of force or other means, unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting,or who falsely
a makes, alters forges or counterfeits any ma’l ballot before or after ii has been cast,or who destroys,defaces,mutilates,or tampers with a ballot is subject,
upon conviction,(a imprisonment or to a fine or both,”
a
a
a
—
—
a Precinct 28
—
Wanda K.Winkelmann,city clerk
Fort collins,Colorado
If COUNCILMEMBER
DISTRICT S
Four -Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
a
—
—
—
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.I
Shall Section 7 of Article VIII of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
pertaining to certification of City
elections,be amended to change
the time for certification of an
election from the third day to no
later than the tenth day after the
election,and shall Section 1(d)
and Section 4 of Article Il of the
Charter pertaining to City Council,
be amended to require that the
organizational meeting and
election of the mayor pro tem,
respectively, take place at the next
meeting after certification of the
election,rather than the next
meeting after the election?
C Yes/For
e No/Against z,ei
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.2
Shall Section 11 of Article II of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
pertaining to City Council
meetings,be amended to allow the
City Manager,with agreement of
the Mayor,to cancel a City Council
meeting in the event of an
emergency,natural disaster,or
unforeseen circumstance that
renders the holding of a meeting
undesirable or impracticable?
Yes/For L%lckrflits’
e No/Against I—Turn Ballot Over for Additional
-J
Recent Ballot Question History Page 5 of 10
Page 42
Item 2.
-I
— ———— —— — — —— —— — —— — — — ——— — — ——— —— —— —
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.3
Shall Section 9(b)(1)of Article IV of
the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
pertaining to conflicts of interest and
prohibited sales to the City,be
amended to clarify that officers or
employees,and their relatives,are
prohibited from having a financial
interest in a sale to the city if such
officer or employee exercises
decision-making authority on behalf of
the city,or exercises supervisory
authority,in his or her role as a city
officer or employee,over the services
provided?
Yes/For
e No/Against i/-t55
CITY-INITIATED
PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.4
Shall Section 1 of Article VII of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
pertaining to Municipal Court,be
amended to allow the City Council to
appoint multiple judges of Municipal
Court,to designate a Chief Judge,and
to specify the duties for the Chief
Judge by ordinance,and further to
appoint temporary judges as Council
determines necessary?
Yes/For
e No/Against Z1~b°
REVIEW YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PROPERLY MARKED YOUR CHOICES
Voted ballot must be returned to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 7:00 p.m.on April 4,2017.
—
—
—
—
—— —————— ————— ———
flACK Card I RptPct 280 ‘Precinct 28”
-J
Recent Ballot Question History Page 6 of 10
Page 43
Item 2.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WARNING
Any person who,by use of lorce or other means unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting,or who falsely makes,alters,
forges.or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been cast o who destroys,defaces,mutilates,or tampers with a ballot is subject,upon conviction,to imprisonment.
ortoafine,orboth
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION I
APRIL 2,2019
Precinct I Delynn Coldiron,City Clerk
Fort Collins, Colorado •
To vote,fill in the oval Completely.I
Please use back nk
Correct I
I
If you mark in any of the incorrect
ways shown below it may be
difficult to determine your intent.If
you make a mistake,please call
the City Clerks Office at
970.221.6515 for instructions.
Incorrect
Additional instructions for voting
and returning your ballot are I
included in your ballot packet.
MAYOR I
Two-Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
O Michael Charles Pruznick
O Wade Troxel
Councilmember
District I
Two-Year Term
(Vote for ONE)
o Susan Gutowsky
~D Glenn E Haas
O Joe Somodi
Turn Ballot Over for Additional Question
I~1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
CITY-INITIATED
BALLOT ISSUE QUESTION NO.1
SHALL CITY OF PORT COLLINS TAXES BE INCREASED BY AN ESTIMATED
$34,000,000 FOR THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR (2021)AND BY ALL AMOUNTS
COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER,BY RENEWING WITH MODIFICATIONS THE
CITY’S CURRENT “KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT”.85%SALES AND USE TAX,WHICH
EXPIRES ON MIDNIGHT DECEMBER 31,2020,WITH THE .85%TAX RATE IMPOSED
COMMENCING MIDNIGHT ON DECEMBER 31,2020,AND USED AS FOLLOWS:
•THE TAX RATE OF .25%SHALL EXPIRE AT MIDNIGHT ON DECEMBER 31,
2030,AND ITS REVENUES SHALL BE USED TO FUND MUNICIPAL
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND FOR ANY OTHER PUBLIC
PURPOSES;AND
•THE REMAINING TAX RATE OF .60%SHALL NOT EXPIRE AND ITS
REVENUES SHALL BE USED TO HELP SUSTAIN PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE
LEVELS AND FUND MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE,AND TO
FUND ANY OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES, EXCEPT 15.6%OF THESE
REVENUES SHALL BE USED TO FUND THE FIRE PROTECTION AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES BEING PROVIDED BY THE POUDRE FIRE
AUTHORITY (PFA)UNDER THE CITY’S EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH THE
POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (DISTRICT),OR IN SUCH
OTHER AMOUNT AS THE CITY AND DISTRICT MAY AGREE,BUT ABSENT
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM FOR PFA’S SERVICES, THESE
REVENUES MAY BE USED AS DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL
BUT THE .85%TAX RATE SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
•ITEMS NOW EXEMPT UNDER THE CITY CODE FROM THE CITY’S SALES
AND USE TAX;
•FOOD FOR HOME CONSUMPTION;AND
•REGARD NG THE USE TAX ONLY,MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT
AND WITH ALL THE TAX REVENUES,AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS THEREON,TO BE
COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SPENDING AND REVENUE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X,
SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
Yes/For
0 No/Against LAsi cltrnks~3o1
I
Recent Ballot Question History Page 7 of 10
Page 44
Item 2.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
.
.
.
ilIIlIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II Ii
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CITIZEN-INITIATED
CHARTER AMENDMENT NO.1
Shall Section 3 of Article Il of the City of Fort Collins Charter be repealed and replaced with
a new Section 3 offering the Mayor and all Councilmembers compensation equal to the Fort
Collins Area Median Household Income,in accordance with the U.S.Census American
Community Survey (ACS)five-year estimates)plus benefits afforded to full-time,exempt city
employees;allowing the Mayor or any Councilmember to decline or accept reduced
compensation;and requiring them to publicly report their Council-related activities,
commencing on April 2,2019?
0 Yes/For
No/Against VAJev~.ro (cc’I,9o’/
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REVIEW YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PROPERLY MARKED YOUR CHOICES
Voted ballot must be returned to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 7:00 p.m.on April 2,2019.
Recent Ballot Question History Page 8 of 10
Page 45
Item 2.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
‘WARNING:
Any person who, by use of force or other means,unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting, or who falsely makes,alters,
forges,or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been cast,or who deskoys,defaces, mutilates, or tampers with a ballot is subject,upon conviction to imprisonment,
ortoafine orboth’
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
APRIL 6,2021 .
•Precinct I Delynn Coldiron,City Clerk IFortCollins, Colorado•__________________---~---______________I
•To vote,fill in the oval completely.I
Please use black ink.
Correct•.
•I
I n’’4Ifyoumarkinany of the incorrect
ways shown below it may be I
•difficult to determine your intent.If.you make a mistake, please call
the City Clerk’s Office at
•970 221 6515 for instructions.I
•Incorrect
Addittonal instructtons for vottng
•and returning your ballot are I
•included in your ballot packet.
•Mayor _____________________Two-Year Term
•(vote for ONE)I
•0 Jeni Arndt I
•0 Gerty Horak I
•0 Molly Skold I
•CouncilmemberDistrictI
•Four-Year Term
(Vole for ONE)
I Nick Armstrong I
•Susan Gutowsky I
•I
•___________________I
Turn Ballot Over for Additional Questions
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.
.
I
.
.
City•lnitiated Proposed Charter Amendment No.I
Shall Section 4 of Article II of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,pertaining to the
election of the Mayor Pro Tern and other Council organizational matters,be amended to
clarify that the election of the Mayor Pro Tern shall occur at the meeting at which
newly-elected Councilmembers take the oath of office and further to provide for election by
Council of a new Mayor Pro Tem in the event of a resignation from that position?
Yes/For
C No/Against Onie1viks:
City-Initiated Proposed Charter Amendment No.2
Shall Section 8 of Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,pertaining to
campaign contributions for cty elections,be amended to remove the stated prohibition on
campaign contributions and expenditures and instead provide that Council shall by
ordinance establish prohibitions on,and requirements for,campaign contributions and
expenditures for city elections,in addition to limits on contributions to support or oppose
candidates for Council?
Q Yes/For
No/Against Und’er’vok~.’qn?
City-Initiated Proposed Chaiter Amendment No.3
Amending Sections 9 and 11 of Charter Article V
Concerning City Council Appropriations
Shall Sections 9 and 11 of Article V of the City of Fort Collins Charter be amended to
provide that City Council may make supplemental appropriations from not only the City’s
actual and expected revenues in a fiscal year, but also from all other sources of funds the
City receives or expects to receive during the fiscal year and to provide that the C ty
Council may des gnate by ord nance as non- aps ng ts annua and supplemental
appropriations for capital projects and for federal, state and private grants and donations
until the completion of the capital project or until the earlier of the expiration of the federal,
state or private grant or donation or the city’s expenditure of all funds received from such
grant or donation,but without limiting the City Council’s ability to terminate earlier any such
capital project or federal,state or private grant or donation?
Yes/For
C No/Against
+
L)ndev’voIn:~950
Recent Ballot Question History Page 9 of 10
Page 46
Item 2.
iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
City-Initiated Proposed Charter Amendment No.4
Shall Section 17 of Article II of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,requiring an
independent audit of city books and accounts at least annually,be amended to increase the
time for publication of a summary of such audit to seven (7)months after the end of each
fiscal year,instead of five (5)months?
Yes/For
C No/Against (lJ~Jewo IC~~%it/fl
City-Initiated Proposed Charter Amendment No.5
Shall Section 5 of Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,establishing the
Board of Elections,be amended to replace a reference to “Municipal Judge”with “Chief
Judge”in conformance with a 2017 update to that title?
Yes/For
o No/Against till JwVo/C~’£49~
Council-Referred Ordinance
On February 16,2021,the City Council adopted on second reading,and referred to the
registered electors of the City,Ordinance No.026,2021,Amending Chapter 12 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags and
Mitigation of Other Sources of Single Use Plastic Pollution (the “Ordinance”),regulating the
use of disposable bags by (a)prohibiting large grocers from providing dsposable plastic
bags;and (b)requiring payment of a disposable bag fee of $0.12 for disposable paper I
bags. Shall the Ordinance be approved?
Yes/For
o No/Against O~tJtr vuk~.a~/tfl
Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance
Shall the City enact an ordinance requiring the City Council of the City of Fort Collins to
immediately rezone upon passage of the ordinance a 164.56-acre parcel of real property
formerly home to the Hughes Stadium from the Transition District to the Public Open Lands
District,and requiring the City to acquire the property at fair market value to use said
property for parks, recreation,and open lands,natural areas,and wildlife rescue and
restoration,and further prohibiting the City from de-annexing, ceasing acquisition efforts or I
subsequently rezoning the property without voter approval of a separate initiative referred
to the voters by City Council,and granting legal standing to any registered elector in the
City to seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief in the courts related to City noncompliance
with said ordinance?
Yes/For I
OnJe,voks:~W~?-f~
I
I
REVIEW YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PROPERLY MARKED YOUR CHOICES
Voted ballot must be returned to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 7:00 p.m.on April 6,2021.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
C No/Against
Recent Ballot Question History Page 10 of 10
Page 47
Item 2.
Potential Referendum Charter Changes
Technical change needed
Current language includes some contradictory language between sections 2 and 5 of Article X.
Initiative and Referendum, regarding when an ordinance subject to a referendum is presented to
the Council for reconsideration.
The language in Section 5. Petitions, relates to both initiatives and referendums, and states a
petition is presented to the Council only once it has been certified as sufficient by the City Clerk,
after any amendments or protest proceedings.
Section 2(e) Action by Council, indicates both that:
the presentation to Council of a petition certified as sufficient automatically suspends
the operation of the ordinance in question pending repeal by the Council or final
determination by the electors, and
that the Council shall reconsider the ordinance at the next regular or special meeting of
Council following receipt of the petition by the City Clerk.
That specific requirement in Section 2 for Council to reconsider the ordinance at its next
meeting after receipt of the petition by the Clerk contradicts Section 5 in both:
specifying different events for action on a referendum petition to reach Council, which in
practice occur at different time points, and
indicating in one place that the action can return to the next regular or special meeting
while the other citation requires action to occur at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
As a practical matter, it is not reasonable in all instances to read these two provisions together
and attempt to follow them both, as it would require bringing an ordinance subject to a
referendum petition back to Council at least several days and possibly multiple weeks before it
is known if the petition is sufficient or not. Figure 1 on page 3 of this document demonstrates the
referendum process steps, and where the requirements of both Section 2 and 5 slot in. Figure 2
on page 4 takes a more detailed look at the possible protest process, which could extend the
timeline for certifying a petition up to 40 days beyond the point in time when the petition was
submitted to the clerk, while under Section 2, the ordinance must be reconsidered by Council at
its next regular or special meeting after the petition is submitted, which in most cases will occur
within 1-14 days of submission. The discrepancy in citing the next regular versus the next
regular or special meeting also presents potential logistical challenges.
Fort Collins City Charter Article X:
Section 2. The referendum.
(e) Action by Council. The presentation to Council of a petition certified by the City Clerk as
sufficient for referendum shall automatically suspend the operation of the ordinance in question
pending repeal by Council or final determination by the electors. The Council shall reconsider the
ordinance at the next regular or special meeting of the Council following the receipt of the
petition by the City Clerk. If the ordinance, or that part sought to be repealed, is not repealed,
Page 48
Item 2.
the Council shall refer the same to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular or special
city election scheduled for any other purpose. Alternatively, the Council may call a special
election for that specific purpose.
Section 5. Petitions.
(f) Sufficiency of petition.
(4) Certification and presentation to Council. When and if a petition or amended petition is
deemed sufficient, whether following the sufficiency determination by the City Clerk in the
absence of a protest, or following protest proceedings, the City Clerk shall so certify and present
the certified petition to the Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The City Clerk's
certificate shall then be a final determination as to the sufficiency of the petition.
Page 49
Item 2.
Figure 1 Referendum petition process steps
Passage of Ordinance
by City Council
Notice of Protest filed
by registered voter -
within 10 days of final
adoption
Ordinance goes into
effect -10 days after
final adoption
Petition representatives
submit final form of
petition -within 10 days
after filing notice of
protest
City Clerk approves
form of petition to start
circulation period -no
timing specified
Petition circulated by
petition representatives
-must be filed with
Clerk within 20 days of
approval of form
Submitted petition
examined for sufficiency
by City Clerk -5 working
days allowed
Protest period and any
protest process must be
completed before a
petition can be certified
Clerk certifies petition
as sufficient or
insufficient
Sufficient certified
petition is submitted to
Council at next regularly
scheduled meeting as
required by Sec. 5
Council reconsiders ordinance at next regular or special meeting after receipt by Clerk,
under provisions of Sec. 2 (likely 1-14 calendar days after petition submission to Clerk)
Page 50
Item 2.
Figure 2 Detailed look at potential protest process steps
Page 51
Item 2.
Policy change that may be desired
Another issue with the current referendum language Council may wish to consider is around adjusting
the timing of either the referendum process or when an ordinance is stayed from going into effect to
prevent an ordinance from taking effect and then subsequently being suspended by a successful
referendum effort.
The timelines in the Charter for many steps of the referendum process mirror those found in state
statute for the process as it applies to statutory municipalities or home rule municipalities without their
own provisions. Because Fort Collins has established its own timeframe under Charter for when
ordinances take effect upon adoption, these timelines do not take into account that ordinances subject
to a petition for referendum will go into effect before the referendum process can be completed. This is
not an issue for municipalities following state statute, as statute provides ordinances do not take effect
until 30 days after final passage and publication. The Charter provides ordinances in Fort Collins take
effect 10 days after final passage and publication. There could be potentially significant issues associated
with an ordinance going into effect and then being suspended, pending possible repeal or referral to the
voters.
In the most recent referendum in December of 2022, major issues from this timing were avoided
because although the ordinance that was subject to the referendum did in fact go into effect 10 days
after its adoption, the major action of the ordinance was the implementation of the Land Development
Code, which was set out in the ordinance to take effect several additional weeks after the adoption of
the ordinance. This unusual circumstance helped to avoid the actions of an ordinance going into effect
and being in place for a period of time before being suspended upon the certification of a sufficient
petition.
Page 52
Item 2.
Residency Requirements Charter Provisions
City Manager
Article III. City Manager, Section 1. Appointment, qualifications.
…Prior to appointment, the City Manager need not be a resident of the city, but during his or her tenure
in office the City Manager shall reside within the city.
City Clerk
Article II City Council, Section 12. City Clerk.
With the approval of the Council, the City Manager shall appoint a City Clerk who shall act as Clerk of the
Council and who while so employed shall be a resident of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. …
Service Area Directors, Deputy City Managers, Assistant City Managers
Article IV. General Provisions. Section 3. Residency requirement.
Directors of a city service area or a group of city service areas, deputy city managers, and assistant city
managers shall reside within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area during their tenure in office, but need
not reside within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area prior to their appointment. …
Department Heads
Article IV. General Provisions. Section 3. Residency requirement.
... City department heads may live outside the Urban Growth Area during their tenure in office, but only
if their places of residence are within five miles of the city limits, as measured by a straight line
connecting the parcel of property upon which the residence is situated to the nearest boundary line of
the city. City department heads appointed prior to March 6, 1985, shall not be subject to this residency
requirement.
Page 53
Item 2.
ORGANIZATION CHART
Can reside outside Urban Growth Area,
but within 5 miles of City limits
Reside within the City
Reside within the Fort Collins
Urban Growth Area
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
REVENUE
PURCHASINGCRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS
INFORMATION SERVICES SAFETY, SECURITY & RISK
MANAGEMENT
FINANCIAL PLANNING &
ANALYSIS
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
OPERATION SERVICES
PATROL
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
BUDGET
BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
CITY COUNCIL
FORT COLLINS
RESIDENTS
CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER CHIEF JUDGE
POLICE SERVICES FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES DEPUTY CITY MANAGER BROADBAND ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER UTILITY SERVICES
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUSTAINABILITY
SERVICES
PLANNING,
DEVELOPMENT &
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY GIVE
ACCOUNTING &
TREASURYADMINISTRATION
CULTURAL SERVICES
RECREATION
PARKS
NATURAL AREAS
PDT ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SUSTAINABILITY
ADMINISTRATION
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
ECONOMIC HEALTH
OFFICE
LIGHT & POWER
OPERATIONS
CUSTOMER
CONNECTIONS
WATER
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
COMMUNICATION &
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
TRANSFORT & PARKING
SERVICES
UTILITY STRATEGIC
FINANCE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY &
INCLUSION OFFICE
Page 54
Item 2.
Consideration of Charter Amendments
May 9, 2023 Council Work Session
Page 55
Item 2.
2Council Direction
QUESTIONS:
What questions do
Councilmembers have on
the Charter Amendments
presented?
Are there any Amendments
councilmembers would like
to bring forward in
November 2023?
Page 56
Item 2.
3On the 2023 Ballot
Candidate Races
Mayor
City Councilmember Districts 2, 4 and 6
Poudre School District Board of Education Directors
Charter Ballot Question: Candidate Qualifications
Amends the qualification language to match the State Constitution language.
Ordinance to refer adopted by ordinance on second reading April 18, 2023. Will be on November ballot.
Other Potential Ballot Questions or Issues
Any other Charter amendments the Council may refer
Any sustainable funding ballot issues the Council may refer
Any voter initiatives referred to the ballot
Other ballot questions or issues referred by the County or StatePage 57
Item 2.
4Possible Charter Amendments
Referendum Process Clean-up
Two potential areas of changes to consider (one or both could move forward):
A) Cleaning up contradictory provisions in Article X between Sections 2 and 5 regarding when
an ordinance subject to referendum is presented to Council for reconsideration.
B) Changing timing for when a protested ordinance is stayed to better align with Fort Collins
ordinance effective dates.
Discussed by Election Code Committee as an area for potential changes.
Ordinance Publication Requirements
Removing requirement to publish two times ordinances by title and number in a newspaper of general
circulation in addition to publishing in full on the City’s website.
This has not yet been discussed. With declining subscription rates and reduced newspaper publication
schedules creating challenges with meeting timing requirements, staff is recommending discussion of
removing this requirement while maintaining transparency through existing City channels.
Page 58
Item 2.
5Charter Amendments
Computation of Time Provision
Various timing requirements and deadlines in the Charter create uncertainty due to a lack of general
provision for computation of time.
This has been discussed on occasion as an issue; no specific direction has been given.
Residency Requirements
The Charter currently contains residency requirements for certain positions. Based on position title,
these requirements include living in Fort Collins, living within the Urban Growth Area (known since late
2000 as the Growth Management Area (GMA)), or living within 5 miles of the city limits boundary.
A) Should the Council consider a change to remove most residency requirements from the Charter, staff
recommends keeping the City Manager requirements in the Charter and bringing Code language that
mirrors the Charter requirements for the other positions to ensure no immediate change.
B) If there is not a desire to remove any residency provisions from the Charter, updating references to
the Urban Growth Area to the Growth Management Area would add clarity to the provisions in Article II,
Section 12 and Article IV, Section 3.
Discussed and considered moving residency requirements out of Charter in 2021 and 2022.Page 59
Item 2.
6Council Direction
QUESTIONS:
What questions do
Councilmembers have on
the Charter Amendments
presented?
Are there any Amendments
councilmembers would like
to bring forward in
November 2023?
Page 60
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 11
May 9, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official
Aaron Guin, Assistant City Attorney
Justin Moore, Lead Zoning Inspector
Megan Valliere, Graduate Management Assistant
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Occupancy Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary purpose of this work session item is to receive Council guidance on potential changes to the
City’s occupancy regulations. The work session will include an overview of existing conditions, policy
analysis completed to date, and a summary of community engagement. Key policy topics for this work
session include: (1) the current family definition used in the City’s occupancy regulations; (2) the
maximum number of occupants in a home; and (3) the City’s current extra occupancy process. Staff will
also seek Council direction on a proposed approach to future community engagement on occupancy
regulations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information do Councilmembers need to inform their policy guidance?
2. What feedback do Councilmembers have about the range of occupancy options outlined?
3. What feedback to Councilmembers have about the proposed approach to community engagement
around the occupancy options?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City has had an adopted occupancy ordinance since 1963. The City’s occupancy ordinance limits
occupancy of residential dwellings to a family of any size plus one additional unrelated occupant OR no
more than three unrelated occupants. A dwelling may be designated as an extra occupancy rental through
a development review process outlined in Land Use Code Section 3.8.28 in some zoning districts.
Occupancy regulations apply to all households in the city regardless of housing tenure (rental/ownership).
Page 61
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 11
Active enforcement of the ordinance (also called U+2) began in 2005 when a violation changed to a civil
infraction. Since then, Council has had several in-depth conversations about occupancy and nuisance
regulation as part of the community dialogue about neighborhood livability. Council has also reviewed
regular evaluations of the occupancy ordinance and its impacts. A list of relevant Council work sessions
and hearings is included as an Attachment for reference.
In December 2020, the Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee expressed a range of opinions and concerns
about the City’s occupancy ordinance. Many of these concerns were reflected in the City’s Housing
Strategic Plan, which was formally ach was formally adopted in March 2021 about three months after the
Committee’s December 2020 discussion. Specifically, the Housing Strategic Plan identifies challenges
related to the existing occupancy ordinance limiting housing choice and posing potential challenges related
to fair housing compliance. Additional challenges with the current policy include underutilization of the
City's existing housing stock and the family definition no longer reflecting the demographic makeup of
many households in the community. All Committee members supported further exploration of potential
revisions to the occupancy ordinance. The Council discussed occupancy once again in October of 2021
during a work session in which Councilmembers expressed support for community engagement related to
rental housing strategies (licensing/registration), revisions to the occupancy ordinance, and small landlord
incentives.
Council’s most recent discussion about occupancy regulations occurred at the August 23, 2022, work
session. At that time, Council engaged in a robust discussion regarding the changing demographics around
occupancy and whether current regulations should be adjusted. Some Councilmembers strongly
advocated keeping the occupancy ordinance as it is, or with minor adjustments. Others supported broader
changes to the current occupancy ordinance.
Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis
Shifting Demographics of Nonconforming Households. Root Policy Research conducted an analysis of
occupancy data in 2021. Microdata at the household level was not available only for households within
Fort Collins City limits, so this analysis includes the geographic entirety of For t Collins as well as
unincorporated parts of the County and small communities outside Fort Collins (including Bellvue,
Wellington, and Timnath). While the geographic area of analysis extends beyond City limits, the key
findings of the data are informative for understanding existing occupancy conditions.
Findings regarding household size indicate that almost half of all households (47%) are married-couple
family households. Nonconforming households (i.e., those in violation of occupancy regulations) are more
likely to be non-family households (68%); however, 438 households (which constituted 23% of the
nonconforming household sample) do include a family unit living in the household:
Page 62
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 11
In terms of homeownership and occupancy violations, the analysis finds that the majority of nonconforming
households are renter-occupied, though 26% of households in violation of the occupancy ordinance are
owner-occupied.
Additionally, the Root memo discusses demographics of non-confirming households. Occupancy
regulations impact low-income households disproportionately, but occupancy is not solely a low-income
issue. Nonconforming households are more likely to have incomes below $50,000 than all households, but
a sizeable percentage (43%) of nonconforming households still have incomes over $75,000 per year.
Nonconforming households are also slightly more racially and ethnically diverse than households overall.
The City has partnered with Corona Insights in 2005, 2009, and 2019 to evaluate the impacts of the
occupancy ordinance.
Page 63
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 11
Compared to the previous survey in 2005, the 2018 study reported a dramatic shift in the demographics
of households in violation of occupancy regulations. 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. Between 2005-2018, a price escalation of 78% for rent
payments paired with low rental vacancy rates under 5% is likely resulting in “doubling up” to afford housing
for a broad range of household configurations.
2005 2018
Total (est.) households in violation 1,238 1,234
Percentage college age 71% 47%
Demographics Key Findings:
Estimates indicate that although less than 1% of Fort Collins households are in violation of U+2,
households in violation are increasingly likely to include both individuals and families.
The majority of nonconforming households had a size of four (4) (68%) or five (5) (19%) adults.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of nonconforming households include a family unit living in the household.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of nonconforming households are owner-occupied.
Over half (54%) of nonconforming households live in single unit detached homes, with the rest in
various types of attached dwelling units.
Housing units with three (3) or more bedrooms tend to be underutilized by conforming households,
while nonconforming households average one (1) person per bedroom.
Housing Stock: In addition to information about how households are organized, data about the size and
number of bedrooms in the city’s current housing stock is an important consideration for occupancy
regulations, particularly in the context of efficient use of existing housing. City demographic estimates from
2021 indicate that Fort Collins’ population is about 172,000 people. Census microdata estimates that the
City’s housing stock contains approximately 186,718 bedrooms. About 70% of housing units (45,000 units)
in Fort Collins have three or fewer bedrooms. About 30% of housing units (19,200 units) have four or more
bedrooms. Single-unit detached homes tend to have the most bedrooms, with 3.5 bedrooms on average.
Nearly 70% of all bedrooms in Fort Collins are in single-unit detached houses.
Units Total Bedrooms Average
Bedrooms per Unit
Structure Type Number Percent Number Percent
Single-Unit Detached 36,674 57% 128,506 69% 3.5
Single-Unit Attached 5,129 8% 13,496 7% 2.6
Duplex 1,381 2% 3,091 2% 2.2
3-4 Units 3,445 5% 6,897 4% 2.0
5-9 Units 4,751 7% 9,773 5% 2.1
10-19 Units 4,558 7% 8.519 5% 1.9
20-49 Units 3,237 5% 5,436 3% 1.7
Page 64
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 11
Units Total Bedrooms Average Bedrooms
per Unit
Structure Type Number Percent Number Percent
50+ Units 3,613 6% 7,236 4% 2.0
Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,424 2% 3,683 2% 2.6
Other 50 0% 81 0% 1.6
Total 64,262 100% 186,718 100% 2.9
Note: Units in Structure and total number of bedrooms reflect data for the City of Fort Collins; bedrooms by units in structu re and
average number of bedrooms per unit applied from IPUMS analysis of greater Fort Collins area.
Source: 2020 5-year ACS, IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research
Housing Stock Key Findings:
Fort Collins’ population in 2021 was estimated to be about 172,000 people, and in 2020 (the year the
above data on bedrooms was compiled) the population was estimated to be about 169,000. In Fort
Collins in 2020, there were an estimated total of 186,718 bedrooms in 64,262 units.
o With the City’s population estimated to be between 169,000-172,000 residents in 2020-2021, there
are roughly between 14,718 and 17,718 more bedrooms in the City than there are residents.
o These figures demonstrate a noteworthy underutilization of the City’s existing housing stock.
Single unit houses (attached and detached) account for 65% of units and 76% of bedrooms.
On average, single-unit houses have 3.4 bedrooms compared to multi-unit homes.
o Fifty-five percent (55%) are 1 to 3 bedrooms, 32% are 4 bedrooms, and 13% are 5 or more
bedrooms.
Occupancy cases: Currently, enforcement of the occupancy ordinance is managed with a complaint-based
system that investigates reports of suspected over-occupancy. The complaints are typically based on
parking, noise, or rubbish issues. In the last several years, cases have ranged from 73 to just over 200
annually. Typically, 30-40% of complaints are sustained, and the balance is unfounded or unproven.
Although there are clusters of complaints close to campus, cases are geographically distributed throughout
the city.
Compliance data from the past five years indicates a steady downward trend in the number of complaints
year over year, with the percentage of substantiated complaints ranging from a low of 29% in 2022 to a
high of 40% in 2021. The number of citations resulting from failure to come into compliance after a violation
has also declined in recent years. Most occupancy violations are successfully resolved through voluntary
compliance.
Year # Cases # Violations # Citations
2022 73 21 (29%) 0 – all resolved through
voluntary compliance
2021 97 39 (40%) 5 over occupancy
3 not submitting occupancy
disclosure
Page 65
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 11
Year # Cases # Violations # Citations
2020 126 44 (35%) 9 over occupancy
3 not submitting occupancy
disclosure
2019 162 57 (35%) 6 over occupancy
15 not submitting occupancy
disclosure
2018 209 80 (38%) 16 over occupancy
6 not submitting occupancy
disclosure
An occupancy disclosure form is required to be signed at the time of lease or sale of any property within the City of Fort Co llins.
Disclosure forms ensure that homeowners and tenants who buy or lease properties are aware of the occupancy ordinance and
its provisions. In the table above, citations for failure to disclose refer to circumstances in which an occupancy disclosure for m
was not provided to a home buyer or tenant and cannot be produced for the City upon request.
Peer Cities Research: In partnership with Root Policy Research, staff evaluated occupancy definitions and
regulations for more than 40 cities, 22 of which are in Colorado. The peer cities research investigated the
year regulations were adopted, the maximum number of unrelated adults allowed in a single dwelling unit,
the codified definition of a family or household, whether there was a limitation based upon square footage
or number of bedrooms, and parking requirements.
Regulatory methods and resulting recommendations varied by peer city. University-anchored communities
often regulate occupancy based on familial relatedness in similar ways to Fort Collins. Other common
approaches to regulating occupancy included regulating based on number of bedrooms or square footage
or regulating based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness.
Some states such as Iowa and Oregon have passed prohibitions on conditioning occupancy regulations
on familial relatedness due to concerns about violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act and other federal
legislation. The Colorado General Assembly’s ongoing conversations about a similar prohibition indicate
that removing the family definition may be a best practice for the sustainability and continuity of municipal
occupancy regulations.
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.
Eight peer cities use the term “family” in their code, four 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 to up to 4 spaces per unit (2 enclosed and 2 open).
Most required 2 parking spaces per unit.
Seventeen Colorado cities use the term “family” in their code and five use “household”.
Community Engagement: At the direction of City Council, staff has conducted several community
engagement activities focused on rental housing strategies and occupancy with a broad range of impacted
groups over the last two years. During development of the HSP in 2020, extensive community engagement
continued to highlight a need to explore rental registration/licensing and occupancy ordinance revisions.
Page 66
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 11
Since then, staff has built on the HSP community dialogue by engaging with a range of community
members to ensure that multiple perspectives are included in the current exploration of rental housing
strategies.
Group Engagement Activities Conducted
Renters, neighborhood
groups, HOAs
Housing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021
Landlords, realtors,
property managers, renters
Presentation to Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association, Feb. 2022
Presentation to Boards of Realtors, Feb. 2022
Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022
Rental Housing Task Force
City Departments Convening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core Team
Conversations with IT, Building Services, Communications and Public
Involvement Office, City Attorney’s Office
Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee Discussion, Dec. 2020
Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021 and August 2022
These engagement activities have been supplemented by individual and small-group conversations with
interested community members, housing industry professionals, advocates, and others who requested to
meet with the project team.
Community Engagement Findings
The Housing Strategic Plan engagement process did not result in clear consensus regarding the path
forward for the City’s occupancy ordinances or any recommended alterations to the current policy. Some
participants supported repealing or modifying the occupancy ordinance to potentially benefit people of all
ages living on single incomes and to “free up” additional homes for rental or purchase. Others credited the
occupancy ordinance with positively impacting their neighborhoods and controlling nuisance issues.
Many concerns that respondents reported specifically referred to the definition of a “family” used in the
current occupancy ordinance, 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 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 conditioning occupancy limitations on familial
relationships.
The Rental Industry and Community questionnaires provided additional insight into the range of
perspectives on occupancy limitations. Responses to the Rental Industry Questionnaire indicated that
there was support for increasing the current occupancy limitations depending on the suitability/size of the
property. The Community Questionnaire indicated that most respondents were in favor of changing the
occupancy ordinance in some way (69%). Overall, there was support for allowing extra occupancy citywide
(62%), making the extra occupancy rental process easier (59%), having occupancy match the number of
bedrooms in a house (51%), and increasing occupancy limits to more than three unrelated people (56%).
However, people who identified themselves as homeowners who were not part of the rental industry
(landlord, real estate, etc.) disagreed with all potential policy options and were split evenly regarding
nuisance.
Task Force Recommendations
The following recommendations were approved by a vote of 16 in favor and one opposed. The primary
recommendation was to change the City’s occupancy ordinance. If the occupancy ordinance is not
changed, the Task Force recommended adjustments to the extra occupancy process.
Page 67
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 11
Regulate by number of bedrooms: The Task Force recommends the definition of family be removed
from occupancy regulations. Instead, the Task Force recommends that the current occupancy code be
replaced with one that is based on the number of bedrooms to utilize the City’s existing home inventory
more fully; OR
Make extra occupancy easier: The Task Force recommends considering the following as a new
occupancy code is established:
o Removing the U+2 policy from zoning law and enforce occupancy regulations through
administrative processes;
o Making it easier for property owners to obtain exemptions to occupancy regulations and increasing
the regions of the city where extra-occupancy permits are allowed;
o Requiring properties with extra occupancy designations to renew permits every five years; and
o Removing extra occupancy designations when property ownership changes and/or when a
property violates public nuisance ordinances.
Policy Considerations – Potential Changes to Occupancy Regulations
Staff has outlined several policy considerations for Council discussion based on existing conditions data,
research completed to date, and community input that reflects a wide diversity of perspectives around
rental housing and occupancy regulations. These policy considerations have been organized into three
topics, each of which constitutes a distinct decision point and requires further Council guidance.
Current Policy Scenarios
The current code allows a family of any size plus one additional unrelated occupant OR no more than three
unrelated occupants to occupy a single dwelling unit. A house may be designated as an extra occupancy
rental house through a development review process.
Examples of both allowable and unallowable occupancy configurations under the current policy include:
Allowable scenarios: Unallowable scenarios:
A family with both adult children and
grandparents living in the home, plus a family
friend.
Three siblings, plus an additional unrelated
roommate.
Two couples, but only when there is a familial
relationship between one person from each
separate couple, such as two siblings and their
respective partners.
Three unrelated roommates.
Four unrelated roommates.
Two married couples (when there is no familial
relationship between one person from each
separate couple, such as two siblings and their
respective spouses).
Two single parents and each of their children.
A pair of two siblings, plus two additional
unrelated roommates.
Topic 1: Occupancy Definitions. The current ordinance conditions occupancy regulations on familial
relatedness. In the current code, the definition of family is: any number of persons who are all related by
blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live
together as a single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities.”
Options for Council to consider regarding the current “family” definition include:
1. Keep the current definition of “family” in Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.2. This option would leave
occupancy regulations based on familial relatedness intact.
2. Regulate occupancy based on the number of adults and their dependents; remove the definition of
family/relationship from Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.2. This option would change how occupancy is
Page 68
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 11
regulated and enforced. If Council were to regulate occupancy based on a number of adults and
their dependents, the code would require a clear and enforceable definition of “dependents.”
Topic 2: Maximum Number of Occupants. Should Council decide to move forward with removing the family
definition from the current code, Council will need to determine a permitted maximum number of adults
and their dependents that will be authorized to occupy a single dwelling unit. Options to consider include:
1. Three adults and their dependents
2. Four adults and their dependents
3. _____ adults and their dependents
The current code defines group homes as those dwelling units with eight or more occupants, so staff
recommends that Council select a number that does not exceed seven should they decide to move forward
with regulation based upon adults and their dependents.
Additional items for Council to consider related to Topics 1 and 2 include:
Removing the definition of “family” from the code and replacing it with adults and their dependents may
put multigenerational households at risk of violating the occupancy ordinance. Currently, a family of
any size plus one additional occupant may occupy a single dwelling unit. Shifting to adults and their
dependents as the regulatory baseline may, depending on the number of adults and their dependents
that are authorized to occupy a single dwelling unit, remove protections for families with adult children
or other immediate/extended family members who do not meet the definition of a “dependent.”
Many neighborhood impacts are being mitigated through current nuisance codes and educational
programming. The recently enacted Public Nuisance Ordinance is also another enforcement tool. What
if any, additional neighborhood impacts should be considered?
Council could choose to regulate the number of adults by the number of bedrooms in a unit. Like the
petition language below.
The State’s More Housing Now bill (SB23-213) contains a provision that, if passed, will prohibit local
governments from conditioning occupancy regulations on familial relatedness. As a result, the City may
need to come into compliance with state law requiring the removal of the current “family” definition
should that portion of SB23-213 pass in its current form. Staff will continue to monitor this legislation
for potential impacts to the City’s occupancy regulations.
A letter of intent to petition has been submitted to the Clerk ’s Office that would ask Fort Collins voters
to remove the family definition in favor of occupancy regulation by number of bedrooms and bedroom
size. Should the petition result in a ballot question that passes in November 2023, resulting changes
would include:
o Family definition eliminated.
o Maximum occupancy allowed per dwelling unit in single-family, two-family, or multi-family dwelling
shall not exceed: (1) one person per bedroom of 99 square feet or less, and (2) two persons per
bedroom 100 square feet or greater.
This proposed change alone, without additional changes to the extra occupancy process, may
impact multi-generational families and individuals living in comparatively smaller dwelling units
such as mobile homes. It also does not specify a maximum capacity past which no additional
occupants will be allowed.
Staff will continue to monitor the petition process for future impacts to the City’s occupancy
regulations.
Page 69
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 11
Topic 3: Extra Occupancy Process. In addition to potential changes related to the family definition and
corresponding determinations related to the number of adults and their dependents that should be
permitted to occupy a single dwelling unit, staff asked the community for input related t o the extra
occupancy process. Many community members indicated a desire to see extra occupancy allowed in
additional areas around the City and for the process of obtaining an extra occupancy permit to be easier.
Others, primarily non-industry homeowners, opposed these revisions to the current policy. The table below
demonstrates how Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code currently regulates extra occupancy requirements
and review types by zone district.
Options for Council to consider related to the extra occupancy process include:
1. Maintain the extra occupancy process as it currently exists.
2. Remove the extra occupancy process from the Land Use Code. As codified in the current LUC, extra
occupancy approval requires either basic development review or a Type 1 hearing depending on the
zone district and the number of occupants. Instead, Council could direct staff to create an administrative
permit process for extra occupancy.
a. As a land use approval, the current process grants extra occupancy to the property rather than the
property owner. An administrative permit could be granted to the property owner rather than the
property. Thus, allowing the City to revoke the permit for allowing ongoing nuisance activities.
b. An administrative process could have a fee recovery for the staff time involved in the approval,
which would be less time intensive than the Development Review process for staff and less costly
for the applicant.
3. Allow extra occupancy in more places or citywide, potentially with streamlined requirements for
approval.
4. Regulate the number of extra occupants based on number of bedrooms rather than square footage.
The Building Code provides the following minimum requirements for a room to be considered a
bedroom:
a. A floor area of not less than 70 square feet.
b. Not less than 7 feet in any horizontal dimension.
c. Provided an emergency escape and rescue opening.
d. Provided smoke alarms.
e. Other requirements related to lighting, ventilation, etc.
Page 70
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 11
These requirements for bedrooms from the Building Code would constitute the standard of review
for extra occupancy based on number of bedrooms should Council decide to move forward with
this option.
5. Council could direct staff to require rental inspections before issuing extra occupancy permits. If Council
is interested in transitioning to an administrative process, these inspections could ensure minimum life,
health, and safety standards are met (in addition to property-based requirements such as size, parking,
number of bedrooms, etc.) prior to issuing extra occupancy permits.
6. Reduce the number of parking spots required for extra occupancy from .75 to .5 (excluding tandem
spots).
Potential Example: (Illustrative purposes only)
This table illustrates how the number of bedrooms could be associated with the number of adults in the
unit for extra occupancy permits. One column keeps a similar number of adults a s U+2 – three (3) adults
plus their dependents. The second column uses the assumption of a higher occupancy limit of four (4)
adults plus dependents.
Bedrooms # of adults, if 3 +
dependents
# of adults, if 4 +
dependents
1 - 2 bedrooms 3 4
3 bedrooms 4 5
4 bedrooms 5 6
5 bedrooms 6 7
6 bedrooms 7
NEXT STEPS
Engagement approach will be finalized pending Council direction.
Proposed timeline:
Summer 2023 – Neighborhoods, Nonprofit partners, Rental Industry, etc.
Fall 2023 – Student/CSU and tenant community engagement.
Winter 2023 – Council Action
ATTACHMENTS
1. Previous Council Action on Occupancy Regulation Summary
2. Community Engagement Summary
3. Corona Insights Study 2019
4. Root Policy Research – Peer Communities Memo
5. Root Policy Research – Occupancy Code Data Analysis
6. Root Policy Research – Bedroom Capacity Memo
7. Root Policy Research – Investor Market Memo
8. Household Definitions and Restrictions
9. Myler Capstone Community Questionnaire
10. Presentation
Page 71
Item 3.
•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
Previous Council Actions
Page 72
Item 3.
1
Attachment – Engagement Summary
Community Engagement Overview
Fort Collins has had a long-standing community dialogue about the best way(s) to ensure safe,
healthy housing for renters, efficiently use existing housing stock, and address nuisance issues.
During development of the HSP in 2020, extensive community engagement continued to
highlight a need to explore rental registration/licensing and occupancy ordinance revisions. Over
the last year, staff has built on the HSP community dialogue by engaging with a range of
community members to ensure that multiple perspectives are included in the current exploration
of rental housing strategies.
Groups Engaged:
Group Engagement Activities Conducted
Renters, neighborhood groups,
HOAs Housing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021
Community Questionnaire, Aug. 2022
Pop-up Engagement, Aug. 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
Landlords, realtors, property
managers Presentation to Northern CO Rental Housing Association,
Feb. 2022
Presentation to Board of Realtors, Feb. 2022
Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
City Departments Convening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core Team
Conversations with IT, Building Services, Communications
and Public Involvement Office, City Attorney’s Office
Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee discussion, Dec. 2020
Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021
Summary of Key Engagement Activities
Rental Industry Questionnaire, February/March 2022
This online questionnaire was primarily focused on soliciting feedback from rental owners,
property managers, and landlords to better understand how potential rental programs (e.g.,
registry and occupancy regulations) might impact the industry, and to explore specific elements
of program design. Assessor’s data was used to identify and mail flyers to nearly 9,000 likely
owners of rental property within Fort Collins to ensure wide awareness of the questionnaire. A
total of 1,912 people responded to the questionnaire, 68% of whom identified themselves as
rental owners, managers, or landlords. 20% of respondents were residents who live or work in
Fort Collins but do not own or manage rental property.
Rental Housing Task Force, March-August 2022
In early 2022, the City convened a Task Force to support deeper exploration of the three HSP
strategies to work collaboratively to propose modifications to current rental housing policy for
consideration by City staff, the broader public, and City Council. A total of 76 people applied for
Page 73
Item 3.
2
20 spots, and applications were reviewed by a committee of City staff. The top scoring
applications for landlord/property managers, renters, and others were invited to participate. Staff
consulted with the City Attorney’s Office on the criteria utilized for selection and the
information shared with the selection team. Demographic information was collected from
applicants but was not used in the selection process; it was considered in aggregate for the entire
application pool to evaluate the task force’s representativeness.
A panel of applicants was selected to represent a diversity of perspectives, including rental
housing tenants, property owners/landlords and property managers, and people who fit neither
category. Fort Collins residents Jack Armstrong, Jade Beaty, Julia Berger, Lisa Cunningham,
Brannan Davis, Adam Eggleston, Emily Gallichotte, Carrie Gillis, Cecilia Granby, Sean Haines,
Nicole Hanson, Mike Herder, Torey Lenoch, Robert Long, Lindsay Mason, Amy Pezzani, Jose
Luis Ramos, Carolyn J. Rasley, and Isabella Zapata served as Task Force members for the
duration of ten meetings. One task force member withdrew from participation due to other
commitments. The total composition of the group was 19 members, and all meetings were
facilitated by a professional third-party facilitator.
The task force members shared multiple perspectives and affiliations. They are listed below:
Renter Industry Representative Other
Currently renting Realtor Non-profit executive
Single parent Large landlord Immigrant to U.S.
Experienced homelessness Small landlord HOA Board representative
Affordable housing tenant Real estate appraiser Fifth generation Fort Collins
resident
Seeking home ownership Contractor CSU Off-Campus Life
Parent of renters Property Manager
Former CSU student Former Housing Authority
employee
The Task Force met a total of ten times between March 30 and August 3, 2022. The 19 Task
Force members attended an average of 8.5 meetings each. Each meeting had an average of 16
Task Force members present. Task Force members completed homework assignments between
meetings to ensure they were well informed. Early meetings were primarily informational as the
Task Force members received presentations from staff as well as a panel including Paul
Anderson, Lloyd Walker, David Roy, and Benton Roesler to explore opinions about the City’s
U+2 Policy.
Community Questionnaire, August 2022
This questionnaire sought opinions about how much the City’s approach to rental housing
regulation and occupancy should change, if at all. The questionnaire also asked respondents their
opinions about a range of potential next steps for rental registration/licensing and occupancy
ordinance revisions. Additional “pop-up” engagement utilizing the Neighborhood Services
lemonade stand was conducted to increase awareness of the community questionnaire and
encourage participation; particularly in areas where changes to occupancy and extra occupancy
Page 74
Item 3.
3
have been raised as a concern. A total of 1,739 responded to the questionnaire: 64% indicated
that they owned their home, 31% of respondents indicated that they rented their home, 19% of
respondents were landlords. The charts below show respondents by Council District and housing
tenure (rent/own):
Council District Total Owners %Owners Renters %Renters
District 1 226 138 61% 82 36%
District 2 223 150 67% 62 27%
District 3 143 94 65% 46 32%
District 4 227 154 68% 63 28%
District 5 373 249 67% 113 30%
District 6 264 144 55% 111 42%
Page 75
Item 3.
Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Market Study
Page 76
Item 3.
Contents
2Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 28
Section 1: Rental Market Trends 33
Section 2: Ordinance Violators 88
Section 3: Short-Term Rentals 126
Section 4: Neighborhood Quality 150
Appendix 170
Page 77
Item 3.
Executive SummaryPage 78
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2005 to 2010
Market forces 10 to 15 years ago conspired against the rental market.
In 2007, the City began actively enforcing the Occupancy Ordinance, which was expected to create new
rental demand as larger households disbanded to form a higher number of smaller households. This
occurred at a time when the city’s rental market was healthy, with a slight surplus of vacant rental units, so the
expectation of resulting decreases in vacancy rates was not of major concern.
However, in December of 2007, the Great Recession began, resulting in a major slowdown of new home
construction. The population of Fort Collins continued to grow, creating more demand for housing than the
construction market could meet.
In addition, several market forces specifically increased demand in the rental market. In addition to the
ordinance enforcement and general population growth, the economy likely created new renters due to
foreclosures, and the new Condo Defects Law likely stunted the development of condominiums that are a
traditional path from renting to home ownership. The result was a steep decline in rental vacancy rates that
created a very challenging market for renters in the 2010 to 2012 time frame, as shown on the following page.
We conclude that the ordinance was one of several forces that led to the decrease in vacancy rates during this
period, which would have contributed to increasing rental prices.
4Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 79
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Snapshot –2005 to
2012
5Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2005 to 2007 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
5.4%
Excess Rental Units
Above Ideal Vacancies
+100 units
1,200 violator
households
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Rental Unit Shortage
Below Ideal Vacancies
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
Intervening Events
The Great Recession
•Slowdown in construction
•Increased rental demand due to
foreclosures, lack of supply, financial issues
•“Lost renters” due to lower household
formation or other issues
Ordinance Enforcement
Increased rental demand as households reformed
Population Growth
Increased natural rental demand
3.9 percent per year rental cost increases
Page 80
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2010 to 2018
A slow recovery over the past several years
As the recession ended, Fort Collins’ rental market was more or less gridlocked, with a very low vacancy rate.
In the light of this supply shortage, construction surged. However, the population was still growing and
prices were on the rise quickly, creating new challenges. While construction began making headway in
moving the market back toward a healthy level, it barely outpaced increased demand. In addition, pent -up
demand from the recession was released, bringing new households into the market.
Likely a result of housing affordability and other issues, home ownership rates continued to drop, albeit at a
slower rate than they had in the recession. Additionally, a new market phenomenon arrived on the scene to
siphon off the rental housing supply. Short-term rentals are a relatively small force, but nonetheless diverted
some of the housing supply from long-term rentals to short-term rentals.
In response to this, some households began doubling up for different reasons than we saw in the recession.
The result is more households that violate the occupancy ordinance, but they are not so much the college
students who used to represent that population. A majority are now non-students, often with children.
The result has been a slow movement toward a healthy rental market, but not yet enough. The market has
improved, but remains unbalanced in favor of landlords and against tenants, as shown on the following page.
6Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 81
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Snapshot –2010 to
2017
7Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Excess Rental Units
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
2015 to 2017 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
2.4%
Excess Rental Units
-800 units
1,200 violator
households
Intervening Events
Construction Boom
Tripling of home construction rates
Affordability
Slower road to home ownership,
more ordinance violators
Population Growth
Continued population growth
Short-Term Rentals
New demands on housing stock (though
small compared to other forces)
4.2 percent per year rental cost increases
Ordinance
Compliance continued to increase rental demand and
contribute to low vacancy rates (and thus cost increases)
Page 82
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
The population has grown faster than the housing supply
8Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
A comparison of population growth
to housing supply growth shows that
Fort Collins is an outlier compared to
a number of similar communities
around the United States. Fort
Collins’ population has grown faster
than the change in housing supply,
with nearly 7 new people joining the
population for each new housing unit
being built. This is primarily due to
the shortfall of new supply in the 2005
to 2010 time period, which is still
affecting the market today.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North
Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North
Carolina
Winston-Salem, North …
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
Page 83
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins has lower vacancy rates than other comparable markets in
Colorado*
9Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
While other standalone Colorado metro areas
faced many of the same market forces as Fort
Collins, they were generally starting at a
higher vacancy rate, so the declines in vacancy
rates moved them from an unhealthy (high)
vacancy rate to a generally healthy vacancy
rate. In contrast, these forces pushed Fort
Collins from a generally healthy vacancy rate
to an unhealthy (low) vacancy rate. The Fort
Collins market has been slowly moving back
to a healthy level since 2011, but is still a
challenging market for renters.
* Yearly data were not available for the fourth
standalone metro area of Grand JunctionPage 84
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins’ rental costs have increased faster than other comparable markets
in Colorado*
10Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of
2005 RentIn the face of low vacancy rates, market
competition will push prices higher. While
this has driven prices upward in other
Colorado markets as well (with the exception
of Grand Junction), the impact has been
largest for Fort Collins.
(The graph at right is a rental cost index that
controls for base differences in rent. It
measures each metro area at a 2005 value of
100.) Rents in Fort Collins are 78 percent
higher in 2017 than they were in 2005.
Page 85
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Dynamics
Rental households are getting larger, and owner occupancy is declining
11Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people. This is a notable increase in size, and means that nearly 8,000 additional
people are living in rental units solely due to this increase. The result is that rental properties are more
densely occupied now than they have been in the past.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in
past years would have owned their homes. This places more demand on the rental market.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
Households Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
Page 86
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Occupancy Ordinance Compliance
The number of households not in compliance with the Occupancy Ordinance
has increased
12Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Three studies have been conducted over the past 15
years to estimate the number of households that are
violating the occupancy ordinance. Prior to active
enforcement of the ordinance, the number was
estimated at slightly more than 1,200. The figure
declined by nearly 50 percent after enforcement
began, but has since risen back to roughly the
original number.*
However, as described on the following pages, the
types of households that are in violation have
evolved since 2005.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
Page 87
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
College students are no longer the most common type of violator
13Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
In the initial 2005 study, it was estimated that 71
percent of ordinance violators were college students.
In the 2018 study, the proportion has shifted
dramatically. Only 47 percent of violators are now
estimated to be college students, with 53 percent
estimated to be non-students.
This is a notable change because it implies that
affordability may be an issue among non-student
populations that is leading to larger households.
45%Undergraduate Students
2% Graduate Students
42%Adult non-students
10 % Pre-K to 12th grade students*
* These are minor school-age children of other segments.
Page 88
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households are mobile, generally unrelated, and live in houses
14Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Violator households tend to either form quickly or
be mobile, as nearly half moved into their home
within the past year. This mobility may increase the
likelihood of conflict if they are new to a
neighborhood.
Of particular note is the age profile. While 40
percent are 18-21 year old adults, 47 percent are
older, and 13 percent are children. This influx of
adults with children represents a change in the
profile over time.
47%have moved into their home in the past 12
months
40%are age 18 to 21
73%live in single-family homes or duplexes
25%of households have children
13%are children
61%have no related people (all roommates)
Page 89
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households tend to have numerous vehicles
15Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
When residents were surveyed about the prevalence
of eight different neighborhood issues, the most
commonly seen issue was inappropriate parking of
vehicles. Violator households are vulnerable to this
issue because they tend to have numerous vehicles.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
Page 90
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Support outweighs opposition, though many are neutral
16Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The ordinance is well known, with 89 percent of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards
it, but more residents support the ordinance (42 percent) than oppose it (24 percent). The biggest split
is that homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while
homes without a student have the opposite stance.
* -Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42%38%44%43%45%37%53%30%19%47%43%28%
Neutral 31%34%26%31%29%34%25%38%31%31%29%40%
Oppose 24%26%25%23%22%27%19%29%44%19%24%27%
No opinion 3%3%4%3%4%3%3%4%7%2%3%5%
Page 91
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Most residents don’t see the ordinance impacting their neighborhood and are
split on enforcement
.
17Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Nearly 4 in 5 residents don’t believe that the
ordinance has an impact on their neighborhood.
Among those who do see an impact, it’s more positive
than negative. The one exception is that residents in
homes that contain college students are more likely to
see a negative impact than a positive impact (17
percent negative versus 11 percent positive).
Residents generally prefer the current level of
enforcement over more/less strict enforcement.
Again, the exception is residents in homes with
college students, who strongly prefer less strict
enforcement (8 percent more strict, 34 percent less
strict.
78%don’t believe that ordinance has an impact
on their neighborhood.
•15% see a positive impact
•8% see a negative impact
38%like the current level of enforcement
•17% want more strict enforcement
•18% want less strict enforcement
•28% have no opinion
Page 92
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) are a growing market
18Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
STRs have consistently grown in number over the past three years. The figures below represent the
number of listed units each month for the time period for which data were available at the time of this
report.
Revenues for proprietors have risen from an estimated $500,000 citywide in 2014 (annualized estimate)
to roughly $9.6 million citywide in 2018 (annualized estimate).
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
Page 93
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) partially cannibalize units from the rental supply
19Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
In a tight rental housing market, a concern might arise that STRs
are removing long-term rentals from the market. While this is
true to some extent, not all STRs do so. Approximately 40
percent of STRs are units that would not otherwise be on the
market if they weren’t STRs. (For example, they might be a
spare bedroom that would just be used as a spare bedroom.)
Another 30 percent of STRs are estimated to be directly
converted from long-term rentals, and the remaining 30 percent
are removed from the housing market, but it cannot be
determined if they would have been rental units or owned units.
As such, STRs to date do negatively impact rental vacancy rates,
but they are currently a smaller force than other market forces.
Pulled Directly
From Long-
Term Rental
Market
30%
Pulled From
Housing
Market, Either
Rental or
Ownership
30%
Would Not Be
In the Rental
Market If Not
Short-Term
Rental
40%
Page 94
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of STR Licensing Rules
Support generally outweighs opposition, though many aren’t aware of the rules
20Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Only 31 percent of residents were aware of STR
licensing rules. However, when asked about
support or opposition, residents were more likely
to support the current rules than oppose them. 41%support current STR rules
39%have no opinion
19%oppose current STR rules
Page 95
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality -Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
21Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Four measures of neighborhood quality were tested, and all received positive ratings. Peace and quiet,
lawn maintenance, and home maintenance received particularly high ratings, while sense of community
was lower (but still positive). The neighborhood west of campus is rated lower by its residents than
other parts of the city, and renters tend to rate their neighborhood lower than owners.
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Page 96
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower
neighborhood quality ratings
22Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Even within neighborhoods, proximity to suspected ordinance violators tends to correlate with lower
ratings on neighborhood quality.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
Page 97
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs in areas where they are not allowed is correlated
with lower neighborhood quality ratings
23Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Overall, there is a negative correlation between perceived neighborhood quality and proximity to STRs.
However, this is an issue only in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Page 98
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues -Citywide
Residents generally observe few problems amongst their neighbors
24Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Among the tested issues, the most common are parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises other
than parties. The latter is reported much more commonly by renters than by owners.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose 0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately 0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Page 99
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Trends in Neighborhood Quality-Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
25Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Neighborhood quality
ratings rose from 2004
through 2008 for single-
family homes, and have
declined since. While this
appears to correlate with the
increases and decreases in
violator households, the
pattern was also reported by
residents who did not live in
proximity to ordinance
violators.
84%81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
Page 100
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with more incidents of
neighborhood issues
26Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Loud noise and inappropriately parked vehicles stand out as issues that seem associated with proximity,
particularly in the area west of campus.
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Page 101
Item 3.
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs is correlated with more incidents of neighborhood
issues
27Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The impact is smaller than that seen for ordinance violators, but nonetheless negative impacts are
reported, particularly in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Page 102
Item 3.
IntroductionPage 103
Item 3.
Introduction: Background
In 2018, the City of Fort Collins retained Corona Insights to conduct an examination of rental market
conditions in Fort Collins, particularly with respect to the City’s occupancy ordinance. The initial research
questions were:
>Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood quality?
Our conclusions are shown on Page 4 and 7 of the Executive Summary.
>Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
Our conclusions are shown on Page 22 and 26 of the Executive Summary.
This report is a followup to two previous studies conducted for the city in 2005 and 2009. The previous
studies contained some common elements to this study, but generally had somewhat different emphases.
>The 2005 study focused primarily (but not exclusively) on estimating the impacts of the ordinance on the rental
market if it were fully enforced, but also included measures of neighborhood quality among single -family home
residents.
>The 2009 study focused primarily on the impacts of the ordinance enforcement on various constituency groups. It
also included a tracking survey of neighborhood quality.
>This 2018 report steps back and takes a larger view of the rental market, updates the tracking survey, and provides
the first examination of the impact of Short -Term Rentals on the market and on neighborhood quality. The 2018
report also expanded the survey to include all households rather than just single -family home residents.
29Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 104
Item 3.
Introduction: Occupancy Ordinance
The occupancy ordinance states that
"Occupancy in a residential dwelling unit (single -family, duplex, and multifamily) is
restricted to:
one family as defined below (Section 5.1.2) and not more than one additional
person;
OR
one adult and their dependents (if any), a second adult and their dependents
(if any), and not more than one additional person.“
The ordinance has existed for many years, but was enforced actively beginning in 2007.
30Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 105
Item 3.
Introduction: Geographical Analysis Areas
Because the occupancy ordinance
has been of particular focus in
areas near the Colorado State
University campus, several
analyses in this report break down
citywide results into three areas, as
shown here.
31Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 106
Item 3.
Introduction: Report Layout
The report addresses housing in terms of overall market trends as well as specific topics. The
layout follows the order below. Each sub-section includes unique key findings.
32Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1. Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Section 2. Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number
Profile of Violators
Investigation Outcomes
Public Sentiment Toward Ordinance
Section 3. Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
Rental Hosts and Properties
Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
Section 4. Neighborhood Quality
Citywide Quality Measures
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Page 107
Item 3.
Section 1: Rental Market TrendsPage 108
Item 3.
34Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Other Colorado Metro Areas
1.1.1 Change in Demand
1.1.2 Change in Supply
1.1.3 Change in Vacancies
1.1.4 Change in Average Rent
Page 109
Item 3.
Key Findings: Colorado Comparisons
While population growth in Fort Collins is higher than most comparable areas, the highest
rates in the city were concentrated pre-ordinance.
The average size of rental households increased over the long term.
The proportion of homes that were renter-occupied increased over the long term.
Housing supply trends in Fort Collins are largely consistent with other Colorado markets
across time periods. The city had a significant decrease in new residential building permits
between 2004-2009 that has since rebounded.
While the entire state has seen a decrease in rental vacancy rates over the last two decades,
Fort Collins has had a significantly lower (in relative and absolute terms) vacancy rate in the
post-ordinance era.
While trends in the cost of rent in Fort Collins were similar to comparable cities pre -
ordinance, the rate of increase has been much higher (in relative and absolute terms) in the
post-ordinance era. Nonetheless, most comparable Colorado cities have seen a steep increase
in rent between 2013-2017.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
35Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 110
Item 3.
36Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.1
Change in Demand
Page 111
Item 3.
Population growth in Fort Collins is fairly consistent with
similar metro areas
37Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Population from State Demographer
Average Population
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 169,179 188,187 202,794 217,593 236,169
Fort Collins 118,195 129,874 138,852 148,360 161,421
Loveland 50,985 58,313 63,942 69,233 74,749
Colorado Springs 359,794 379,203 400,872 430,156 455,163
Grand Junction 45,188 49,417 55,839 61,029 63,677
Greeley 76,804 84,062 89,758 94,571 101,572
Pueblo 140,737 148,286 155,100 160,084 163,532
Population Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 11%19,008 8%14,607 7%14,800 9%18,576 40%66,990
Fort Collins 10%11,679 7%8,978 7%9,508 9%13,061 37%43,226
Loveland 14%7,329 10%5,629 8%5,291 8%5,516 47%23,764
Colorado Springs 5%19,409 6%21,669 7%29,285 6%25,007 27%95,369
Grand Junction 9%4,229 13%6,422 9%5,190 4%2,648 41%18,489
Greeley 9%7,258 7%5,696 5%4,813 7%7,001 32%24,767
Pueblo 5%7,548 5%6,814 3%4,984 2%3,448 16%22,795
Page 112
Item 3.
Fort Collins’ population has converged with Pueblo
38Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Population from State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction
Greeley Pueblo city Loveland city
The last 20 years has seen
Fort Collins’ population
increase by around 51%.
While at the higher end of
these similar metro areas,
this growth is fairly similar
to Grand Junction and
Greely, which have both
seen an increase of 48%
during the same time
period.
Fort Collins’ convergence
with Pueblo is largely the
product of a smaller
increase of only 23% in
the latter.
Page 113
Item 3.
Population growth rate in Fort Collins is consistent with
similar metro areas
39Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Yearly population growth
in Fort Collins is similar
to comparable state
metro areas.
The city’s annual
population growth rate
was the highest between
1998 and 2001, averaging
3.25%. While the last
four years have seen
higher rates, Fort Collins’
annual population
growth rate has not been
above 3% since 2001.
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%Percent Population Change From State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
Page 114
Item 3.
The renter population is growing, and so is the average
number of people living in rented homes
40Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Because Fort Collins is a growing community, we would expect the number of rental households to increase,
along with number of people living in rental households. However, the more interesting analysis is how
rental households are changing within the housing landscape.
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people per household. This is a notable increase in size, and essentially means that
nearly 8,000 additional people are living in rental unit solely due to this increase in household size. There
could be many reasons for this, but affordability is a likely suspect, potentially forcing more roommate
situations or delaying home buying for families.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in past
years would have owned their homes.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
Households Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
Page 115
Item 3.
41Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.2
Change in Supply
Page 116
Item 3.
Growth in housing unit supply has increased significantly
since 2013
42Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
This graph normalizes
housing supply growth
as a percentage of each
city's 2006 value,
allowing for a more
effective comparison.
While housing supply
in Fort Collins was
fairly stagnant between
2005 and 2010 the last
five years has seen a
higher rate of
expansion in housing
units.
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Housing Units as a Percentage of 2006 Value (Three
Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Page 117
Item 3.
Housing development in Fort Collins bottomed out in
2009
43Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The US Census’
Building Permits Survey
shows that the creation
of new housing units in
Fort Collins was in
decline before the 2008
housing crisis and
reached its nadir in
2009.
The increase seen in
overall housing units
after 2013 is mirrored in
the growth of newly
authorized units. 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized in Fort
Collins Metro Area
Total Single Family Units
Page 118
Item 3.
Growth in renter occupied units is consistent with similar
metro areas
44Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Renter Occupied Units as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
All four Colorado metro
areas have seen a steady
increase in renter
occupied units.
The increase in renter
occupied units is coming
from both increases in
housing units and a
decrease in home
ownership rate.
Page 119
Item 3.
45Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.3
Change in Vacancies
Page 120
Item 3.
Colorado Springs and Greeley are converging to Fort
Collins’ high occupancy rate
46Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Housing Units Occupied
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
These Census data, which
combine the rental and
owner housing markets,
show that occupancy rates
in Fort Collins have
historically been higher
than similar metro areas.
More than 95% of all Fort
Collins’ housing units have
been occupied since 2010
Page 121
Item 3.
Renters are making up a higher percentage of occupied
units in Fort Collins
47Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Compared to similar
metro areas in the state,
Fort Collins has had a
high percentage of
renters in occupied units.
The state-wide increase
in renting could be
attributed to the 2008
financial crisis and
increasing costs of home
ownership post-recession
Page 122
Item 3.
Colorado has seen a steep increase in home values over
the last six years
48Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
While median home values
in Fort Collins were largely
stagnant between 2005 and
2011, the next six years
saw about a 50% increase.
While all four metro areas
had significant increases in
home values between 2005
and 2017, Fort Collins
demonstrated the largest
percentage with the
median home value
increasing from $229,700
to $366,500 80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Median Home Value as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Page 123
Item 3.
Sale-to -list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
49Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
101%
102%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Sale-to-List Price for Residential Homes
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Detailed home sale data is
only available after 2011
for Fort Collins.
The last few years have
seen home buyers paying a
higher percentage of list
price.
While the sale-to-list price
for neighborhoods east of
campus appear lower than
others, it is important to
note that this data is based
exclusively on the
“University Park” area.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
Page 124
Item 3.
Sale-to -list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
50Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average monthly home
sales west of campus are
very similar to those in
neighborhoods away from
campus over the last few
years.
Sales in the University Park
area have converged with
average rates in other areas
of Fort Collins over time.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average Monthly Home Sales Per Neighborhood
West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Page 125
Item 3.
Multifamily vacancy rates in Fort Collins are low across
unit types
51Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fort Collins Multifamily Unit Rental Vacancy Rate by Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom All
Rental vacancy rates in
Fort Collins steadily
decreased across all unit
types between 2004 and
2012 and have remained
consistently below 5%
since.
While three bedroom
units experienced
significantly higher
vacancy rates in the mid
2000s, they have
converged to the average
rate in the city.
Page 126
Item 3.
Vacancy rates in Fort Collins follow a similar trend to
comparable metro areas, but are lower in the post-
ordinance era
52Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rates (One Year Average)
Fort Collins/Loveland Average of Four Comparable Markets
The four comparable
metro areas have
demonstrated a similar,
but less extreme, decline
in rental vacancy rates.
Fort Collins has spent
most of the post-
ordinance era having a
significantly lower rental
vacancy rate than similar
Colorado markets,
although appear to be
converging lately.
Page 127
Item 3.
Recent vacancy rates in Fort Collins have been lower
than similar cities
53Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Vacancy Rates -Multi-Family Units
Average Vacancy Rate
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 3%12%7%4%3%
Colorado Springs 5%11%10%6%5%
Grand Junction 5%7%4%9%4%
Greeley 3%10%7%4%3%
Pueblo 5%8%8%10%5%
Average Vacancy Rate Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-IV I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 8.6 -5.1 -3.0 -1.2 -0.7
Colorado Springs 6.3 -0.6 -3.9 -0.8 0.9
Grand Junction 2.1 -3.5 5.0 -4.9 -1.3
Greeley 7.0 -3.0 -3.1 -1.4 -0.5
Pueblo 3.6 -0.4 1.8 -5.2 -0.3
Page 128
Item 3.
Total renter vacancy rates in Fort Collins are very low
54Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining the total rental
vacancy rate (single and
multifamily homes) from
the Census confirms the
trends observed in the
Colorado Department of
Housing data.
Fort Collins has had a
lower rental vacancy rate
than similar markets in the
post-ordinance era. The
decrease between 2008 and
2011 has led to an
extremely tight rental
market with few vacant
rental units.
Page 129
Item 3.
55Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.1.4
Change in Average Rent
Page 130
Item 3.
Across unit types, average rent in Fort Collins has nearly
doubled over the last 20 years
56Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Fort Collins Rent by Multifamily Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom
Rent in Fort Collins is
increasing across all unit
types. Efficiencies and
three bedroom units have
seen the largest
percentage increase over
the last two decades.
2009-2018 saw a 56%
increase in the average
rent of all unit types.
This is significantly
higher than the 18%
increase observed
between 1999-2008.
Page 131
Item 3.
Average rent increased in Fort Collins at a higher rate
than similar metro areas, especially between 2006-2013
57Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Rental Prices -Multi-Family Units
Average Rent
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland $656.90 $733.22 $799.85 $956.93 $1,237.35
Colorado Springs $613.51 $665.32 $700.37 $768.00 $970.91
Grand Junction $465.27 $486.76 $620.62 $626.14 $514.95
Greeley $537.49 $606.97 $630.59 $680.35 $942.25
Pueblo $434.08 $479.29 $513.34 $567.87 $655.00
Rental Price Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V Total Change I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 12%$76.33 9%$66.63 20%$157.08 29%$280.41 88%$580.45
Colorado Springs 8%$51.80 5%$35.05 10%$67.63 26%$202.92 58%$357.40
Grand Junction 5%$21.49 28%$133.86 1%$5.52 -18%-$111.19 11%$49.68
Greeley 13%$69.48 4%$23.62 8%$49.76 38%$261.90 75%$404.76
Pueblo 10%$45.20 7%$34.05 11%$54.54 15%$87.13 51%$220.92
Breaking down the change in average rent across four year segments illustrates how Fort Collins’ rent
compares to similar metro areas in the state. The percentage change from era I to II shows that Fort
Collins followed a similar pattern of steady increase seen across the state. More recently, the change
between IV and V shows most metro areas experiencing a steep increase in rental prices. The main
period where the Fort Collins’ market appears to be unique is the change between III and IV. Here the
rate of change is double that of comparable cities.
Page 132
Item 3.
Average rent in Fort Collins increased at a higher rate
than similar metro areas
58Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Average Rent of Multifamily Units by Market Area
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
While rent in Fort Collins
has always been higher
than comparable metro
areas, the last decade has
seen rent in the city
increase at a faster rate.
All metro areas, except for
Grand Junction, have seen
steep increases in multi-
family unit rent in recent
years.
Page 133
Item 3.
Post 2005 rent has increased in Fort Collins at a higher
rate than similar metro areas
59Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of 2005 Rent
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
Examining average rent
as a percentage of each
city’s 2005 value
confirms the previously
identified pattern.
While recent years have
brought increased rents
across the state, Fort
Collins has experienced
the most significant rise
in rental costs.
Page 134
Item 3.
Calculating total median rent from the Census confirms
the trend
60Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Median Gross Rent by Market Area From Census
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining total median
rent (single and multifamily
homes) from the Census
confirms the trends
observed in the Colorado
Department of Housing
data.
Fort Collins has historically
had higher rental costs
than comparable metro
areas, but has also seen the
largest increase during this
period -68% compared to
an average of 48% for the
three comparable cities.
Page 135
Item 3.
Despite similar population trends, rent in Fort Collins
increased at a higher rate than similar areas post-
ordinance
61Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Population and Multifamily Unit Rent Change Pre and Post-Ordinance
Average Yearly Change in Rent Average Yearly Change in Population
1997-2005 2006-14 Difference 1997-2005 2006-14 Difference
Fort Collins/Loveland 2.76%5.28%2.51%2.70%1.92%-0.77%
Colorado Springs 2.73%2.60%-0.14%1.45%1.49%0.04%
Grand Junction 1.52%-0.89%-2.42%2.01%1.88%-0.12%
Greeley 2.63%3.54%0.91%2.53%1.39%-1.14%
Pueblo 1.34%2.49%1.15%1.34%0.72%-0.62%
Average change calculated: (last year/first year)^(1/# years in period)
The geographic and temporal coverage of the Colorado Department of Housing’s data allow for an
assessment of pre and post-ordinance trends. The table below shows average yearly changes in
population and multifamily rent in two eight year periods before and after the ordinance. In its 2009
report, Corona Insights identified 2006 as the first year that ordinance affected the rental market
due to the start of education and registration efforts.
The table demonstrates that rental costs in Fort Collins grew at a very similar rate to comparable
metro areas pre-ordinance. However, rent increased at a much faster rate post-ordinance. A
decrease in the average yearly change in population shows that this change is not likely due to a
increase in housing demand unique to Fort Collins.
Page 136
Item 3.
62Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.2
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Selected Nationwide Cities
Page 137
Item 3.
Key Findings: Nationwide Comparisons
While population growth in Fort Collins was higher than comparable national cities in the
1990s, it has regressed toward the mean in the post-ordinance era.
Fort Collins’ housing supply increased at a relatively high rate in the 1990s, but is near average
in the post-ordinance era. Housing stock growth is lower across all comparable cities.
The rate that renters have occupied housing units in Fort Collins is higher in absolute and
relative terms post-ordinance.
Fort Collins’ rental vacancy rates are lower (in relative and absolute terms) than similar cities
in the post ordinance era.
Fort Collins’ expansion in demand (population growth) has exceeded supply (housing units).
Rental costs in Fort Collins have increased at a faster rate than similar national cities in the
post-ordinance era. Fort Collins also had a high increase in rent in the 1990s.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
63Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 138
Item 3.
How to read a box plot
64Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
outlier
maximum
third quartile
median
first quartile
mean
minimum
Box plots offer a quick and effective way to
identify differences between groups of
populations.
They show the median value of each
population (marked with a line) and a
surrounding box that stretches from the 25th
to 75th percentile. The “middle half” of
observations are contained in the box.
The “whiskers” show the range of the top
and bottom 25% of observations respectively.
If an observation has a value that is more
than 1.5 times the interquartile range (the
distance between the 75th and 25th percentile
value), it is deemed an outlier.
The City of Fort Collins logo shows where
the city falls on the distribution.
Page 139
Item 3.
Fort Collins’ population growth has regressed toward the
mean
65Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
3.06%, 2.33%
Average population growth has
generally declined across the case
study cities.
Fort Collins’ population growth
rate has decreased in absolute
relative terms. While the city’s
rate was previously at the higher
end of the distribution in the
1990s, it is well within the middle
half in the modern era.
Page 140
Item 3.
The rate of Fort Collins’ housing stock growth has
significantly decreased
66Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
3.05%, 0.84%
While Fort Collins had the
highest rate of housing unit
change in the 1990s, this value
has decreased in absolute and
relative terms.
Given the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession, there is a
significantly lower rate of
housing unit change between
2005-2017 for the entire sample.
Nonetheless, Fort Collins went
from pacing this group in the
first time period to the median in
the second.
Page 141
Item 3.
Fort Collins’ housing growth lags population growth
67Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North
Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South
Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Change in Population 2005-2017Change in Housing Units 2005-2017
Supply and Demand Trends in the Housing Market
This graph plots the change in
population and housing units
between 2005-2017. The
Colorado markets from the
previous section are added for
reference.
The trendline shows the
average relationship between
supply and demand. Fort
Collins and Columbia are
notable outliers in that their
population growth (demand)
exceeds growth in housing
units (supply).
Page 142
Item 3.
In general, the percentage of renters is on the rise
68Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
-4.39%, 2.43%
As a group, the percentage of
occupied units by renters is on
the rise amongst the comparison
cities.
Fort Collins has seen both an
absolute and relative increase in
the rate of renters in occupied
units in the modern era.
This dynamic has the potential
to lower rental vacancy rates and
raise the cost of rent, but does
not appear to be unique to Fort
Collins.
Page 143
Item 3.
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%
Page 144
Item 3.
However, Fort Collins’ vacancy rates are subject to a
“floor effect”
70Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Comparing the 2007 and 2017
rental vacancy rates demonstrates
that, while the change in these
rates is average for this sample,
the absolute values are toward the
bottom of the distribution.
Again, data show that Fort
Collins rental market has been
extremely tight in recent years
with very few vacant rental units.
Fort Collins Values:
5.96%, 2.72%
Note: Data limitations reduce sample by six cities.Page 145
Item 3.
Rent continues to grow at a relatively high rate in Fort
Collins
71Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
5.02% 4.06% As with the state analysis, Fort
Collins’ rate of rent increase is at
the high end of the distribution
in the modern era. However, this
is not necessarily out of the
ordinary for this sample as the
city was also at the high end of
the distribution in the 1990s.
Overall, the rate of change in
median rent is lower in the
modern era. This trend may be
attributed to the great recession.
Page 146
Item 3.
Fort Collins’ rent increase is unmatched by comparable
national cities
72Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2006 Value
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana Lincoln, Nebraska Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina Winston-Salem North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon Salem, Oregon Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Mesquite, Texas Provo, Utah
The dramatic increase of
rent in Fort Collins
between 2005-2017 is
unique in the sample of
comparable cities.
The previously observed
increase in rent amongst
Colorado cities post 2013
is exhibited by Lakewood
having a significant
increase in rent over the
last few years as well.
Page 147
Item 3.
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand
73Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
ColoradoGreeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Demand/Supply and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017The X axis of this plot
calculates the increase in
population divided by the
increase in housing units
between 2005-2017. During
this time period, Fort Collins
has had 6.6 new individuals for
every new housing unit.
Lakewood is a notable outlier
due to a very small (1%)
increase in housing units.
The trendline demonstrates a
relationship between excess
demand and higher median
rents.
Colorado market analysis cities
are included for reference.
Page 148
Item 3.
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand (removing Lakewood as an outlier)
74Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Percent Change in Gross Median RentNew People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017The main conclusions of the
previous plot are preserved
when Lakewood is removed.
Fort Collins’ 6.6 new
individuals per new housing
unit is significantly higher than
the remaining sample’s average
of 4.4.
However, it is notable that Fort
Collins lies substantially above
the trendline in this plot. This
location suggests that
demand/supply is only one
cause, amongst others, of the
high rents in the city.
Page 149
Item 3.
Increase in rent has been mirrored by home values
75Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Fort Collins Values:
92%, 60%
In general, the home values in the
modern era increased at a lower
rate than they did in the 1990s.
The lower rate is likely a product
of the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession.
While the rate in Fort Collins
decreased in absolute terms, it
has increased relatively toward
the high end of the distribution.
Page 150
Item 3.
Fort Collins and Lakewood follow similar trajectories in
home values
76Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percent of 2005 Median Home Values
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Average of 13 other cities
The recent trend of
increasing rent in Colorado
has also been present in
median home values.
While Fort Collins and
Lakewood show a distinct
and drastic increase in
median home values after
2011, they previously lagged
comparable cities.
Page 151
Item 3.
77Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 1.3
Rental Market Trends
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Page 152
Item 3.
Key Findings: Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Across the last six years, around 12% of rented homes have had four or more occupants.
These households could have related occupants or otherwise not be in violation of the
occupancy ordinance, so this does not indicate that 12% of rented homes are occupancy
ordinance violators.
Rented homes with four or more bedrooms is relatively uncommon, typically around 12%.
A typical rented home has about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit structures stayed about the same
78Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 153
Item 3.
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
occupants hovered around 12%
The proportion of
rented homes with four
or more occupants varied
around 12%, but did not
steadily increase.
79
3,201 4,488 2,440 3,049 3,781 3,180
22,345
23,733
22,182
23,939 24,918 26,572
13%
16%
10%11%13%11%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Occupants Per Household
# rented homes with
1 to 3 people
# rented homes with
4+ people
% rented homes with
4+ people (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 154
Item 3.
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
bedrooms dipped slightly in 2016
The proportion of rented
homes with four or more
bedrooms bounced around
12% but did not steadily
increase. The pattern of
rented home with four or
more bedrooms was
similar to the proportion
of rented homes with four
or more occupants.
80
3,352 3,969 2,963 3,623 3,405 2,493
22,194
24,252
21,659
23,365 25,294 27,259
13%14%12%13%12%
8%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Bedrooms Per Household
# rented homes with
0 to 3 bedrooms
# rented homes with
4+ bedrooms
% rented homes
with 4+ bedrooms
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 155
Item 3.
The proportion of homes rented by non-families
increased very slightly from 2011
In 2016, about 66% of
rented homes were rented
by nonfamilies, which is
typically defined as no one
in the household is related.
This proportion was
slightly larger than
estimates from 2011 (62%)
and 2012 (63%) but similar
to estimates from 2013 to
2015. Based on 3-year
running averages, there
was a very slight increasing
trend in the percentage of
nonfamily rentals.
81
9,656 10,301 7,697 8,525 9,201 10,203
15,890
17,920
16,925
18,463 19,498 19,549
62%63%
69%68%68%66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Household Family Status
Nonfamily rentals
Family rentals
% nonfamily (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 156
Item 3.
There have been about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available per
rented household since 2011
The number of cars
available per rented
household bounced
around 1.6 and 1.7, but it
did not substantially
change in a sustained
pattern between 2011 and
2016.
82
40,568
46,368 42,233 45,155 48,156 48,490
1.6
1.6
1.7 1.7 1.7
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cars Available to Renters and Cars Per Rented Household
Total Cars Available to
Renters
Cars Per Rented Household
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 157
Item 3.
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit
structures stayed about the same
Since pre-2010, the
proportion of all
homes in multi-unit
structures (e.g.,
apartments, duplexes,
etc.) stayed about the
same throughout Fort
Collins and by region.
83
46%48%
35%
39%
35%35%32%31%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2005-2009 2008-2012 2012-2016
Proportion of Homes that are Multi-Unit
West of Campus
East of Campus
Fort Collins
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 158
Item 3.
School children (nursery -12) make up a smaller
percentage of population in the areas around campus
post-ordinance
84Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Due to changing geographic boundaries, Census tract 2 is treated as
“Away from Campus” in these calculations. It was split into two
areas (one away and one West) in the 2010 census.
17%16%
11%
8%
14%12%
20%19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
Nursery School -12th Grade
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
21%23%
42%
51%
18%21%
12%13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
College -Graduate School
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Enforcement of the ordinance has not particularly changed the composition of neighborhoods
around campus, as measured by the population of children. The areas around campus have seen
a small increase in college students and a small decrease in school children (nursery -12th grade)
over the past 15 years, though most of that change occurred pre-enforcement.
Page 159
Item 3.
The price of median home sales has been significantly
increasing across neighborhoods in Fort Collins
85Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
The median home in Fort
Collins sold for $155,000
more in 2018 than it did in
2012, a 67% increase.
While home values east of
campus appear to increase
dramatically after 2015,
this is based exclusively on
data available from the
University Park
neighborhood.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Median Home Sale Price in Thousands
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Page 160
Item 3.
Renters have been filling occupied units at higher rates
across neighborhoods
86Report Name/Customer/Project
60%
63%
53%
57%
44%46%
41%42%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Occupied Units by Renters
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort Collins
Away from
Campus
While the percentage of
renters in occupied units
has been increasing across
all neighborhoods, the
largest increase has been
seen around campus.
Page 161
Item 3.
The percentage of four or more person rental households
has decreased around campus
87Report Name/Customer/Project
15%
10%
14%
6%
13%
13%
12%
13%
0%
25%
50%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Renter Occupied Units that are Four or
More Person Households
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort
Collins
Away
from
Campus
While the percentage of
occupied rental households
with four or more people
has remained constant in
the City at large, it has
decreased in the areas
around campus.
The areas around campus
have seen a decrease of
renters in one person
households and an increase
of renters in two person
households.
Page 162
Item 3.
Section 3. Occupancy Ordinance ViolatorsPage 163
Item 3.
89Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.1
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number of Violator Households
Page 164
Item 3.
Key Findings: Number of Violator Households
The number of violator households is estimated at slightly more than 1,200 households. This
is notably higher than the figure estimated in 2009, and approximately the same number that
was estimated in 2005.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
90Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 165
Item 3.
Estimating the Number of Violator Households
Two approaches were used to estimate the number of households that are living in violation of the
occupancy ordinance. The first estimate examined data reported by respondents in the public survey when
asked how many of the four houses nearest to their home were in violation of the ordinance. The figures
were then multiplied by the current rate at which occupancy violation investigations found such violations.
(In other words, 38% of occupancy ordinance complaints were found to be valid.) A high estimate counted
every home that was reported in the survey (scaled up to the population of homes), and a low estimates
assumed that any reported number greater than one was equal to one.
A second estimate was developed using self-reported data from the census documents. These figures include
a high estimate that assumed that all violator households lived within the city of Fort Collins, and a low
estimate that assumed that violator households were equally likely inside the city and in the rural areas outside
the city. (The particular census source extends beyond the city limits to include much of rural northern
Larimer County.)
The four estimates were then averaged to develop an overall estimate of the number of violator households
at 1,234. See the next page for the figures.)
91Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 166
Item 3.
Slightly more than 1,200 households are in violation of
the occupancy ordinance
Using these two methods, the estimated number of violator households is 1,234, with an average household
size of 5.06 people.
92Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Survey Data Census Data
High Range 4,291 x Violator Households
Low Range 2,727 x Violator Households
Substantiation Rate 38%x Occupancy Investigations
High Range 1,630 1,285 Estimated Violator Housholds
Low Range 1,036 986 Estimated Violator Housholds
Estimate 1,234
Average Household Size -5.06 people
Page 167
Item 3.
The number of violators has fluctuated over time
In comparing the last three studies
(completed in 2005, 2009, and 2018), the
number of violators has fluctuated.
Prior to active enforcement of the
ordinance, the 2005 study estimated that
slightly more than 1,200 households were in
violation.
After the ordinance enforcement began, the
figures dropped to approximately 650.
However, since that time period, the
number has risen again, back to the pre-
enforcement levels. (Note that the
population has grown, so the overall
incidence rate is lower now.)
As is discussed elsewhere, a strong theory is
that affordability issues may be causing
more households to violate the ordinance.
93Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 168
Item 3.
94Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.2
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Profile of Violator Households
Page 169
Item 3.
Key Findings: Profile of Violator Households
The makeup of residents in violator households has changed notably, going from 71% college
students to 44% college students since 2005. Children under 18 now make up roughly 13%
of these households, despite being a negligible population in 2005.
The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%). However, 78% say that it has no impact on their
neighborhood.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
95Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 170
Item 3.
A slight majority of violator households are rentals
Violator households are nearly evenly split between single family and multi-family homes. Violators who
own their home are nearly all in single-family homes, while violators who rent their homes are evenly split
between single-family and multi-family units..
96Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 560 343
Multi-Family Home 6 326
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 45%28%
Multi-Family Home 1%26%
Page 171
Item 3.
Violator households tend to share larger homes
Most violator households live in 4-bedroom units. This implies that most violator households are not living
in overcrowded conditions inside the home.
97Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 172
Item 3.
Violator households tend to live in single family homes
As might be expected from the finding on the previous page about the sizes of violator households’ homes,
most violator households live in single family homes (meaning houses that are detached from other houses).
Among those who live in apartments, most live in smaller developments.
98Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 173
Item 3.
Violator households are higher on the rent spectrum
Because they tend to live in larger housing unit, violator households also tend to pay higher rents. However,
the rent is split between more independent payers.
99Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 174
Item 3.
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 StudyPage 175
Item 3.
Tenant relationships are generally non-blood
Violator households are usually groups of unrelated people.* Less than 40% consist of groups where at least
two people are related to each other. This would imply that nuances to the definition of the ordinance might
have an impact on some households, but not the majority.
101Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* -Relationships are for the person filling out the census form. Others in the household could possibly be related.
Page 176
Item 3.
Relationships
When there are related people in the household, the related person is often a child. Children are present in
violator households at a very similar rate to their presence in non-violator households (27%). This may
suggest younger families that are bringing in others to help with housing costs.
102Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 177
Item 3.
Violator households generally form quickly or move
frequently
Nearly half of all violator households have lived in their home for less than a year. This is an important item
to consider, because conflicts may be more likely to occur with new residents who haven’t yet integrated into
a neighborhood or who introduce change to a neighborhood.
103Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 178
Item 3.
There is no relationship of household income to violator
status
Violator households fall into three main income groups: one-third fall into lower household income
segments (which is the combined income of all residents of the home), while slightly more than one -third
have combined incomes of $100,000 or more. The remainder fall into the income bank in between.
104Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 179
Item 3.
Violator households are often young adults
Forty percent of the residents living in violator households are young adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
Conversely, very few residents of violator households are age 50 or older. As is discussed later in this section
of the report, non-students tend to be older than college students. A new population that is emerging in the
violator population is children under the age of 18, who were negligible in the 2005 study and now represent
1 in 8 violators.
105Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
50-50 split
of males
and females
Page 180
Item 3.
College students represent nearly half the violator
population
A slight majority of residents in violator households are college students, with the bulk being undergraduates.
This represents a notable change from the initial 2005 study, which showed that 71% of residents in violator
households were college students.
106Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Ten percent of
residents are
enrolled in primary
or secondary
school. This figure
is lower than the
number of
children in those
households
because some
children are not yet
of school age.
Page 181
Item 3.
College students are younger, while non-students are
older
If we examine violator household members by both age and college student status, we see the that most
common segment is college students age 18 to 21. However, the next two largest segments are non -students
over the age of 25, with a particular concentration of non-students between the ages of 25 and 34.
107Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 182
Item 3.
Residents of violator households are generally working
This analysis was intended to assess whether significant numbers of residents in violator households were
unable to work. Recognizing that many college students may not be in the work force, we see that a majority
of residents are working, and relatively few are disabled or receiving any type of public assistance.
108Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
5% are
disabled
4% receive
SNAP
0% receive
public
assistance
payments
Page 183
Item 3.
109Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Investigation Outcomes
•2.3.1 Citywide Trends
•2.3.2 Neighborhood Trends
Page 184
Item 3.
Key Findings: Investigation Outcomes
There was notable year to year variation in the number of over occupancy investigations.
Citywide, the number of investigations trended upward, while the number of violations
remained about the same; thus, the percentage of investigations with unfounded outcomes
increased.
The greatest number of violations were in the West of Campus region.
The highest violation per home ratio was in the West of Campus region.
>Two-thirds of occupancy violations occur in the area west of campus, despite the fact that
the area represents only 23% of homes in the city.
The proportion of violations increased in the West of Campus region, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of all violations in 2017.
The greatest number of unfounded cases were in the Away from Campus region.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
110Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 185
Item 3.
111Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3.1
Citywide Trends
Page 186
Item 3.
The number of over occupancy investigations increased,
but the number of violations did not change
The number of investigations
varied substantially from year
to year, with a low of 84
investigations in 2011 and a
high of 204 investigations in
2016. Based on a two-year
running average (the average
of the current and prior
years), there was an increase
in the number of
investigations between 2012
and 2017. However, there
was not a trending increase in
violations, based on a two-
year running average, which is
represented in the chart below
with dotted lines.
112
46
88
42
74 62 76
47
38
69
46
73
76
128
9784
157
88
147
138
204
144
0
50
100
150
200
250
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Over Occupancy Investigations by Outcome
Total
Unfounded
Violation
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Violation)
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 187
Item 3.
The percentage of unfounded investigations increased
Among all investigations, the
proportion of violations
decreased from 55% in 2011
to 33% in 2017.
113
55%56%
48%50%45%37%33%
45%44%
52%50%55%63%67%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Outcomes from Over Occupancy Investigations
Unfounded
Violation
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 188
Item 3.
114Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.3.2
Neighborhood Trends
Page 189
Item 3.
Neighborhood Summary
Neighborhood Percentage of occupied
homes that are rented
Percentage of occupied homes that are
multi-unit (more than one unit in
structure)
Away from Campus 35%31%
East of Campus 57%39%
West of Campus 70%48%
Fort Collins 46%35%
115Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 190
Item 3.
The greatest number of violations were always west of
campus
The neighborhoods west,
north, and south of campus
(labeled as “West of campus”
in this report) consistently had
the highest number of
violations per year since 2011,
with total of 286 violations
since 2011 and an average of
41 violations per year. The
neighborhoods east of
campus had a total 38
violations with an average of 5
per year, while the rest of the
city had a total of 111
violations with an average of
16 per year.
116
17
22
12 14 17 19
10
3
12
3 4 5 6 5
26
54
27
56
40
51
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Violations by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 191
Item 3.
The area west of campus has the highest violation per
home ratio
The area west of campus
comprises about 23% of all
occupied homes within Fort
Collins, but this is where 66%
of violations occurred from
2011 to 2017. Therefore, the
ratio of violations per
household was very high.
The share of violations in the
area east of campus was about
the same as the share of
homes. Violations in the
remainder of the city were less
common than the percentage
of homes in this area.
117
66%
26%
11%
9%
23%
66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Homes
(2012-2016 avg.)
Violations
(2011 to 2017)
Homes Compared to Violations
West of Campus
East of Campus
Remained of City
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 192
Item 3.
Over time, violations became more likely west of campus
The proportion of violations
increased in the
neighborhoods West of
campus, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of
all violations in 2017.
118
37%
25%29%
19%
27%25%21%
7%
14%7%
5%
8%8%11%
57%61%64%
76%
65%67%68%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Violations by Study Area
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 193
Item 3.
The greatest number of unfounded cases were typically
away from campus
The greatest number of
unfounded cases were in
neighborhoods away from
campus, where there were 229
unfounded cases since 2011
with an average of 33
unfounded cases per year.
There were 214 unfounded
cases west of campus with an
average of 31 per year, and
there were 83 unfounded
cases east of campus, for an
average of 12 per year.
119
18
27
20
28
33
50 53
7
18
8 8
15
11
1613
24
18
36
28
67
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unfounded Cases by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 194
Item 3.
120Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 2.4
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Public Sentiment Towards Occupancy Ordinance
Page 195
Item 3.
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%).
However, 78% say that it has no impact on their neighborhood. Among those impacted by
the ordinance, more residents said it had a positive impact (15%) than a negative impact (8%).
Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement of the ordinance or didn’t
know enough to have a preference. The remaining 35% were about evenly split, with 17%
preferring enforcement more strict than now and 18% preferring enforcement less strict than
now.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
121Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 196
Item 3.
Most residents were aware of the occupancy ordinance
Most residents (89%) were aware of the ordinance There was little variation across different segments of the
population, other than slightly more awareness among residents of single-family homes versus multi-family
homes. Nonetheless, awareness is high even among multi-family home dwellers.
122Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Dwelling Type College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder of
city
Single
family
Multi-
family Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1323 350 495 478 1029 294 205 1061 620 323 304 43
Weighted 1329 318 142 868 836 493 241 1030 539 394 311 45
Aware of Occupancy
Ordinance
Yes 89%90%88%89%91%85%91%88%93%86%88%85%
No 11%10%12%11%9%15%9%12%7%14%12%15%
Page 197
Item 3.
Student homes and non-student homes oppose each
other on the ordinance
Overall, residents are more likely to support the ordinance than oppose it, though a significant number are
neutral or undecided. Support outweighs opposition by a level of 42% versus 24%. The largest observed
difference in support is homes containing college students versus those without. Homes with college
students are more than twice as likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, but the opposite is true for
homes without students. We also see that homeowners strongly support the ordinance while renters are
evenly split between support and opposition.
123Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42%38%44%43%45%37%53%30%19%47%43%28%
Neutral 31%34%26%31%29%34%25%38%31%31%29%40%
Oppose 24%26%25%23%22%27%19%29%44%19%24%27%
No opinion 3%3%4%3%4%3%3%4%7%2%3%5%
Page 198
Item 3.
The ordinance does not impact most residents
Only 23% of residents say that the ordinance impacts their neighborhood. Among these, positive impacts
outweigh negative impacts by a margin to 15% to 8%. Every segment saw more positives than negatives,
other than homes with college students.
The most common reasons cited for positive impacts were simply that the ordinance is effective in its goal,
that the ordinance enhances peace and quiet, and that the ordinance leads to fewer cars nearby. The most
common reasons cited for negative impacts were affordability and general comments about obtaining
housing.
124Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1283 342 477 464 1018 257 196 1029
Weighted 1266 301 128 837 700 560 226 983
Positive impact 15%23%17%11%15%14%11%15%
No significant impact 78%61%76%84%79%77%72%79%
Negative impact 8%16%7%5%7%9%17%6%
Page 199
Item 3.
Support for ordinance changes is split
Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement or didn’t know enough to have a preference.
The other 35% was evenly split on preferring more or less enforcement. Residents in homes with college
students preferred less strict enforcement.
125Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1319 354 491 474 200 1058 640 327 306 42
Weighted 1314 316 139 859 236 1021 554 405 311 41
More strictly than now 17%20%18%15%8%19%33%4%5%5%
Same as now 38%40%33%37%31%38%49%46%9%19%
Less strictly than now 18%20%27%16%34%14%0%9%63%6%
Don’t know 28%21%21%32%27%29%18%41%23%70%
Page 200
Item 3.
126Section 3 -Short Term RentalsPage 201
Item 3.
127Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.1
Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
Page 202
Item 3.
Key Findings: Profile of Units and Revenue
The number of STRs increased strongly between 2015 and 2017. The number is still
growing, though the growth rate has slowed into 2018.
A majority of STRs are full-time rentals. They are increasingly entire homes, as opposed to
rooms in primary residences.
Revenues from STRs are growing rapidly, with nearly $10 million in citywide revenues
estimated for 2018.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
128Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 203
Item 3.
The supply of short-term rentals (STRs) has increased
quickly
The accompanying table shows the number of properties listed each month from late 2014
through mid-2018. The number of properties roughly doubled each year until 2018, when it
rose roughly 10% (through the latest available data).
129Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
Page 204
Item 3.
STRs are vacant more often than not
We can calculate an occupancy rate by dividing the number of occupied nights by the number of
nights that the property was available for rent. On average, occupancy rates are 32% on any
given night, but with strong seasonal changes. Occupancy rates in the summer are higher than
occupancy in other seasons, and particularly in the month of July.
Note that not all STRs are available for rent full time. Some are available less often, depending
on the host’s preferences. So the units are occupied less than the formal occupancy rate will
show. However, as seen later in this chapter, most STRs are available full-time or a strong
majority of the time.
130Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Occupancy Rate Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 27%25%20%24%
2015 21%17%22%24%34%38%50%41%26%27%22%21%28%
2016 20%18%23%25%34%43%49%43%31%32%25%26%31%
2017 20%20%25%26%35%46%57%52%38%37%29%30%35%
2018 23%24%30%32%27%
Total 21%21%26%28%34%44%53%48%33%33%26%26%32%
Page 205
Item 3.
Most STRs are available as full-time rentals
Over half of STRs are for rent
every day, while most of the
remainder are available more than
half of the days in any given
month. As the market has
matured, the number of casual
rentals (less than half time) has
settled into the 10% to 14%
range.
Among those that are available
more than half the time, most are
available for nearly every day of
the month, being pulled off the
market only occasionally.
131Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Availability
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014
Full 58%64%61%
Less Than Half 9%13%11%
More Than Half 33%24%28%
2015
Full 62%58%53%46%38%33%23%28%28%28%44%43%
Less Than Half 11%13%15%17%21%22%30%33%22%18%13%15%
More Than Half 27%29%32%37%41%45%47%39%51%55%44%42%
2016
Full 55%60%53%60%48%44%42%41%52%53%57%58%
Less Than Half 16%14%14%12%13%14%13%14%10%12%12%14%
More Than Half 30%26%32%28%39%42%46%45%37%34%31%29%
2017
Full 62%65%54%60%48%48%47%46%51%51%55%60%
Less Than Half 12%13%9%8%12%15%14%14%12%11%14%14%
More Than Half 26%22%37%32%40%37%39%40%37%37%32%27%
2018
Full 60%63%61%60%
Less Than Half 14%13%13%8%
More Than Half 26%24%26%32%
Page 206
Item 3.
STR units are dispersed across the city
Roughly half of
STRs were located
near campus in the
past, but rentals are
dispersing over time.
Rentals outside the
two campus
neighborhoods have
risen from roughly
50% to over 60% as
the market has
grown.
132Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
East of Campus Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 22%23%27%
2015 24%23%24%27%26%25%24%22%23%23%22%22%
2016 21%19%21%21%20%20%18%20%23%23%23%22%
2017 22%22%21%21%21%21%20%22%22%22%21%21%
2018 21%21%21%22%
West of Campus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 24%27%26%
2015 24%24%21%21%21%22%21%23%20%20%23%23%
2016 25%24%21%24%26%24%24%22%20%20%20%22%
2017 21%21%21%20%21%19%19%16%16%16%16%16%
2018 17%17%17%16%
Remainder of City
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 53%50%47%
2015 52%53%54%52%53%53%55%55%57%57%55%55%
2016 53%57%58%55%54%56%57%58%57%57%57%56%
2017 57%58%58%58%58%60%61%62%62%63%63%63%
2018 62%62%62%62%
Page 207
Item 3.
The types of STR units are evolving
Private rooms in homes have historically been the bulk of rentals, but this is changing over time as renting
entire units is becoming more common. Renting entire housing units, generally more of an investment
approach than renting rooms, has risen from 34% of units to 46% of units.
133Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Entire home/apt Private room Shared room
2014 34%57%9%
2015 37%56%6%
2016 41%54%4%
2017 44%52%5%
2018 46%50%4%
Page 208
Item 3.
Prices are rising over time
Length of stay is relatively consistent over time, but price per night is rising (likely due in part to
full units becoming more common as STRs).
134Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Average Nights Per Reservation Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 4.3 7.0 6.0 5.5
2015 7.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.3
2016 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.3
2017 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.3
2018 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2
Average Dollars Per Night Reserved Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 $82 $89 $81 $84
2015 $90 $94 $86 $86 $88 $91 $89 $87 $92 $89 $86 $100 $90
2016 $88 $86 $84 $90 $99 $103 $106 $101 $99 $102 $99 $102 $99
2017 $92 $96 $104 $105 $119 $120 $120 $118 $123 $123 $130 $124 $117
2018 $108 $107 $112 $114
Page 209
Item 3.
Total revenues are growing rapidly
Revenues are growing on both a per-property basis and on a citywide basis. Over the past three
years, monthly revenues per unit have roughly doubled, and citywide revenues have risen from
less than $1 million to an estimated $9.6 million in 2018.
135Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Revenue Per Property Month Citywide Revenues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Measured
Total
Estimated
Annnual
Total
2014 $599 $566 $429 $144,297 $489,519
2015 $498 $376 $486 $495 $692 $764 $923 $752 $528 $571 $466 $524 $1,137,225 $1,137,225
2016 $452 $391 $499 $579 $880 $1,120 $1,319 $1,087 $783 $884 $641 $691 $3,398,016 $3,398,016
2017 $479 $461 $696 $718 $1,088 $1,357 $1,748 $1,581 $1,187 $1,201 $960 $990 $6,586,274 $6,586,274
2018 $673 $625 $884 $981 $1,671,493 $9,591,305
Page 210
Item 3.
136Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.2
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Hosts and Properties
Page 211
Item 3.
Key Findings: Rental Hosts and Properties
The STR market in Fort Collins is run by individuals and appears to be significantly insulated
from large property management companies.
>85% of hosts only own and operate a single STR.
>Only 5% of hosts said they owned their STRs with anyone other than their spouse.
>62% of STRs in Fort Collins are also hosts’ primary residence.
>Only 4% of STR units were managed by professional firms.
Hosts mention income, culture, and the unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
buying property for this purpose.
Around 30% of STRs have been pulled from the long-term rental market.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
137Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 212
Item 3.
The majority of city -licensed hosts operate only one STR
138Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Only Operates 1 STR
85%
Operates 2 STRs
8%
Operates 3 or More
STRs
7%
How Many Short-Term Rentals do you Operate?Few hosts in Fort Collins
operate more than one
STR. Overall, the STR
market in Fort Collins
appears to be insulated
from large property
management companies.
Only 5% of respondents
said they owned their
property with someone
other than their spouse.
Only one respondent
noted that they operated
five STRs, the highest
value in the survey.
Page 213
Item 3.
City -licensed STRs in Fort Collins are distributed evenly
across unit type
139Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Entire house
27%
Entire
condo/apartment/
townhouse
26%
Bedroom(s) in a
house
30%
Bedroom(s) in a
condo/apartment/
townhouse
2%
Other
15%
Type of Short-Term RentalsHosts report renting
bedrooms, entire houses, and
entire apartments at similar
rates.
The most frequent responses
within the “Other” category
were “Carriage House” and
“Private Suite, Basement, or
Garage.”
Page 214
Item 3.
Few city -licensed STR hosts have plans to own new
properties
140Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Host Activity
Please check each statement that applies to you.
I currently own long-term rentals in Fort Collins 38%
I currently own a second, unrented home for personal use 8%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 10%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 13%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 4%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years 5%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on making some
or all of them short-term rental(s) in the next two years 4%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on selling some or
all of the property(ies) in the next two years 3%
While a significant
percentage of STR hosts also
report owning long-term
rentals in Fort Collins (38%),
few plan on purchasing new
properties for the purpose
short-term (10%) or long-
term (13%) renting in the
next two years.
Very few (4%) hosts plan on
making long-term rentals into
STRs in the near future.
Page 215
Item 3.
The average city -licensed STR in Fort Collins rents for
$125 a night
141Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Hosts reported charging an average of $125 per night for their STRs. A majority of
bedroom(s) within a house were rented for less than $65 a night, while a majority of entire
houses were rented for more than $150 a night. The median nightly rent was $100,
indicating the presence of a few very expensive STRs. The most expensive reported average
nightly rent was $450 for an entire house.
Host Reported Nightly Cost by Most Common Unit Types
Average rent per night
Less than $65 $65 -$100 $101 -$150 More than $150
Entire house -7%30%63%
Entire condo/apartment/townhouse 6%42%33%19%
Bedroom(s) in a house 65%24%6%6%
Page 216
Item 3.
Most city -licensed STRs are hosts’ primary residence
142Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
STR is also my primary
residence
62%
STR is not my
primary residence
38%
Residency Status of STRsThe majority of STRs described in
the survey were also hosts’ primary
residence. This pattern is consistent
with previous findings that suggest
the STR market in Fort Collins is
managed more by individuals than
property companies. Hosts
reported only 4% of STRs in the
survey as being managed by
professional firms.
A significant proportion of STRs
that are not primary residences
belong to the few hosts who
happen to operate multiple STRs.
Page 217
Item 3.
A majority of city -licensed STRs were previously primary
residences
143Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Long-term
rental
24%
Primary
residence
57%
Second
residence
0%
Other
13%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use Before Ownership
Long-term
rental
20%
Primary
residence
55%
Second
residence
1%
Other
18%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use While Owned
When asked to recall the previous use of their STRs before and during ownership, a
majority of hosts said these units used to be primary residences. Hosts recall 24% and 20%
of STRs previously being long-term rental units (with lease agreements 1 month or longer)
before and during ownership, respectively. The most common descriptions of the “Other”
category reference new construction or remodeling.
Page 218
Item 3.
City -licensed Hosts mention income, culture, and the
unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
renting
144Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
14%
26%
40%
62%
0%20%40%60%80%
Culture
Competing with LTRs
Unique STR appeal
Income
Percentage of Responses that Mentioned Each of
the Following when asked, "What led to your
decision to purchase this property with the intent
of it being short-term rental?"
The majority of hosts mentioned income when
asked about their decision to purchase a STR
property. 40% of hosts indicated that they
would not have a rental property if it were not
short-term, primarily due to scheduling
flexibility and alternative uses of the property.
26% of hosts noted that they prefer STR
renting to long-term renting due to the quality
of tenants, higher income, and other benefits.
Finally, 14% of hosts highlighted the cultural
experience of short-term renting. Example
quotes can be found below.
Income:“For extra income so I can pay my mortgage and HOA fees.”
Unique STR appeal: “The amount of time I spend away from home for both work and personal travel, might as well let someone else use
the space while it sits there empty.”
Competing with LTRs: “Too much wear and tear on the property from long term tenants.”
Culture:“There is something really special and unique about staying in a home where you can share a cup of coffee with your host, sha re
stories, and learn about the town you're visiting.”
Page 219
Item 3.
145Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Estimation Strategies to Calculate Percentage of STRs that Came from the LTR Market
Units Bedrooms
Switched STRs Total STRs Percent Switched Rooms Total Rooms Percent
Q7: Previous Use While Owned was LTR 26 123 21%57 236 24%
Q8: Original Intent at Purchase was LTR 20 122 16%45 236 19%
Q10: Decision Process Considered LTR 23 122 19%50 232 22%
Q12: Recall Previous Owner LTR 31 122 25%71 235 30%
Average 25 122 20%56 235 24%
Any Switch Indicator 52 122 43%107 236 45%
Q7, Q8, or Q10 36 122 30%80 236 34%
The table above details a series of strategies to estimate the percentage of STRs that came
from the LTR market. The number of bedrooms switched is calculated by multiplying the
various switch data by the number of bedrooms hosts reported for each switched STR unit.
The most conservative estimate is the average of all potential switch indicators (20% of
STRs). Relying on hosts to report only their own past actions (questions 7, 8, and 10), and
not their recollection of previous owners (question 10), provides a higher estimate of 30%
of STR units that were converted from long-term rentals.
Approximately 30% of city -licensed STRs were once long-
term rentals
Page 220
Item 3.
146Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 3.3
Short-Term Rentals
Public Sentiment Toward Short-Term Rental Rules
Page 221
Item 3.
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
About one-third of residents are aware of STR licensing rules.
Support for STR rules outweighs opposition by a margin of 38% to 20% (with the remainder
being neutral).
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
147Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 222
Item 3.
Most residents are not aware of STR licensing rules
About one-third of residents were aware of STR licensing rules. The highest awareness was
seen east of campus, while the lowest awareness was in areas where only primary STRs are
allowed.
148Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region STR Zone
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
No STRs
allowed
Primary STRs
only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed
Base
Unweighted 1366 361 513 492 851 468 47
Weighted 1362 323 145 894 640 622 101
Missing
No reply 5%5%4%5%2%7%7%
Aware of STR Licensing
Yes 31%29%39%31%34%27%37%
No 64%67%57%65%64%66%56%
Page 223
Item 3.
The public generally supports STR rules
While a large proportion of residents were not aware of STR rules, those people still generally
supported such rules when informed about them. Nonetheless roughly 20% still opposed them.
Support for the rules was higher among residents who were already aware of the rules.
Residents with higher incomes were slightly more likely to support rules than those with lower
incomes.
149Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Aware of STR
Licensing Impact of STRs on Neighborhood Household Income
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No
Positive
impact
No
significant
impact
Negative
impact
Not
applicable
Less
than
$50,000
$50,000
or more
Decline
to
specify
Base
Unweighted 1344 354 506 484 487 817 31 673 144 438 287 777 215
Weighted 1337 316 144 877 422 863 23 647 170 439 401 661 213
Opinion of STR Rules
Support 41%38%41%42%50%37%31%38%61%38%35%44%43%
Neutral or no opinion 39%42%41%38%34%42%39%43%23%42%44%36%40%
Oppose 19%20%18%20%16%21%31%19%16%20%21%20%17%
Page 224
Item 3.
150Section 4 -Neighborhood QualityPage 225
Item 3.
151Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.1
Neighborhood Quality
Citywide
Page 226
Item 3.
Key Findings: Citywide Neighborhood Quality
Residents give generally high ratings to neighborhood quality, though ratings have decline
over the past 15 years.
Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common
neighborhood issues citywide.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
152Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 227
Item 3.
Neighborhood quality was generally high
On a citywide basis, residents had positive perceptions of their neighborhood, particularly in
terms of peace and quiet, and maintenance of lawns and homes. Sense of community had lower
scores, but still positive.
However, opinions were not uniform. The neighborhoods west of the campus rated all of these
attributes considerably lower than did the other areas of the city, though all attributes were still
rated positively. Additionally, homeowners tended to rate all elements higher than renters,
particularly sense of community.
Interestingly, residents who opposed ordinance generally gave higher neighborhood ratings than
those who supported the ordinance.
153Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure College Student in
Home Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11 1.06 1.11 1.21 1.40
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04 0.99 1.01 1.25 1.19
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10 1.04 1.04 1.12 1.28
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.52 0.69
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Page 228
Item 3.
Some neighborhood problems have increased over the
last decade
154Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
41%
16%20%24%
30%34%
25%21%
35%
13%13%18%16%
28%
22%20%
34%
14%
21%
29%
16%
39%
30%28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled
pets running
loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive
parties
Loud noise other
than parties, such
as stereos or
yelling
More than three
unrelated people
living in a house
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in
the yard
Poorly
maintained house
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems
2004 2008 2018
While neighborhood problems decreased between 2004 and 2008, a higher percentage of
residents in 2018 reported observing at least one of their four nearest residences having
disruptive parties, loud noise, parking vehicles inappropriately, trash or junk in the yard, and
a poorly maintained house.
Page 229
Item 3.
While neighborhood ratings are high, the percentage of
residents rating their neighborhood good or very good
has reverted to, or dropped below, pre-ordinance levels
155Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
84%81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
While the 2008 survey saw
universal increases in
neighborhood ratings
compared to 2004, the
change between 2008 and
2018 saw the percentage of
residents rating their
neighborhood good or very
good decrease across the
board.
Nonetheless, substantial
majorities rate their
neighborhood as good or
very good on these
measures.
Page 230
Item 3.
Inappropriately parked vehicles are the most common
neighborhood issue
Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common issues,
particularly in the neighborhoods west of campus. This area was more likely to see every one of
the tested issues. Similarly, renters were more likely to see every tested issue in comparison to
owners.
156Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose 0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately 0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
Page 231
Item 3.
157Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.2
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Page 232
Item 3.
Key Findings: Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are strongly correlated
with being neighbors to a suspected ordinance-violating household.
However, the overall negative trend is neighborhood quality and long-term increases in
negative neighborhood issues are also seen when no ordinance-violating neighbors are
present.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
158Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 233
Item 3.
Neighborhood impacts were linked to perceptions of a
violating neighbor
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-Neighbor(s)
violating occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
159Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Residents who reported having at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report
lower neighborhood quality, especially for maintenance of houses in the remainder of the city.
Page 234
Item 3.
Within neighborhoods, proximity to violator households
led to differences in neighborhood issues
160
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Residents reporting at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report a higher
number of neighbor issues, especially for trash or junk in the yard in the East region and
parking vehicles in the West region.
Page 235
Item 3.
39%39%
30%
39%
56%
39%
27%
51%
29%
44%39%
66%61%56%
33%
19%
37%43%
61%
49%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
One Observed Violator
The presence of violators in 2018 increased reported
neighborhood problems, but often at a lower rate than
2008
161Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
53%
31%
72%
56%
72%
61%58%52%48%
57%
71%
90%
67%
76%
59%
43%
63%66%
81%79%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
Page 236
Item 3.
Decreases in neighborhood ratings were observed in the
absence of violator households
162Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
91%91%94%
64%
92%90%
94%
72%
88%
81%
88%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or
Very Good with no Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
While residents who
observed no violators in their
four neighboring households
rated their neighborhood
good or very good at higher
rates than those who did,
they did so at a lower rate
than they have in the past.
This suggests something
beyond, or in addition to,
ordinance violators is causing
the observed decrease in
neighborhood quality.
Page 237
Item 3.
Increases in neighborhood problems were observed in
the absence of violator households
163Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
40%
13%10%
16%22%16%14%
32%
9%7%12%
19%14%12%
33%
11%15%
24%
32%
24%21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
No Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
The above graph plots the percentage of neighborhood issues reported by residents who
said none of their four nearest homes had more than three unrelated people living in them.
While the number of problems reported by this group is significantly lower than those who
observe neighbors violating the ordinance, this group was more likely to report problems in
2018 than they were in 2008.
Page 238
Item 3.
The presence of violating households decreases the
percentage of good or very good neighborhood ratings
164Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
72%
62%
78%
46%
83%
68%74%
54%
67%
54%
62%
46%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
One Observed Violator
2004 2008 2018
64%
56%55%
39%
48%
38%
58%
48%
68%
31%
45%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
Living next to violators decreases good and very good neighborhood ratings across all
surveys and indicators. As with residents who observed zero violating households, these
percentages decreased in between 2008 and 2018 for those who reported one or multiple
violating neighbor.
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good
Page 239
Item 3.
165Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Section 4.3
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Page 240
Item 3.
Key Findings: Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are also correlated with
being neighbors to an STR property.
However, the impact is smaller than proximity to a suspected ordinance-violating property,
and the negative impacts are notably smaller in areas where STRs are allowed, compared to
areas where they are not allowed.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
166Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 241
Item 3.
STR presence correlates with lower neighborhood quality
Residents report somewhat lower neighborhood quality when they live near an STR, with the
largest impact being on sense of community.
While the sample sizes are too small to draw confident conclusions, it appears that the
negative impact is primarily when STRs operate in areas where they’re not allowed. An STR
operating in a zone where STRs are allowed did not appear to impact quality of life (with
results even leaning very slightly positive).
167Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s)
operate STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Small sample sizes
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Page 242
Item 3.
Neighborhood issues are correlated with STR presence
Residents report more neighborhood issues when neighbor(s) operate(s) an STR. The impact is
larger when STRs are operating in areas where they are not allowed, particularly having snow on
sidewalks, parking, and loud noises.
168Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling 0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
Page 243
Item 3.
The impact of STRs is narrow
STRs impact the neighborhood of about 15% of residents, showing that they are not yet
widespread and/or that their impact is narrow within a neighborhood. Of impacted residents,
more cited a negative impact than a positive impact (13% versus 2%). The impact goes up if
they have a neighbor operating an STR, as does the support of STR rules. The most commonly
cited reasons for negative impacts were strangers coming and going, trash/lack of maintenance,
parking, and partying/noise.
169Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Total
Neighbor(s)
Operate STRs STR Zone Aware of STR
Licensing Opinion of STR Rules
Yes No
No STRs
allowed
Primary
STRs only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1366 147 1152 851 468 47 491 825 558 388 274 124
Weighted 1362 145 1134 640 622 101 423 877 547 391 260 138
Missing
No reply 7%3%3%5%7%15%4%3%5%5%6%4%
Positive impact 2%1%2%2%1%3%2%2%1%0%3%6%
No significant impact 47%61%49%45%50%50%57%45%45%56%47%42%
Negative impact 13%31%10%12%14%8%14%13%19%9%10%2%
Not applicable 33%4%38% 37%29%25%24%38%30%31%34%46%
Page 244
Item 3.
Appendix -MethodologyPage 245
Item 3.
171Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Rental Market Trends
•Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
•Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Page 246
Item 3.
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
In order to assess changes to the overall rental market in Fort Collins, Corona Insights employed data from
current and archived reports from the Colorado Department of Housing. These data allow for an analysis of
trends in vacancy and rental rates by unit type and offer the chance to make two important comparisons.
First, we replicate analysis from our 2009 report and include trends from similar Colorado cities including,
Colorado Springs, Greeley, Grand Junction, and Pueblo. By observing these similar metro areas we can start
to distinguish what separates Fort Collins’ rental market from broader trends in the state. Second, these data
often allow for comparisons overtime spanning multiple decades. Comparing trends pre and post -ordinance
provides insights into the law’s potential effect.
It is important to note that the Colorado Division of Housing only collects data on multifamily homes. While
this accounts for a majority of the rental market in Fort Collins, these data were supplemented with data
from the US Census’ American Community Survey to account for the entire scope of the market. Population
data was collected from the State Demographer and the US Census.
Finally, Corona Insights collected supplemental data from Redfin and the Census’ Building Permits Survey in
order to assess the broader housing market in Fort Collins. While the Colorado Division of Housing often
reports data for the combined Fort Collins/Loveland market, these cities are reported independently when
possible. Cities and years are included/excluded in analysis based on data availability.
172Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 247
Item 3.
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
The Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas section of this report identified how the Fort Collins
rental market has compared to similar metro areas within the state of Colorado. While that analysis allowed
for the ability to account for broader trends within the state, it could not rule out the possibility that the
patterns observed in Fort Collins were common to similar cities across the country. Specifically, Fort Collins’
household growth and composition have historically been filled by younger individuals (aged 15-24) at higher
rates than other cities in the state. As such, a comparison of similar cities nationwide is needed to supplement
the assessment of the previous section.
This section replicates analysis conducted in Corona Insights’ 2005 report to compare trends in the rental
markets across 15 similar case study cities. This national analysis allows for an additional assessment of how
the Fort Collins housing market has fared in the pre and post -ordinance era. Data in this section comes from
the US Census’ American Community Survey. Two main time periods will be compared. The first is the era
between 1990 and 2000. This provides a baseline for how the Fort Collins rental market compared to similar
cities. The second era is between 2005 and 2017. Here, comparisons demonstrate what trends emerge post -
ordinance. Data have been annualized to account for the difference in each era’s length.
173Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 248
Item 3.
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Case Selection for National Market Analysis
This section details the case selection process for the national market analysis.
As of the Year 2000, there were 243 cities in the United States and its protectorates with population of
100,000 or more, which made up the initial population of eligible comparable cities. From that initial list,
Corona pared down the candidates as follows:
>Corona eliminated from consideration 41 cities that had population over 400,000.
>Corona eliminated two cities that radically changed their boundaries between 1990 and 2000, and
thus acquired large pre-existing populations and housing stocks.
>Corona eliminated 34 cities that experienced declines in population from 1990 through 2000.
>Corona eliminated 7 cities that experienced phenomenal growth from 1990 through 2000, with rates
of over 6.8% per year.
>Corona eliminated two cities in Puerto Rico for which standard data were not available.
These cuts pared the list from 243 cities to 157 cities. Data was then gathered on those cities to identify
specific growth patterns between 1990 and 2000. From that list, 16 cities were identified to have
exhibited highly similar household growth patterns to those projected for Fort Collins, based on total
household growth, household growth among traditional college-age students, and a higher
growth rate among the second group than the first.
174Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 249
Item 3.
2005 Report Case Study Cities
*Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky is excluded from all subsequent analysis as the US
Census no longer collects annual data for the city.
175Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Similar Growth Cities Annual Household Growth Annual Household Growth,
Ages 15-24
Ratio of Young/Total
Household Growth
Columbia, South Carolina 2.19%4.14%1.89
Durham, North Carolina 2.95%3.33%1.13
Eugene, Oregon 2.26%3.68%1.63
Fort Collins, Colorado 3.07%3.34%1.08
Fort Wayne, Indiana 1.86%3.20%1.72
Greensboro, North Carolina 2.12%3.34%1.58
Joliet, Illinois 3.06%3.10%1.01
Lakewood, Colorado 1.59%2.74%1.73
Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky*1.93%3.73%1.93
Lincoln, Nebraska 1.83%2.73%1.49
Mesquite, Texas 2.03%2.52%1.24
Provo, Utah 2.13%3.06%1.44
Raleigh, North Carolina 2.77%2.69%0.97
Salem, Oregon 2.09%3.39%1.63
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 2.22%2.93%1.32
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 2.49%2.94%1.18
Page 250
Item 3.
2005 Report Case Studies: Cities with Large Universities
*These cities contain colleges or universities with more than 15,000 undergraduates. The
sample of case studies shows effective diversity between college towns and comparable
cities that have experienced historically similar household growth and composition to Fort
Collins.
176Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Similar Growth Cities Largest University Number of Undergraduates
Columbia, South Carolina*University of South Carolina 24,941
Durham, North Carolina Duke 6,501
Eugene, Oregon*University of Oregon 20,220
Fort Collins, Colorado*Colorado State University 22,727
Fort Wayne, Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne 8,746
Greensboro, North Carolina*The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 15,158
Joliet, Illinois NA
Lakewood, Colorado Colorado Christian University 3,885
Lincoln, Nebraska*University of Nebraska Lincoln 20,182
Mesquite, Texas NA
Provo, Utah*Brigham Young University 30,221
Raleigh, North Carolina*North Carolina State University 22,458
Salem, Oregon Willamette University 1,925
Sioux Falls, South Dakota University of Sioux Falls 1,185
Winston-Salem, North Carolina Wake Forest Unversity 4,866
Page 251
Item 3.
177Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Ordinance Violators
•Estimated Number
•Profile of Violators
•Investigation Outcomes
Page 252
Item 3.
Methodology: Violator Estimates and Profiles
Estimates of the number of violators were developed via two means. First, the study team examined
specialized census data on a sample of the population, where individual (anonymized) records are made
available to the public. This has emerged as the predominant means of developing estimates. As a second
check, the public survey was used to develop estimates, in conjunction with complaint data to estimate the
accuracy with which residents identify violator households. These are the same two methods used in the
past, though specific methodologies have evolved over time.
The profiles of violator households are drawn specifically from the specialized census records referenced
above. These microdata records are deemed to be accurate since they are gathered for other purposes, but
also contain information about household makeup.
One limitation of the microdata sample is that relationships within a household are always measured from
the perspective of the person who filled out the census form. If that person is not related to others in the
household, then it is not possible to identify whether those others are related. The research team took a
conservative approach that they were not related, which in most cases is the likely scenario (for example,
when all residents are labeled as roommates or boarders relative to the householder). However, some of
these may be related in which case some households that are not violators could be labeled as violators. This
is unlikely to have a large enough effect on the conclusions to change any findings, though.
178Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 253
Item 3.
Methodology: Investigation Outcomes
Over occupancy investigation outcome results were calculated from complaint, investigation, and outcome
records provided by City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services. These data included the case year (based
on investigation start date), the address of the investigated residence, and the outcome determined as either
violation or unfounded. Additionally, each residence was assigned to a study area region that aligned with the
regions from the resident survey in this report. The dataset analyzed spanned the years 2011 to 2017.
179Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 254
Item 3.
180Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Short-Term Rentals
•Profile of Units and Revenues
•Rental Host Survey
Page 255
Item 3.
Methodology: Profile of Units and Revenue
For the short-term rental market analysis, the research team purchased data that had been scraped from the
AirBnB web site by a third-party vendor. (We recognize that other sites exist for short-term rentals, but the
STR survey conducted on this project showed a large overlap in advertising across sites.) The data included
information on specific properties, including nights available, nights rented, asking price, type of unit, and
location.
The research team used GIS software to assign the STRs to specific zones relative to STR licensing rules.
This also allowed the team to eliminate any properties that were outside the Fort Collins city limits, even if
they were in the general Fort Collins market area. Therefore, the figures relates specifically to units inside the
city limits.
Data were available beginning in October of 2014, and Corona Insights purchased all available data, which at
the time of purchase extended through April of 2018.
181Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 256
Item 3.
Methodology: Short-Term Rental Host Survey
The survey of short-term rental hosts was conducted by using the contact list for licensed STR units that is
gathered during the licensing process. Corona Insights designed an 10-minute online survey and sent an
invitation to complete the survey to every available STR host. We sent 255 survey invitations and received
143 useable responses, constituting a very strong response rate of 56%.
182Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Residency
Total Residency
Primary Non-Primary
Non-Response 111 67%33%
In Survey 143 68%32%
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Title Registered
Total Title Registered
Business Personal Address Other
Non-Response 111 32%48%6%14%
In Survey 143 36%50%5%8%
One way to check the representativeness of a
sample is to compare demographic breakdowns
within a survey to available data from the
population (like a census). While there is no
broader demographic data for STR hosts in
Fort Collins, comparing available information
(residency status and the title of the registered
STR) from the total recruited population
(registered STR hosts) offers an opportunity to
assess representativeness.
The similar percentages amongst the two
samples provides evidence in favor of the STR
survey sample being representative of the
population.
Page 257
Item 3.
183Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Methodology
Resident Survey
•Public Sentiment Toward Occupancy Ordinance
•Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
•Citywide Quality Measures
•Proximity to Ordinance Violators
•Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
Page 258
Item 3.
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Instrument
To facilitate comparability to previous results, many of the survey questions were asked in the same way
as they were asked in the previous community surveys, with some updates where applicable.
The final survey instrument was six pages long, printed in black and white, with a cover letter on the first
page. The cover letter instructed that any adult resident of the household could complete the
questionnaire. It also assured residents that their responses would remain confidential and would not be
used for enforcement.
To further encourage residents to complete and return the questionnaire, an incentive was offered, which
was a chance to win one of two $500 grand prizes or one of ten separate $100 prizes. Lastly, a pre -
stamped and pre-addressed return envelope was included to make it easy for residents to return their
completed questionnaire.
184Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 259
Item 3.
Methodology: Resident Survey
Sampling
Selecting a subset of home addresses to send a survey
packet is called sampling. We used a stratified random
address-based sampling technique to draw a list of 6,450
home addresses in Fort Collins that each received one
survey packet in the mail. We used a stratified approach to
send disproportionally more questionnaires to homes in the
regions immediately east and west of campus with the goal
of collecting enough responses from each region to report
results by those segments. The list of home addresses was
purchased from MSG, a commercial address-based sampling
vendor.
185Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region % of Homes % of Sample
Away from Campus 66%34%
East of Campus 11%33%
West of Campus 23%33%
Fort Collins 100%100%
Page 260
Item 3.
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Administration
Survey packets were mailed in mid-September of 2018. About ten days after mailing the initial survey
packet, a postcard was sent to each household to remind and encourage residents to complete and return
the questionnaire.
Response Rate
1,053 survey packets were returned as non-deliverable. We received and entered 1,366 useable responses,
for a final adjusted response rate of 25%. A typical response rate for a community-issue mail-based
survey is around 15%.
186Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region % of Delivered
Surveys
% of Returned
Surveys
Adjusted
Response Rate
Away from Campus 35%36%26%
East of Campus 33%38%29%
West of Campus 32%26%21%
Fort Collins 100%100%25%
Page 261
Item 3.
Methodology: Resident Survey
Weighting
In a community survey, it is common for certain demographics to be over or under-represented. For
example, mail survey respondents are often older. Additionally, because the sample was originally
stratified, it was necessary to check the balance of responses between the three strata.
To check and correct for potential skew and response biases, we calculated corrective weights based on
the known demographic estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Three dimensions were used for
weighting: region (west, east, or away from campus), owner/renter status, and years lived at current
residence (more than two years or no more than two years). The corrective weights were applied to the
data so that the results would more closely reflect the community as a whole. All results in this report,
including demographic tables, are based on the weighted data.
187Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy StudyPage 262
Item 3.
Methodology: Resident Survey
Margin of Error
The corrected top-level margin of error was +/-4.6% at the 95% confidence level. If we were to
conduct this survey 200 times, drawing a new random sample each time, we would expect that our
estimates would be within the margin-of-error in 19 of those 20 surveys. The margin of error accounts
for the study’s design and weighting effects, which increased the margin of error relative to the size of
the weights.
The corrected margin of error for each region is shown below.
188Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Region Corrected Margin of Error
Away from Campus ±6.1%
East of Campus ±8.0%
West of Campus ±9.1%
Fort Collins ±4.6%
Page 263
Item 3.
About Corona Insights
189Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Our founder named the company
Corona because the word means “light.”
It’s the knowledge that surrounds and
illuminates an issue;exactly what we
provide.Our firm’s mission is to provide
accurate and unbiased information and
counsel to decision makers.We provide
market research,evaluation,and strategic
consulting for organizations both small
and large.
Learn more at www.CoronaInsights.com
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 510
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.894.8246
Page 264
Item 3.
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcy Yoder, 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.
Ames, 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,
Landlord and tenant outreach practices,
Local considerations, and
Implementation.
Page 265
Item 3.
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:
Ames
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, landlord
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 residents, and racial and ethic minorities. While there are equity concerns
with a complaint-based system, the registration of rental properties was still largely
successful in communities for opening up avenues for communication with rental
property owners, landlords, and property managers.
The biggest concern about rental registration programs, particularly voluntary
programs, are that they “have no teeth.” These programs rely on property owners,
landlords, or management companies to voluntarily register and maintain accurate
Page 266
Item 3.
Page 3
information within the registration system. Communities interviewed indicated these
programs have lower participation rates compared to mandatory licensing programs.
Some communities build in deterrents for repeat offenders—properties that 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 they 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 inspections 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 violations 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 waste your time.”
“[I] would be somewhat afraid of trying to do a full registration program with periodic
inspections.”
“It is punitive to require all properties to register.”
Recommendations.
Require all rental properties to register with the city and obtain a license to rent
their unit.
Require all rental properties to pass an inspection prior to renting units.
Provide a three-year introductory period to provide education, allow property
owners to ensure properties are habitable for inspection, and get properties
licensed prior to enforcement.
Enforcement. Peer communities utilize a wide variety of enforcement methods from
proactive to complaint based. Proactive enforcement is conducted through staff
investigation into parking permits, rental advertising online or in the community, and
utility billings. Complaint based enforcement requires a community member to report
the issue to the department. Most communities interviewed lead with education and
open a dialogue to give landlords the opportunity to comply prior to moving to
penalties.
Communities interviewed expressed the need to have decision makers and city
attorney(s) in agreement about suitable penalties for violations because they will
Page 267
Item 3.
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 tenant 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 without escalation.
Peer communities said:
“Very rare to have to issue citations to landlords or tenants. We generally start with a door
hanger to notify tenants about requirements, but it is ultimately the landlord’s responsibility
to come into compliance.”
“We approach enforcement mainly as pro-active where able, and definitely re-active in all
cases. We take an ‘education first’ approach to give landlords the opportunity to comply with
city codes prior to moving to penalties.”
“Safe and healthy living environment is our job…we are successful because we are
reasonable.”
“The real goal for registration was to provide better access to someone who could fix things
[like landlords and owners]. With out of state owners, it takes months to get grass mowed.”
“Getting out of state landlords has been a huge benefit for us. They need to put local contact
for repairs and this is public information so tenants can contact them as well.”
Recommendations.
Lead with education to tenants and landlords before issuing a citation.
Consider requiring landlords that rent four or more units and live more than 50
miles from the city to designate a local contact with authority to fix maintenance
issues and make repairs.
Consult the city’s legal team to understand the options for enforcement penalties
and escalation of violations. Review enforcement tactics with City Council.
Fee structure. The communities interviewed either directly fund their program
through fees collected, allocate fees to the general fund to fund the program through
the general fund, or collect fees and other department specific funding to run the
program. Most communities are cost neutral and self-sufficient, while some
communities are working toward that goal or using a unique funding structure. Cost
recovery depends on the frequency of registration/licensing renewals (ranges from 1 to
4 years in communities) and the fee structure and frequency of inspections (varies).
Page 268
Item 3.
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 billing.
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 suggested 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
interviewed indicated the following staffing levels at the time of the interview.
Ames—3 full time inspectors
Austin—8 full time inspectors, 1 supervisor
Boulder—3 full time licensing team, inspections conducted by 3rd party
Corvallis—2 full time staff, 1 part time code compliance specialist
Kansas City—4 public health specialists, 6 field staff, 2 supervisors, 4 clinical staff
Lawrence—3 inspectors
Manhattan—1 clerical, 1 supervisor, 2 inspectors
San Marcos—0 dedicated staff
Seattle—1 call center, 3 administrative, 1 cashier, 3 inspectors, 1 senior inspector, 1
manager
Westminster—3 inspectors, 1 part time admin
Peer communities said:
“Self-sufficient; if it becomes a point where the program is not sufficient, then we would raise
the fee.”
“We are not allowed to profit from our program. Must be cost of service. Difficult to figure out
how to separate repeat offender activities from regular code enforcement. Right now, we
expend more time and money trying to collect the fee than the fee is.”
“When they look to hire people, think outside of the box. We are way overqualified for what
we do—our skillsets are helpful for the job we have. The people are important.”
Page 269
Item 3.
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 properties 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 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. 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
Ames if 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
periods 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
regulations. Generally, 10 percent of units are inspected in sampling programs.
However, in Lawrence the unit sampling is capped at 15 units total for each property
owner. Staff noted this is not effective for large properties and owners with multiple
properties in the program. Finally, Seattle uses a computer program to pull randomized
properties for inspection to prevent discrimination and targeting.
Among communities interviewed, most inspect HUD properties as well—even though
they have their own inspection requirements. While communities indicated this does
cause some inefficiencies, the standards and requirements are different for HUD
inspections. In one of the communities interviewed, most of their citations are in units
owned by the housing authority and in another they had to go back and revise the
Page 270
Item 3.
Page 7
ordinance to 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 maintained.”
“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 city inspectors to perform rental inspections but allow landlords to choose a
private inspector if they wish.
Landlord and tenant involvement. Open communication is key. Communities
advised to open a dialogue with landlords and tenants during program development,
and keep the dialogue going once the program is up and running. Quarterly touchpoints
are ideal to facilitate learning, training, and identify pain points in the process.
Particularly for students, education is constant. Many students are living alone for the
first time and do not understand the norms and behaviors to be a good neighbor.
Most landlords want to do a good job. Interviewees stressed the importance of having a
lot of upfront conversations and including them in the implementation process. Some
communities market the program as insurance for landlords as well to ensure tenants
are taking good care of their property. It is important to have a clear message for why
the community is pursuing rental regulations and how the program will ensure good
landlords are not penalized. Most communities focus on keeping costs low and focusing
on health and safety issues.
Page 271
Item 3.
Page 8
Tenants are generally compliant with the program and permit entry into units for
inspection. 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 homes. 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 do inspect mobile homes only inspect units where the unit itself is
rented—lot rent does not qualify as a rental if the unit is owned by the occupant.
Page 272
Item 3.
Page 9
Energy efficiency. Only one of the communities interviewed incorporate minimum
energy efficiency regulations 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. Communities 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 efficiency 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 used
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 inspections—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 including 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 Marcos 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 been very successful
in reducing or addressing nuisance violations with students living off-campus.
The Act Ally program in San Marcos is a partnership between the university and
landlords. Landlords register for the program—there is no fee—and if landlords
maintain their properties, they are included on the off campus living list. The
university has a long-standing relationship with apartment complexes and this
program has had some success. However, the program was rolled back because of
the legal and liability issues of program managers certifying properties to rent.
Page 273
Item 3.
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 interviewed spoke about the importance of fairness, balance, and
neutrality in implementation. The process for filing a complaint should be systematized
in order to avoid access to the “back door” for politically connected residents. The
process for filing a complaint and registering properties should also be designed in a
way to avoid unnecessary administrative burden on staff.
Many communities spoke about their experience with computer systems and software.
IT can either work for you or against you. One community struggled with issuing letters
of compliance for different number of years to reward good behavior another had to
revert to paper applications and manual data entry because their IT system was
ineffective. Starting an inventory of rentals was challenging in communities interviewed
because they were starting from scratch. Startup almost always took longer and cost
more than anticipated.
Peer communities said:
“Advice for them: ramping up is a great idea! Get way out in front of it. Take two years to
create awareness; you have to tell people time and time again.”
Page 274
Item 3.
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.
Recommendations.
Revise the occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household functionality
rather than familial relatedness.
Page 275
Item 3.
Page 12
Recommendation Summary
Licensing
Require all rental properties to register with the city and obtain a license
to rent their unit.
Require all rental properties to pass an inspection prior to renting units.
Provide a three-year introductory period to provide education, allow
property owners to ensure properties are habitable for inspection, and
get properties licensed prior to enforcement.
Enforcement
Lead with education to tenants and landlords before issuing a citation.
Consider requiring landlords that rent four or more units and live more
than 50 miles from the city to designate a local contact with authority to
fix maintenance issues and make repairs.
Consult the city’s legal team to understand the options for enforcement
penalties and escalation of violations. Review enforcement tactics with
City Council.
Fee structure
Design the fee structure to cover the costs of running the program.
Charge fees based on the number of rental units under ownership, not
based on the number of properties. This ensures the administrative
burden is consistent with the fee charged.
Assume startup costs will be more than you think.
Hire full time staff dedicated to this program, particularly inspectors.
Inspections
Require mandatory life and safety inspections of rental properties to
receive a license to rent units.
Provide a tiered inspection schedule to alleviate the burden of
inspections on landlords who maintain their property to a higher
standard. Consider the number of citations received during initial
inspection as a gauge for the inspection period.
Inspect all properties at least once every four years.
Inspect all rental properties, even if they are inspected through another
program. Explore opportunities to coordinate inspections to alleviate
administrative burden on landlords.
Page 276
Item 3.
Page 13
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 to ensure there
is an open avenue of communication.
Maintain quarterly meetings with stakeholders and residents to identify
issues with the program implementation, discuss progress and
effectiveness, and provide education.
Other considerations
Treat mobile and manufactured housing units the same as other rental
units if the unit itself is occupied by a renter. Lot rent should not be
considered a rental property trigger if the unit is owner occupied.
Review energy efficiency standards for new construction in the city.
Reevaluate the introduction of minimum energy efficiency standards for
existing rental properties in five years to avoid overburdening landlords
and administrative staff while implementing initial rental regulations. Life
and safety issues should be the priority.
Partner with Colorado State University code of conduct office to craft a
notice system that involves the university in nuisance violations in off
campus student housing.
Implementation
Create a community education and engagement plan to guide outreach
efforts over the first three years of implementation. Include education,
stakeholder engagement, student engagement, clear expectations on
timing, and key messaging about the purpose and jurisdiction of the
program regulations.
Formalize the process for filing and investigating complaints to remove
biases.
Work closely with the city’s IT staff to identify the unique software needs
to administer the program and register properties efficiently.
Occupancy
Revise the occupancy ordinance to regulate based on household
functionality rather than familial relatedness.
Page 277
Item 3.
Page 14
Appendix: Peer Community Program Details
Registration
v. License
Voluntary v.
Mandatory
Registration/
Licensing Period
Registration/
Licensing Fee
Ames, Iowa License
(registration
and letter of
compliance)
Mandatory Annual Single family $50;
duplex $100;
multifamily $23-$30
per unit
Austin, Texas Registration Triggered by
code
violations
within a 24
month
period
Annual; in the
program for at
least 2 years
$372 per property
Boulder,
Colorado
License Mandatory 4 years $190 per SF unit or per
building
Corvallis,
Oregon
Registration Mandatory Annual $15 per unit; escalation
factor of $1 every odd
number year
Kansas City,
Missouri
Registration Mandatory Annual $20 per unit
Lawrence,
Kansas
License Mandatory Annual $14-$17 per unit
Manhattan,
Kansas
Registration Mandatory;
not enforced
One time; update
as needed
None
San Marcos,
Texas
Registration Mandatory One time; update
as needed
None
Seattle,
Washington
License Mandatory 2 years $70 for property and
1st unit; $15 per
additional unit
Westminster,
Colorado
License
(properties
with 4+ units);
Registration
otherwise
Mandatory 2 years $50 per unit
Page 278
Item 3.
Page 15
Inspections
Complaint or
Proactive
Inspection
Frequency
Inspection
Fee
Local Contact
Required
Ames, Iowa Proactive 1 to 4 year
rotation;
frequency based
on performance
Included in
registration fee;
3+ inspections
$50 each
No
Austin, Texas Registered
repeat
offender
properties
Annual No fee for
inspection; clean
community fee
$4.25/month
utility charge
funds code
enforcement
No
Boulder,
Colorado
Proactive 4 years Third party
inspectors
Within 60 minutes
of Boulder
Corvallis,
Oregon
Complaint
based
N/A N/A No
Kansas City,
Missouri
Complaint
based
N/A N/A No
Lawrence,
Kansas
Proactive 3 years typical; 5
or less violations,
6 years
$50 per unit Resident agent
within 40 miles of
the city
Manhattan,
Kansas
Complaint
based
N/A N/A 60 mile radius or
appoint a local
agent
San Marcos,
Texas
Complaint
based
N/A N/A Out of state contact
Seattle,
Washington
Proactive;
random
selection of
10% of all
rental units in
city per year
At least once
every 5-10 years
$175 for
property and 1st
unit; $35 per
additional units
Out of state contact
of local for repairs
Westminster,
Colorado
Proactive 2 and 4 year
schedule of
inspections
based on
property age
$40 per unit 50 miles from unit,
need property
manager to take
summons, notices
of noncompliance,
and oversee
inspections
Page 279
Item 3.
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
Page 280
Item 3.
MEMORANDUM
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 USA1 to provide demographic details of households according to the
number and relationship of people in current households. Microdata is not available by
city limit designations and as such the analysis includes the northern portion of Larimer
County which includes Fort Collins but also includes small communities outside of Fort
Collins (e.g., Bellvue, Wellington, Timnath) and unincorporated areas.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 1.3 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 excludes communities south of Fort Collins, e.g., Loveland and Estes Park.
3 Estimate excludes populations living in “group quarters,” defined in the Census as “group living arrangement that
is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents” and
generally include college dormitories, residential treatment centers, and correctional facilities.
Page 281
Item 3.
Page 2
Figure 1.
Geographic Area of Analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Household Type and Size
Figure 2 shows the number and distribution of all households and nonconforming
households by household size.
Overall, 94 percent of study area households are composed of 4 persons or less.
The majority of nonconforming households (68%) are composed of 4 persons,
another 30 percent are composed of 5 and 6 persons, and only 2 percent are
composed of more than 6 persons.
Page 282
Item 3.
Page 3
Figure 2.
Household Size
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Almost half of all households (47%) are married-couple family households. Not
surprisingly, nonconforming households are more likely to be non-family households
(64%); however 438 households (23%) do include a family unit living in the household.
Figure 3.
Household Type
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Household size
Total 82,691 100%1,875 100%
1- Person household 19,764 24%-0%
2- Person household 33,688 41%-0%
3- Person household 13,380 16%-0%
4-Person household 10,696 13%1,284 68%
5-Person household 3,767 5%355 19%
6-Person household 995 1%199 11%
7-Person household 210 0%16 1%
8-Person household 97 0%21 1%
10-Person household 94 0%-0%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Household type
Total 82,691 100%1,875 100%
Family Households 45,892 55%438 23%
Married-couple household 38,778 47%299 16%
Male householder, no spouse present 2,225 3%58 3%
Female householder, no spouse present 4,889 6%81 4%
Non-Family Households 29,636 36%1,201 64%
Male householder, living alone 8,982 11%-0%
Male householder, not living alone 5,463 7%653 35%
Female householder, living alone 10,782 13%-0%
Female householder, not living alone 4,409 5%548 29%
Type could not be determined 7,163 9%236 13%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Page 283
Item 3.
Page 4
Homeownership and Structure
Figure 4 shows the number and distribution of households by tenure. Almost three
fourths (74%) of nonconforming households are renters.
Figure 4.
Tenure
Note:
Excludes households
living in group quarters.
Source:
IPUMS USA, University
of Minnesota,
www.ipums.org and
Root Policy Research.
Nonconforming households are less likely than conforming households to live in single
family detached homes. Overall 62 percent of households live in single family detached
homes compared to 54 percent of nonconforming households. Around 4 percent of
households live in building with 50 or more units, compared to 14 percent of
nonconforming households.
Income
Nonconforming households are more likely to have income below $50,000 compared to
all households (46% v. 37%) and are significantly less likely to have income between
$50,000 and $75,000 (10% v. 17%).
Figure 5.
Income Distribution
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Page 284
Item 3.
Page 5
Demographic Characteristics
Nonconforming households are slightly more racially and ethnically diverse (Figure 6).
Eighty five percent of all households are non-Hispanic White compared to 78 percent of
nonconforming households. Nonconforming households are more like to be of one or
more races (9% v. 2%).
Figure 6.
Racial and Ethnic
Distribution
Note:
Excludes households living in group
quarters.
Source:
IPUMS USA, University of
Minnesota, www.ipums.org and
Root Policy Research.
Figure 7 presents the number and distribution of households grouped by different age
ranges of members in the household. Around 18 percent of nonconforming households
(341 households) include children. As expected, nonconforming households are
clustered around younger adults, 48 percent of nonconforming households are
composed of members between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure 7.
Age Range of Household Members
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Age range of household members
With children in household 21,090 26%341 18%
Without children in household:61,601 74%1,534 82%
College aged adults 18-24 8,405 10%909 48%
Middle aged adults 25-54 18,828 23%40 2%
Older adults 55 and over 23,160 28%0 0%
Broader Age Range 11,208 14%585 31%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Number Percent Number Percent
Page 285
Item 3.
Page 6
Unit Size
Figure 8 shows the average number of persons per bedroom for different unit sizes and
the distribution of households by unit size. While there is some crowding among
nonconforming households in units with one and two bedrooms, the majority (76%) of
nonconforming households occupy units with 4 or more bedrooms. As shown, these
larger units tend to be underutilized—have less than one occupant per bedroom—
among conforming households while nonconforming households are more likely to
have a more appropriate utilization of these larger housing units, with an average of one
person per bedroom.
Figure 8.
Average Number of Persons per Bedroom, and Household Distribution, by
Unit Size
Note: Excludes households living in group quarters.
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Key Findings
Overall, around 2 percent, or 1,875 households are “nonconforming” households—
meaning their occupancy is currently out of compliance with Fort Collins’ code. Key
findings about the composition and characteristics of non-conforming households
include:
23% of all nonconforming households include a family unit living in the household;
26% of nonconforming households are owners;
54% of nonconforming households (or about 1,000 units) are living in single family
homes; the rest are in various types of attached housing;
Number of bedrooms
No bedrooms -2%-0%
One bedroom 1.3 7%4.0 1%
Two bedrooms 1.0 27%2.1 5%
Three bedrooms 0.8 34%1.6 18%
Four bedrooms 0.7 21%1.0 54%
Five bedrooms 0.6 7%1.0 17%
Six bedrooms 0.6 1%0.9 5%
All Households Nonconforming Households
Average
Number of
Persons per
Percent of
Households in
Unit Type
Average Number
of Persons per
Bedroom
Percent of
Households in
Unit Type
Page 286
Item 3.
Page 7
Nonconforming households are more likely to have incomes below $50,000
compared to all households (46% v. 37%). However, occupancy isn’t just a low-
income issue: conforming and nonconforming households are similarly likely to
have incomes over $75,000 (46% and 43%, respectively).
Nonconforming households are slightly more racially and ethnically diverse that
households overall; and
Larger housing units (3 or more bedrooms) tend to be underutilized by conforming
households, while non-conforming households average 1 person per bedroom in
these units. (The majority (76%) of nonconforming households occupy units with 4
or more bedrooms).
Page 287
Item 3.
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcy Yoder, City of Fort Collins
From: Mollie Fitzpatrick, Lucy McGehee, and Julia Jones, Root Policy Research
Re: Fort Collins Housing Stock Bedroom and Capacity Analysis
Date: November 29, 2022
This memorandum provides a summary of current bedroom capacity within Fort Collins
housing stock using data from the American Community Survey (ACS).
Data Sources and Geographic Note
The analysis uses data from the 2020 5-year ACS for the City of Fort Collins as well as ACS
microdata from IPUMS USA (also 2020 5-year data). The microdata provide more
specificity about bedrooms and occupancy of units; however, the microdata geographic
boundaries do not align perfectly with the City of Fort Collins. As shown in Figure 1,
microdata captures the northern portion of Larimer County which includes Fort Collins
and surrounding smaller communities (e.g. Bellvue, Wellington, Timnath) and
unincorporated areas. The City of Fort Collins accounts for 82% of homes in this area.
Figure 1. Geographic Area of Analysis for IPUMS Data
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Page 288
Item 3.
Page 2
For aggregate data on number of units, total number of bedrooms, and units in
structure, Root Policy Research relies on ACS data specifically for the City of Fort Collins.
However, Root also calculates estimated bedrooms by units in structure and occupancy
relative to bedroom, by applying IPUMS estimates from the broader area to data for the
City of Fort Collins. Such calculations are detailed in table notes for transparency.
Overview of Bedroom Capacity
Figure 2 displays the number of units by bedroom count in the City of Fort Collins (using
2020 5-year ACS data). Three bedrooms are the most common in Fort Collins,
accounting for 33% of all units. There are a total of 186,718 bedrooms in the city in
64,262 units (average of 2.91 bedrooms per unit).
The number of bedrooms vary by type of residential structure. Figure 3 details unit and
bedroom count by structure type, and the average number of bedrooms per unit by
structure type.
Figure 3.
Bedroom Count by Structure Type, City of Fort Collins
Note: Units in Structure and total number of bedrooms reflect data for the City of Fort Collins; bedrooms by units in
structure and average number of bedrooms per unit applied from IPUMS analysis of greater Fort Collins area.
Source: 2020 5-year ACS, IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Structure Type
Single-Family Detached 36,674 57%128,506 69%3.5
Single-Family Attached 5,129 8%13,496 7%2.6
Duplex 1,381 2%3,091 2%2.2
3-4 Units 3,445 5%6,897 4%2.0
5-9 Units 4,751 7%9,773 5%2.1
10-19 Units 4,558 7%8,519 5%1.9
20-49 Units 3,237 5%5,436 3%1.7
50+ Units 3,613 6%7,236 4%2.0
Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,424 2%3,683 2%2.6
Other 50 0%81 0%1.6
Total 64,262 100%186,718 100%2.9
Number
Avg. Bedroom s
per Unit
Bedroom sUnits
Number Percent Percent
Figure 2.
Units by Bedroom Count,
City of Fort Collins
Source:
2020 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research.
Note: Studio units included as one bedroom
Studio/One Bedroom 7,208 11%7,208
Two bedroom 16,778 26%33,556
Three bedroom 21,045 33%63,135
Four bedroom 14,176 22%56,704
Five or more bedrooms 5,055 8%26,115
Total 64,262 100%186,718
Number
of Units
Total Number
of Bedrooms
Percent
of Units
Page 289
Item 3.
Page 3
Residential single family homes account for 57% of all units and 69% of all bedrooms in
the City with an average of 3.5 bedrooms per unit. The second largest contributor to the
total bedroom count are townhomes (i.e., single family attached), which account for 7%
of bedrooms and have, on average, 2.6 bedrooms per unit. Multifamily structures have
lower bedroom counts on average, ranging from 1.7 bedrooms per unit to 2.1
bedrooms per unit.
Figure 4 provides additional detail on the distribution of units by bedrooms and structure
type. These data reflect the distribution within the broader Fort Collins Area (see map in
Figure 2) but are representative of the City, which accounts for 82% of the homes in the area.
Figure 4.
Bedrooms by Unit Structure, Broader Fort Collins Area
Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research.
Among single family detached units, 11% of units have two bedrooms, 42% have three
bedrooms, 32% have four bedrooms, and 13% have five or more bedrooms. Multifamily
units (particularly those with 10 or more units in the structure) have higher proportions
of one bedroom units than other structure types. Five (or more) bedroom homes are
primarily found in single family structures, duplexes or mobile/manufactured homes.
Occupancy by Bedroom
Figure 5 details the average number of occupants per bedroom by structure type. Single
family detached structures have the fewest average occupants per bedroom at 0.79
people per bedroom. Note that values less than one indicate there are more bedrooms
than people, suggesting that most people have their own bedroom or there are spare
rooms.
Page 290
Item 3.
Page 4
Figure 5.
Units by Bedroom Count,
Broader Fort Collins Area
Source:
IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota,
www.ipums.org and Root Policy Research..
The highest occupancy per bedroom is within multifamily housing with 20-49 units. On
average, there are 1.14 occupants per bedroom. In most housing above five units, there
is more than one person per bedroom.
Summary of Key findings
There are a total of 186,718 bedrooms in the city in 64,262 units (average of 2.91
bedrooms per unit).
Single family residences (attached and detached) account for 65% of units and 76%
of bedrooms in Fort Collins.
On average, single family homes have 3.4 bedrooms compared to multi-unit homes
with 2.4 bedrooms.
Single family housing types (detached, townhomes, and duplexes) all average fewer
than 1 person per bedroom. Multifamily residences have the higher average
occupancy per bedroom compared with other building structures but still only
average about 1 person per bedroom;
Average Number of
Occupants Per
Bedroom
Single-Family Detached 0.79
Single-Family Attached 0.86
Duplex 0.92
3-4 Units 0.98
5-9 Units 1.08
10-19 Units 1.09
20-49 Units 1.14
50+ Units 0.97
Mobile home/ Trailer 1.02
Page 291
Item 3.
MEMORANDUM
To: Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan Implementation Team
From: Root Policy Research
Re: Investor Ownership Analysis
Date: April 12, 2022
This memo outlines Root Policy Research’s analysis of investor presence in the Fort
Collins rental market. Traditional rental units in multi-family buildings have always been
“investor” properties; however, investor presence in the single family, townhome, and
condo markets has increased nationwide since the Great Recession, when many such
homes fell into foreclosure. Currently, the strong rental market in Fort Collins (and
Northern Colorado more broadly) may contribute to additional interest in acquiring
residential properties as investment opportunities.
The analysis contained in this memo focuses specifically on investor ownership of single
family, du-/tri-plex, and townhome units.
Data sources and Methodology
Root utilized several data sources to inform the analysis:
For a current profile of investor-owned properties, Root relied on data from the
Larimer County Assessor (geocoded to the City of Fort Collins). Investors are
defined as owners not occupying the specified residential unit (excluding multi-unit
apartments). Investors can be individuals or companies and are identified by
matching owner and site addresses in the assessor data (where site and owner
addresses match, the property is assumed to be owner occupied; where site and
owner addresses do not match, the property is assumed to be investor owned).
Due to data limitations of historical Larimer County Assessor data, Root relied on
two different sources to evaluate historical trends in investor ownership. The first is
Census and American Community survey data on tenure (renter v owner) of
housing units by structure type (e.g., single family, duplex, etc.). In addition, Root
was able to access ATTOM Data1 on national, state, and local trends of company vs
individual ownership of residential properties between 2016 and 2020.
1 ATTOM data solutions aggregates assessor data across geographies; data are only available back to 2016 and
individual properties are not available so Root was not able to conduct an owner occupancy analysis on the data.
Page 292
Item 3.
Page 2
Trends Over Time
According to the American Community Survey 2020 5-year sample, there are 61,526
occupied households in the City of Fort Collins. Overall, 55% (34,046) units are owner
occupied. Owner occupancy is substantially higher when focusing specifically on single-
unit structures—76% of such units are owner occupied.
As noted in the introduction, national trends show a rise in investor ownership of single
family properties over the past decade, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession
(2007-2009). Figure 1 illustrates this trend by showing rentership rates by structure type
of occupied households in the country, the state, and in Fort Collins from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 1.
Rentership Rates
by Units in
Structure, 2000-
2020
Note:
Rentership rate is the % of
households in each structure
type that are renters (as
opposed to owners).
Source:
2000 Decennial Census; 5-year
ACS estimates from 2010, 2015,
and 2020; and Root Policy
Research.
Page 293
Item 3.
Page 3
As shown in the previous figure, the proportion of homes occupied by renters in Fort
Collins rose from 43% to 45% between 2000 and 2020 (peaking at 46% around 2015).
The proportion of single family homes occupied by renters in Fort Collins rose from 21%
in 2000 to 26% in 2015, moderating back to 24% by 2020. Similar trends are evident in
the state overall and the country.
Though a 3-percentage point change may seem minimal, this shift combined with
overall housing unit growth reflects a 3,800-unit increase in renter occupied single
family units:
In 2000, a total 6,092 single family units were renter occupied (out of 29,405 total
single family units).
In 2020 (based on 5-year ACS data), 9,848 single family units were renter occupied
(out of 40,572 single family units).
Figure 2 shows the proportion of residential properties (excluding multi-family
apartment properties) that are owned by companies (as opposed to individuals) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, and the United States. It is important to note that not all rental units
are company owned, but this does provide another indicator of investor presence in the
market. Company ownership has increased nationally since 2016 (except in 2020);
statewide trends are similar with steady increases since 2016, despite a slight drop in
2020. In Fort Collins, the increase in company ownership is slightly more pronounced
and continues through 2020. Currently 11.5% of residential properties are owned by a
company.
Figure 2.
Company
Ownership of
Residential
Properties,
2016-2020
Source:
Attom Data Solutions
aggregation of local
assessor data, and Root
Policy Research.
Profile of Investor-Owned Properties
The remainder of this memo uses Larimer County Assessor data to evaluate the current
profile of investor-owned properties in the Fort Collins single-family, townhome, and
duplex market. Of these types of properties, about 33% are investor owned and 77% are
owner occupied (investor ownership is defined as properties for which site and owner
addresses do not match).
Investor ownership as a percentage of total units is substantially higher for townhomes
(80%) and duplex/triplex properties (86%) than for single-family units (23%). However,
Year
2016 9.0%7.9%8.3%
2017 9.7%8.1%8.6%
2018 10.7%8.5%8.9%
2019 11.2%8.8%9.3%
2020 11.5%8.4%7.6%
Fort Collins Colorado United States
% Residential Properites with a Company as a Primary Owner
(excludes commercial multifamily rental properties)
Page 294
Item 3.
Page 4
the sheer number of single family investment properties exceeds the other types,
simply due to the dominance of this housing structure type.
Figure 3 shows the number and proportion of investor-owned properties by structure
type. It also shows the number of investors who are “local” (have a Colorado address)
versus out of state investors. Overall, about 15% of investors are out of state entities.
Figure 3.
Investor
Ownership
by Property
Type, Fort
Collins,
2021
Source:
Larimer County
Assessor and Root
Policy Research.
The vast majority of investors own just 1 property (in addition to their residence). Fewer
than 1% of investors own 10 or more properties. (See Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Number of
Properties
per Investor
Source:
Larimer County
Assessor and Root
Policy Research.
Investor-owned properties tend to be smaller, older, and have lower market value than
owner-occupied properties of the same type. This is an indicator that investors are more
likely to compete in the entry-level ownership market.
Colorado
Investor
Out of State
Investor
% Investor
Owned
Residential (Single-Unit)29,148 7,117 1,464 23%
Townhouse 1,329 4,714 601 80%
Duplex/Triplex 164 866 115 86%
TOTAL 30,641 12,667 2,210 33%
Investor Owned
Owner
Occupied
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Residential (Single-Unit)
Townhouse
Duplex/Triplex
TOTAL
Number of Properties
Owner Occupied Colorado Investor Out of State Investor
Number of
Investment
Properties Owned
1 property 87.6%94.8%87.1%90.3%
2 properties 8.0%3.3%9.7%6.3%
3 to 5 properties 3.7%1.5%2.0%2.7%
6 to 10 properties 0.6%0.3%0.5%0.4%
0.2%0.1%0.7%0.2%More than 10 properties
All
Investors
Investors with
Duplex/Triplex
Properties
Investors with
Townhouse
Properties
Investors with
Single Family
Properties
Page 295
Item 3.
Page 5
At the median single family residential units that are investor owned are 1,475 square
feet, built in 1979, and valued at $367,700. Single family owner occupied units at the
median are 1,836 square feet, built in 1991, and valued at $428,600.
Figure 5.
Median
Characteristics of
Investor Owned
Properties and
Owner Occupied
Properties
Source:
Larimer County Assessor and Root
Policy Research..
As shown in Figure 6, investor properties are prevalent throughout the city with clusters
around the University and central neighborhoods (where rentership is highest).
Residential Properties
Investor Owned 1,475 3 / 2 1979 $367,700
Owner Occupied 1,836 3 / 2.5 1991 $428,600
Townhouse Properties
Investor Owned 1,258 2 / 2.5 1998 $297,000
Owner Occupied 1,395 3 / 2.5 1997 $346,200
Duplex Properties
Investor Owned 1,671 4 / 2 1966 $472,300
Owner Occupied 1,361 4 / 2 1948 $515,000
Market
Value
Year
Built
Square
Footage
Bedrooms /
Bathrooms
Figure 6.
Geographic
Distribution of
Investor-Owned
Single Family,
Townhouse,
Duplex and Triplex
Properties
Note:
Each dot represents 5
properties; dot locations are
approximate.
Source:
Larimer County Assessor and
Root Policy Research..
Page 296
Item 3.
City County Year Definition Adopted Maximum # of Unrelated Adults Definition/Regulation Square Footage Req't / Bedroom Single Unit Parking Requirement(s)Term
Denver Denver 2021 5 Unrelated Adults, Unlimited # of
Related Adults Household 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 Resi
Habitable rooms shall have a floor are of not
less than 70 square feet No Parking Requirements Household
Aurora Adams/Arapahoe 2001 4 persons
A 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 shall not 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 required
2 spaces per dwelling unit (spaces can be
accommodated in garage or driveway outside the
required front yard setback) plus 2 guest spaces
per unit
Family
Brighton Adams 2008 4 persons An 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 unit Family
Commerce City Adams 2016 3 persons
An 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 unit Family
Northglenn Adams 2019 4 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 per bedroom plus an additional two persons per dwelling unit
used as a single housekeeping unit.
2 persons per bedroom
Residences: 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.
Family
Thornton Adams 2011 4 persons
Individuals 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.
Family
Westminster Adams/Jefferson 2015 4 persons
A 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 B1 District, 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.
Family
Page 297
Item 3.
Boulder Boulder 2007
P, A, RR, RE, and RL Zone Districts: 3
persons
MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR,
DT, IS, IG, IM, and IMS Zone Districts:
4 persons
Heads 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 space
MU-4, RH-7 Zone Districts: 0 off-street parking
spaces
Longmont Boulder 2015 5 persons
One 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
space Family
Arvada Jefferson 2008 5 persons
A. 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.
Family
Wheat Ridge Jefferson 2001 3 persons
One (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)
Family
Golden Jefferson 1973 4 persons
A 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 space
Non-downtown areas: Each single-family residence
shall be provided with one parking space.
Households
Fort Collins Larimer 2002 3 persons
An 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.
Family
Loveland Larimer 1974 3 persons
Any 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 includes
family 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)Family
Castle Rock Douglas 2012 5 persons
One 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 Family
Page 298
Item 3.
Parker Douglas 1990 5 persons
Two (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 Family
Englewood Arapahoe 2004 2 persons
A household includes one (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship,
including foster children, together in a dwelling unit; or two (2) unrelated persons and their children living
together in a dwelling unit.
2 spaces per dwelling unit Household
Littleton Arapahoe/Douglas/Jefferson 1992 3 persons
Any 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 certified
or licensed pursuant to article 6 of title 26, Colorado Revised Statutes.
2 spaces per dwelling unit Family
Lakewood Jefferson 2018 5 persons
A 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 room
No Parking Requirements Household
Colorado Springs El Paso 2018 5 persons
As 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 persons
and 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
Unincorporated Adams N/A 2018 3 or more persons
An 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 Family
Unincorporated Arapahoe N/A 2011 5 persons
An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption residing under one head of
household, or a group of not more than five (5) persons, who need not be related, living as a single
housekeeping unit. The definition of “Family” specifically excludes any group home licensed by the State for
the use of four (4) to eight (8) persons.
2 spaces per dwelling unit Family
Page 299
Item 3.
City State Year Definition Adopted Maximum # of Unrelated Adults Definition/Regulation Square Footage Req't / Bedroom
Limitation?Single Unit Parking Requirement(s)Term
Salt Lake City Utah 1995 3 persons
One 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 Family
Phoenix Arizona 2011 5 persons An 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 Family
Albuquerque New Mexico 2018 5 persons
An 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
the
subdivision plat (on streets classified for Intermittent Parking as provided in
the
Subdivision Regulations set forth in Chapter 14, Article 14 of this code):
1. Three spaces if the dwelling has up to two bedrooms; or
2. Four spaces if the dwelling has three or four bedrooms; or
3. 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; or
2. Five spaces if the dwelling has three or four bedrooms; or
3. Six spaces if the dwelling has five or more bedrooms.
Family
Seattle Washington 2006 8 persons A 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 Household
Portland Oregon 2018 5 persons
One 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 Household
Boise Idaho 2013 5 persons
A 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 Family
Austin Texas 2016 6 persons
In 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.
2 spaces per dwelling unit Dwelling Unit
Occupancy Limit
Las Vegas Nevada 2011 4 persons With 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 Family
Kansas City Missouri 2012 5 persons
Household 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 Household
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 2007 5 persons
One 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 Family
Page 300
Item 3.
Washington District of Columbia 2016 6 persons
Household: 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 Household
Boston Massachussetts 2008 2+ persons
Family. 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)Family
Minneapolis 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 Districts
Maximum 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 Districts
Maximum 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 2
1 space per dwelling unit Family
Page 301
Item 3.
Myler
PPA 670
Opp
8 August 2022
Rental Housing Strategies Community Engagement
Executive Summary
Background
With nearly half of all housing in Fort Collins occupied by renters (Housing Strategic
Plan, 2021), the City must support both renter and homeowners living next door to each
other, even when their values may have tensions between them. Nowhere is this
discrepancy starker than on the issue of occupancy limits. The City of Fort Collins has
been enforcing rental occupancy since the 1960’s and the ordinance known as U+2
since 2007. The language of the ordinance is in Article 3, Division 8.16 of the City’s
Municipal Code (City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 2006). The City’s website describes
the purpose of occupancy limits as “to help ensure health and safety of residents, and to
help protect the quality and character of neighborhoods” ("Occupancy”). Historically,
occupancy limits have been a space where residents are often polarized.
The City has also had multiple conversations about how to support both renters and
landlords through rental licensing and/or registration over more than 10 years. The goal
of these strategies would be to make it easier to both rent and landlord in the city, with
health and safety protections for tenants and support for small landlords. In October
Page 302
Item 3.
2021, the City Council reviewed an evaluation of rental strategies and directed staff to
conduct community engagement on the topic.
In March 2021, the City released its new Housing Strategic Plan, a document
which used expert analysis and public input to define the challenges in housing facing
Fort Collin and outline strategies to combat them and help housing become more
healthy, stable and affordable for all residents. The seventh challenge liste d in the Plan
is that “Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy
housing, especially for those who rent.” Seven strategies are listed under this challenge
as tools the City would like to use to help renters and others. Strategy 20 is related to a
rental licensing and/or registration program and Strategy 21 concerns revisions to the
current occupancy limits (Image 1).
Image 1: Strategies 20 and 21 (Housing Strategic Plan, 2021).
Community Engagement
In order to get direction and better understand the public’s tolerance of changes
to occupancy limits and rental regulations, Neighborhood Services staff began a public
Page 303
Item 3.
engagement campaign which included convening a resident taskforce and deploying a
community questionnaire.
Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce
In March, 2022, a Taskforce of 19 residents including housing tenants, property owners,
property managers and more was selected by staff and convened to discuss occupancy
and rental strategies. “The Rental Housing Task Force was convened to support deeper
exploration of the three strategies and work collaboratively to propose modifications to
current housing policy over the course of ten biweekly meetings. Modifications proposed
by the Task Force will be considered by City staff, the broader public, and City Council
moving forward” (Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force July 6, 2022 Agenda). The
taskforce met monthly for ten months, overseen by City staff and a third-party facilitator.
Participants worked to diverge and then reconverge on recommendations to present to
City Council.
Community Questionnaire
In order to better support the Taskforce and help them expand their viewpoint to the
broader Fort Collins population, staff also conducted a Rental Housing Strategies
Community Questionnaire. The results were presented to the Taskforce and will also be
included in the report to City Council along with the Taskforce’s recommendations. The
survey was deployed online and sent to staff contacts at Colorado State University, The
Coloradoan, and The Collegian. Staff also used the Neighborhood Services pop up
lemonade stand to table at strategic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were chosen
Page 304
Item 3.
because of their high quantity of both renters and homeowners living next door to one
another. They survey was also available in Spanish.
Demographics
Overall, the survey had 1,739 responses. 64.8% said they own their home and 30.8%
said they rented. They survey also asked respondents to self -identify as a renter,
homeowner, student, real estate agent, homeowners’ association member, property
manager, landlord or other, with the option to select multiple to capture the
intersectionality of identities at play. On average, renters reported lower household
income, age, and length of residency in Fort Collin than owners, although some of the
demographic questions such as household income also had larger numbers of
participants refuse to answer so the trends may be skewed. The survey captured
representative percentages of most racial identities e xcept that only 4.3% of
respondents identified as Hispanic/Latinx while the larger population has a higher
percentage of people in this category.
Results
The results are presented through various cross-sections of the respondents. All the
questions will show how the entire pool or respondents answered, and then a
comparison of only renters and only homeowners. The occupancy questions were
further filtered by respondents who identified as homeowners but NOT rental housing
industry professionals such as landlords, property managers or real estate agents. The
rental occupancy questions were filtered for respondents who identified as an industry
professional. This shows an interesting impact of working in the rental housing industry.
Page 305
Item 3.
Occupancy All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners
Non Industry
Professionals
Agree or disagree to the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins occupancy limit
stay as they are? 31% 69% 22% 78% 36% 64% 45% 55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in
more places around the city 62% 35% 72% 23% 50% 41% 43% 49%
Make the process to approve extra
occupancy easier 59% 33% 74% 21% 51% 39% 43% 46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match
number of bedrooms in a home 51% 50% 59% 33% 47% 44% 38% 51%
Regulate occupancy based on
household function, not family
relatedness 48% 41% 51% 31% 21% 47% 28% 52%
Regulate occupancy based on number
of parking spaces 22% 61% 12% 69% 27% 57% 24% 63%
Focus on regulating nuisances instead
of occupancy 56% 32% 61% 26% 54% 36% 44% 44%
Increase occupancy limits to more
than 3 unrelated residents 56% 37% 73% 23% 47% 45% 39% 52%
Eliminate occupancy limits
completely 36% 54% 52% 36% 27% 63% 24% 67%
Rental Strategies All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners Landlords
Agree or disagree with the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins rental strategies
stay as they are? 40% 60% 25% 75% 46% 54% 53% 47%
Require that all landlords obtain a
license to rent property in the City 50% 40% 63% 21% 45% 48% 13% 78%
Require that all landlords register
their rental properties with the City 56% 34% 69% 17% 52% 40% 21% 69%
Proactively inspect rental properties
on a regular basis for health and
safety violations
47% 37% 62% 20% 42% 44% 15% 72%
Inspect rental properties only when a
complaint is filed 56% 26% 60% 22% 53% 28% 56% 23%
Analysis
The results show divides in opinions between subgroups of the population. Overall,
renters were more likely to say that they wanted to see changes in both occupancy and
rental strategies. Homeowners as a single group without filtration of profession were
Page 306
Item 3.
more moderate or split more evenly between those who disagreed with strategies and
those who agreed. It was helpful then to filter out subsections of the homeowners by
profession in the rental housing industry. Homeowners who were NOT industry
professionals were less likely to approve of changes to U+2. However, Homeowners
who WERE in the industry themselves were less likely to approve of rental strategies
which would regulate their business. An interesting pattern to point out is the dual
inspection questions. Many respondents disagreed with one type of inspection and
agreed with the other, but there were also many respondents who agreed with both
types, indicating that inspections in general are needed, but there were differing
opinions on whether to perform them preemptively or case-by-case.
Conclusions and Next Steps
However divided individual groups were in the questionnaire, the majority of
respondents said they would tolerate or even welcome changes in both U+2 and rental
strategies. There are some other clear directives from the survey, including that most
people thought restricting occupancy based on parking spaces is a bad idea, or that
offering increased landlord/tenant mediation services would be a good one. The survey
was presented to the Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce, and after discussion they
agreed to recommend rental registration over licensing and case-by-case inspections
over preemptive ones. For occupancy, the Taskforce recommended basing occupancy
limits on the number of bedrooms in a house, removing the definitions of family from the
ordinance language, as well as making the extra occupancy application process easier
by removing occupancy from the Land Use Code.
Page 307
Item 3.
The survey results and Taskforce recommendation will go to City Council on August 26,
2022 where staff will receive direction on which of the recommendations to implement.
The next steps will be deciding on the many small details of the new policies and
determining how they will be enforced and administrated. As the City progresses, it
should continue to engage the public in order to build rental strategies which
successfully address the greatest challenges in the Housing Strategic Plan.
Resources
City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 3.8.16, 2006.
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDE
ST_DIV3.8SURE_3.8.16OCLIINNUPEAL
Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force August 3, 2022 Agenda. (n.d.). City of Fort
Collins. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/august-3-agenda_website-
edits.pdf?1659717450
Housing Strategic Plan. (2021). City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/20-22913-housing-strategic-plan-no-
appendices.pdf?1618855189
Occupancy. (n.d.). Fcgov.Com.
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy
Page 308
Item 3.
Council Work Session: Housing Strategic Plan Implementation
05.09.23
Occupancy Regulations
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing ManagerPage 309
Item 3.
Outline
Introduction: Overview and Policy Alignment
Existing Conditions
Topic 1: Policy Considerations for Occupancy Definitions
Topic 2: Policy Considerations for Maximum Number of Occupants
Topic 3: Policy Considerations for Extra Occupancy Process
Conclusion: Next Steps
Page 310
Item 3.
3Questions for Council
1.What additional information do Councilmembers need to inform their policy
guidance?
2.What feedback do Councilmembers have about the range of occupancy
options outlined?
3.What feedback do Councilmembers have about the proposed approach to
community engagement around the occupancy options?
Page 311
Item 3.
Background + Policy Alignment 4
Big Move 7: Healthy, Affordable
Housing
•HAH2: Explore revisions to the
City’s occupancy ordinance
•Strategy 21 -Explore revisions
to occupancy limits and family
definitions in order to streamline
processes and calibrate the
policy to support stable, healthy,
and affordable housing citywide.
•LIV 5: Create more
opportunities for housing
choices
•LIV 6: Improve access to
housing …regardless of their
race, ethnicity, income, age,
ability, or background
Page 312
Item 3.
•Greatest Challenge #7: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing stability
and healthy housing, especially for people who
rent.
•Community engagement: a desire to
proactively ensure healthy, safe units and
maintain neighborhood quality of life
•Lack of choices and affordable options
•Efficient use of existing housing stock
•Concerns about impacts on specific populations
including lower-income residents, LGBTQ+ residents
•Concerns about impacts on neighborhoods if
occupancy regulations are changed
•Many opinions about the best approach to “right-
sizing” the City’s occupancy ordinance
5Background + Policy Alignment
Why explore changes to occupancy regulations?
Key
Outcomes
Increase
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)
Page 313
Item 3.
•Significant demographic shifts since 2005 in households violating occupancy:
•Price escalation (78% rent increase between 2005-2018) and low rental
vacancy rates (under 5%) may result in “doubling up” to afford housing for a
wide range of household configurations
•About 26% of ‘nonconforming’ households are owner-occupied, and about
74% are renter-occupied
6Existing Conditions
Demographics
2005 2018
Total (est) households in violation 1,238 1,234
Percentage college students 71%47%
Percentage children under 18 Negligible 13%
Page 314
Item 3.
7Existing Conditions
Demographics Key Findings
Households in violation are increasingly likely to include both individuals
and families
Most nonconforming households had a size of 4 (68%)or 5 (19%)adults
23%of nonconforming households include a family unit
Over half (54%)of nonconforming households live in single unit detached
homes,with the rest in various types of attached dwelling units
Housing units with 3 or more bedrooms tend to be underutilized by
conforming households,while nonconforming households average 1
person per bedroom
Page 315
Item 3.
Units Total Bedrooms Average Bedrooms
per UnitStructureTypeNumberPercentNumberPercent
Single-Unit Detached 36,674 57%128,506 69%3.5
Single-Unit Attached 5,129 8%13,496 7%2.6
Duplex 1,381 2%3,091 2%2.2
3-4 Units 3,445 5%6,897 4%2.0
5-9 Units 4,751 7%9,773 5%2.1
10-19 Units 4,558 7%8.519 5%1.9
20-49 Units 3,237 5%5,436 3%1.7
50+Units 3,613 6%7,236 4%2.0
Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,424 2%3,683 2%2.6
Other 50 0%81 0%1.6
Total 64,262 100%186,718 100%2.9
8Existing Conditions
Housing Stock
Page 316
Item 3.
•Existing housing stock may be underutilized
•There are roughly 14,718-17,718 more bedrooms in the city than there are
residents
•Single unit houses (attached and detached)account for 65%of units and 76%
of bedrooms
•On average,single-unit houses have 3.4 bedrooms compared to multi-unit
homes.
o 55%are 1 to 3 bedrooms,32%are 4 bedrooms,and 13%are 5 or more
bedrooms.
9Existing Conditions
Housing Stock Key Findings
Page 317
Item 3.
•Peer Cities research comprised 40+ peer cities across the country and 22
cities in Colorado
•Community engagement to date has included:
•Community questionnaire
•Rental Industry questionnaire
•Rental Housing Task Force
•Pop-up engagement in neighborhoods
•Presentations to community groups and Boards and Commissions
10Existing Conditions
Peer Cities and Community Engagement
Page 318
Item 3.
11Existing Conditions
Occupancy All Respondents Renters Homeowners Non Industry
homeowners
Agree or disagree with the following statements:Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins occupancy limit stay as they
are?31%69%22%78%36%64%45%55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in more places
around the city 62%35%72%23%50%41%43%49%
Make the process to approve extra occupancy
easier 59%33%74%21%51%39%43%46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match number of
bedrooms in a home 51%50%59%33%47%44%38%51%
Regulate occupancy based on household
function, not family relatedness 48%41%51%31%21%47%28%52%
Regulate occupancy based on number of parking
spaces 22%61%12%69%27%57%24%63%
Focus on regulating nuisances instead of
occupancy 56%32%61%26%54%36%44%44%
Increase occupancy limits to more than 3
unrelated residents 56%37%73%23%47%45%39%52%
Eliminate occupancy limits completely 36%54%52%36%27%63%24%67%
Community Questionnaire, Summer 2021
Page 319
Item 3.
Peer Cities
Common maximum occupancy was 4-5 unrelated adults (range:2-8 people)
Most required 2 parking spaces per unit (range:0-4 spaces)
8 peer cities and 17 Colorado cities use the term “family”,4 peer cities and 5
Colorado cities use the term “household”,and one peer city uses “dwelling unit”
Community Engagement
Most respondents wanted to see changes to the city’s occupancy regulations;
however,most non-industry homeowners were not in support of any changes
Approaches supported by a majority of respondents included regulating based on
number of bedrooms,focusing more on nuisance than occupancy,or increasing the
total number of unrelated adults permitted
Rental housing task force recommended regulating based on number of bedrooms
OR making changes to extra occupancy (where permitted and the process required)
12Existing Conditions
Peer Cities and Community Engagement Key Findings
Page 320
Item 3.
Policy Considerations
Page 321
Item 3.
14Current Policy Scenarios
Allowable scenarios: Unallowable scenarios:
-A family of any configuration, plus one
unrelated roommate
-Three siblings, plus one unrelated roommate
-A single parent with their children, plus one
unrelated roommate
-Two couples, but only when there is a
familial relationship between each couple
(i.e. two siblings and their partners)
-Three unrelated roommates
-A family of any configuration, plus two
roommates or one additional family
-Three siblings, plus two unrelated
roommates
-Two single parents and their children
-Two couples, married or unmarried (when
there is no familial relationship between
each couple)
-Four unrelated roommates
•Currently Permitted:
•A family of any size plus one additional unrelated occupant OR
•No more than three unrelated occupants
•Extra occupancy rental house permitted in some zones through land use approval
Page 322
Item 3.
Topic 1: Occupancy Ordinance Definitions 15
•Current 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.
•Policy Considerations:
1.Determine whether to keep the current definition of “family” in Section
3.8.16 and 5.1.2
2.Determine whether to regulate occupancy based on the number of
adults (with their dependents); remove the definition of
family/relationship from Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.2
Note: “Dependents”would require a clear, enforceable definition
Page 323
Item 3.
Topic 2: Number of Adults and Dependents 16
•Policy Considerations:
1.Consider whether to regulate maximum occupancy based on the
number of adults (with their dependents) in a dwelling unit
2.Consider whether to regulate maximum occupancy based on number
of bedrooms in a dwelling unit
•Potential impacts to consider:
•Multi-generational families
•Households with multiple non-dependent adults
Page 324
Item 3.
Topic 3: Extra Occupancy Process 17
•Current process: Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code regulates extra
occupancy requirements and review types
Zone
Maximum number of
residents, excluding
occupant family
Maximum % of
parcels per block
face
Parking
Review Type and
Approving
Authority
Mixed-Use Zones
(LMN)One occupant per 350
square feet of habitable
floor space
Additional minimum 400
square feet if owner-
occupied
No more than 25% of a
block face 1 bicycle space
per occupant
.75 vehicle space
per occupant,
rounded up to the
nearest whole
parking space
> 4 occupants:
Type 1
(hearing officer)
Mixed-Use Zones
(MMN, HMN, NCB)
No limit
5 or fewer
occupants: BDR
(administrative)
>5 occupants:
Type 1
(hearing officer)
Downtown, Commercial,
Employment, and Industrial
Zones
(D, RDR, CC, CCN, CCR,
CG, CN, NC, CL, E, I)
Residential, Harmony
Corridor, and Open Lands
(RL, NCL, RF, UE, NCM,
HC, POL, RC)
Extra occupancy not allowed
Page 325
Item 3.
Topic 3: Extra Occupancy Process 18
•Policy Considerations:
1.Determine whether to maintain the extra occupancy process as it
currently exists, or to establish an administrative permit process
2.Determine whether to allow in more places or citywide
3.Consider whether regulations should be streamlined or simplified
4.Consider whether to regulate number of extra occupants based on
number of bedrooms instead of square footage
5.Determine whether a rental inspection should be required
Page 326
Item 3.
Engagement Plan and Timeline 19
Engagement approach will be finalized pending Council direction
Key engagement questions:
•What are your thoughts about the options being considered?
•What is the best fit for Fort Collins?
•What is missing?
Proposed Timeline:
•Summer 2023 –Neighborhood, Nonprofit partners, and Rental Industry
engagement
•Fall 2023 –Student/CSU and tenant community engagement
•Winter 2023 –Council actionPage 327
Item 3.
20Questions for Council
1.What additional information do Councilmembers need to inform their policy
guidance?
2.What feedback do Councilmembers have about the range of occupancy
options outlined this evening?
Topics: Ordinance Definitions | Maximum Occupants | Extra Occupancy
3.What feedback do Councilmembers have about the proposed approach to
community engagement around the occupancy options?
Page 328
Item 3.
21Questions for Council
Definitions
•Determine whether to keep
the current definition of
“family” in Section 3.8.16 and
5.1.2
•2. Determine whether to
regulate occupancy based on
the number of adults (with
their dependents); remove the
definition of family/relationship
from Section 3.8.16 and 5.1.2
Maximum Occupants
•Consider whether to regulate
maximum occupancy based
on the number of adults (with
their dependents) in a dwelling
unit
•2. Consider whether to
regulate maximum occupancy
based on number of
bedrooms in a dwelling unit
Extra Occupancy
•Determine whether to
maintain the extra occupancy
process as it currently exists,
or to establish an
administrative permit process
•Determine whether to allow in
more places or citywide
•Consider whether regulations
should be streamlined or
simplified
•Consider whether to regulate
number of extra occupants
based on number of
bedrooms instead of square
footage
•Determine whether a rental
inspection should be required
Page 329
Item 3.
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Page 330
Item 3.
•Key Policy Decisions
•1963 –Adoption of Occupancy Ordinance (U+2)
•2005 –Decriminalization of occupancy violations, beginning of enforcement, increase support of
nuisance enforcement
•Research
•Corona Insights Economic and Impact Studies completed in 2005, 2009, 2018
•Peer City research
•Root Policy Analysis on occupancy violations and housing stock # of bedrooms
•Recent Council Direction
•December 2020: Ad Hoc Housing Committee; direction for further work on rental licensing/registration,
occupancy, and landlord incentives
•October 2021: Full Council Work Session; support for community engagement to explore potential
design of rental licensing/registration, revisions to occupancy, and small landlord incentives
•August 2022: Full Council Work Session; support to continue moving forward
23Background + Policy Alignment
Previous Council Direction and Research
Page 331
Item 3.
24Existing Conditions
Demographics
Page 332
Item 3.
25Existing Conditions
Demographics
Page 333
Item 3.
26Existing Conditions
Demographics
Page 334
Item 3.
27Existing Conditions
Housing Stock
Page 335
Item 3.
•Complaint-based system
28Existing Conditions
City Compliance Data
Year # Cases # Violations # Citations
2022 73 21 (29%)0
Voluntary compliance
2021 97 39 (40%)5 occupancy
3 failure of disclosure
2020 126 44 (35%)9 occupancy
3 failure of disclosure
2019 162 57 (35%)6 occupancy
15 failure of disclosure
2018 209 80 (38%)16 occupancy
6 failure of disclosure
Page 336
Item 3.
Somewhere in the deck we need to discuss nuisance issues
29Nuisance slide
Page 337
Item 3.
Community Engagement 30
Group Engagement Activities Conducted
Renters, neighborhood
groups, HOAs
Housing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021
Community Questionnaire, Aug. 2022
Pop-up Engagement, Aug. 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
Landlords, realtors,
property managers
Presentation to Northern CO Rental Housing Association, Feb. 2022
Presentation to Board of Realtors, Feb. 2022
Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
City Departments Convening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core Team
Conversations with IT, Building Services, Communications and
Public Involvement Office, City Attorney’s Office
Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee discussion, Dec. 2020
Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021 & August 2022
Page 338
Item 3.
Part 3: Extra Occupancy Process 31
Potential Example (illustrative only)
•Any 1 to 2-bedroom unit could allow 3/4 adults and dependents and each
additional bedroom could allow for 1 additional adult and dependents, not to
exceed 6/7 adults and their dependents.
Example:
Bedrooms # of adults, if 3 +
dependents
# of adults, if 4 +
dependents
3rd bedroom 4 5
4th bedroom 5 6
5th bedroom 6 7
6th bedroom 7
Page 339
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3
May 9, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Kendall Minor, Utilities Executive Director
Jason Graham, Utilities Water Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Water Storage Overview.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to discuss the water supply and storage challenges faced by the Fort
Collins community and to seek direction on future engagement with Northern Water regarding the
Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). Fort Collins is served by multiple water service providers and
the challenges of significant growth and climate change will impact the entire community. Fort Collins
Utilities is focused on the Halligan Water Supply Project, which will only serve the Utilities ’ service area.
Other water service providers in the community are relying on different efforts, such as NISP, to ensure
adequate supply for their customers, which includes about 24,000 Fort Collins residents.
The discussion will provide an overview of the Fort Collins Utilities’ water system; water supply challenges
including drought, growth, and the Colorado River Compact; current water storage projects; and the City’s
role as a regional partner with other water service providers in Northern Colorado.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers have any questions or comments on the City’s water storage situation?
2. Do Councilmembers agree with staff further engaging with Northern Water on NISP and its mitigation
projects to continue alignment on City environmental and river goals?
3. Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiating with Northern Water on a potential collaborative
agreement related to NISP, the City’s water storage issues, and the City’s environmental and river
goals?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Utilities is committed to providing safe and reliable drinking water. We are one of many water
providers in Fort Collins. Our service area covers about thirty-five square miles and serves more than
35,000 customers. Other providers serving the Fort Collins community include the East Larimer County
Water District (ELCO), Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, and West Fort Collins Water District. Northern
Colorado water systems will be challenged by significant growth and climate change. Future challenges
Page 340
Item 4.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3
should be addressed through partnership and collaboration to ensure the water needs of Northern
Colorado are met.
There are two main water supplies for Northern Colorado. The first is the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT)
system, which brings Colorado River water from the Western Slope to the Front Range. The other supply
is the Cache la Poudre River (CLPR) which is primarily comprised of annual snowmelt from April to July.
Fort Collins Utilities receives a small amount of water from the Michigan Ditch which is stored in Joe Wright
Reservoir. Joe Wright Reservoir is the only water storage facility owned and operated by Fort Collins
Utilities. Northern Water owns and operates Horsetooth Reservoir, which stores C-BT water for Utilities
and others. The City’s water supply is comprised of roughly 50% C-BT water and 50% CLPR water.
The C-BT system is a product of the Colorado River. The Colorado River system is experiencing a 20+
year megadrought that is challenging the upper and lower states of the Colorado River Compact. With
potentially less Colorado River Basin water available overall, communities that rely on C-BT water as their
primary water supply should diversify their portfolio to maintain resiliency.
Our commitment to provide safe, reliable, cost-effective water is aligned with many City strategic
objectives, including Economic Health, Environmental Health, and Safe Community. Utilities also has the
desire to collaborate with our regional partners. Partnership amongst Northern Colorado water provid ers
is well-established in the areas of water supply and water rights management, emergency response, water
conservation, and community planning and development.
The Halligan Water Supply Project will enlarge Halligan Reservoir by approximately 8,200 acre-feet to
provide water storage to serve Utilities water customers. This project is currently estimated to cost
approximately $308 million, which equates to $38,000 per acre-foot of water storage. The Halligan Project
remains the most cost-effective option for the City. The most significant benefit is the ability to store more
CLPR water to increase our water supply resiliency and utilize more of the City owned water rights which
helps ensure customers have access to water despite future Colorado River challenges. Expanding
Halligan Reservoir also provides the opportunity to improve environmental conditions on the North Fork of
CLPR.
Expanding Halligan Reservoir will result in 14,500 acre-feet of water. Horsetooth Reservoir holds 157,000
acre-feet. NISP includes building Glade Reservoir, which will hold approximately 170,000 acre-feet of
water. NISP provides water storage off the CLPR system to 15 participants, including Fort Collins-Loveland
and the Town of Windsor. NISP will provide greater water security for participants by adding more storage
for CLPR water rights, thus reducing their reliance on the C-BT system. As an example, Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District (serves ~24,000 City residents) currently relies on the C-BT system for about 90%
of its water supply.
Staff have engaged with Northern Water to develop a sustainable and long-term approach that avoids,
manages, and mitigates NISP’s impacts. Previous Councilmembers have opposed NISP based on
negative impacts to the CLPR and City Natural Areas. However, staff have stayed engaged with Northern
Water in a collaborative way to achieve the best outcomes possible. NISP has now received the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Record of Decision which reflects the lead federal
agency’s approval of the project. NISP has also received Larimer County’s 1041 Land Use permit. With
these major milestones met, NISP is on its way to construction and operation.
Staff remain in communication with Northern Water and continue to pursue opportunities that avoid,
manage, and mitigate potential NISP impacts to the Fort Collins community. However, these conversations
have shifted with the permit approvals NISP has received and thus staff are requesting direction on the
level of expected engagement going forward.
Option 1: Do Councilmembers agree with City staff further engaging with Northern Water on NISP and its
mitigation projects to continue alignment with City environmental and river goals?
Page 341
Item 4.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3
Northern Water continues to work through the required components of NISP. The City has been invited
to participate on such efforts as the Adaptive Management Plan and Stream Channel and Habitat
Improvement Plan.
Northern Water will proceed with these required components with other regional stakeholders whether
the City is part of the effort or not.
Option 2: Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiating with Northern Water on potential
collaborative agreements related to NISP, the City’s water storage issues, and the City’s environmental
and river goals?
Option 2 includes the identified items in Option 1 and also provides staff with an opportunity to further
negotiate on behalf of the City in areas that may increase water storage options, reduce impacts to
Natural Areas, and improve the CLPR watershed and flows.
o An item that may be worth further discussion is the possibility for the City to have the ability to
store water in Glade when storage space is available.
o Another item that may be worth further discussion is possible decisions related to existing
infrastructure along the CLPR that may reduce impacts to Natural Areas.
NEXT STEPS
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Storage Presentation
Page 342
Item 4.
Fort Collins Water
Storage Overview
5-9-2023
Kendall Minor –Utilities
Executive Director
Jason Graham –Utilities Water
Director
Current Halligan Dam and
Reservoir
Page 343
Item 4.
2Purpose
1.Provide information and facilitate a discussion on current and future water
storage challenges for the Fort Collins community.
2.Seeking feedback on the level of engagement with Northern Water on the
Northern Integrated Water Supply Project (NISP).
•We will present two options detailing next steps and how to proceed.
•Looking for feedback, guidance and discussion from Council.
Page 344
Item 4.
3Strategic Objectives
3.1 Collaborate with local and regional partners to achieve
economic resilience in Northern Colorado.
3.5 Invest in and maintain utility infrastructure and services
while ensuring predictable utility rates.
4.4 Provide a resilient, reliable and high-quality water supply
4.6 Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River
and all watersheds within Fort Collins
5.5 Provide and maintain reliable utility services and
infrastructure that directly preserve and improve public health
and community safety
Page 345
Item 4.
4Overview
•Fort Collins Water System Overview
•Water Supply and Challenges
•Regional Partnerships
•Water Storage Projects
•Discussion and Questions
Cache la Poudre RiverPage 346
Item 4.
Water System
Overview Michigan Ditch
Cache la Poudre River Joe Wright Reservoir
Halligan Reservoir
Colorado-Big Thompson Project via
Horsetooth Reservoir
Intake
fcgov.com/water101Page 347
Item 4.
6Water Supply Challenges
•Growth of Fort Collins and the Front Range
•Fort Collins population is expected to grow
by 24% by 2065.
•Annual storage needs to increase ~7400
acre-feet to meet growth projections.
•Colorado River Compact
•CO River divided between 7 states and
Mexico
•15 million acre-feet split between upper and
lower states –far exceeds water in the
system
•Impacts the amount and management of
water in the C-BT system (Horsetooth)
Page 348
Item 4.
Growth Management Area (GMA)
Fort Collins Utilities –Cache la Poudre and C-BT water
~50/50
ELCO Water District –Cache la Poudre and
C-BT water
~30/70
Fort Collins
N
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District –
Cache la Poudre and C-BT
~10/90
West Fort Collins Water District –C-BT
Unknown ratios
Water Supply Challenges 7
~24,000 Fort Collins Residents
~11,000 Fort
Collins Residents
~137,000 Fort
Collins Residents
Page 349
Item 4.
Water Supply Challenges 8
With Halligan
Page 350
Item 4.
9Regional Partnerships
Water Rights
Management
Water Supply /
Storage
Emergency
Response
Urban
Development &
Water Quality
Water
Conservation
Northern Water and
the C-BT system and
quota
North Poudre Irrigation
Company –Halligan
Reservoir
COWARN, Fire
Response
Poudre River Coalition,
NCWA
Water Efficiency Plan
Page 351
Item 4.
10Regional Partnerships
•Northern Colorado Water Alliance
•Northern Colorado water service providers
•Collaboration team started in 2014, Alliance
formalized in 2019-2020
•Regional leadership (City Manager’s office and
Water Executives)
•Build relationships, understand challenges,
collaboratively identify solutions
•Provides the opportunity to advocate regionally
and preserve water rights in Northern Colorado
•Draft Mission: Collaborating and education for the
protection of resilient communities and water systems
for the future of Northern Colorado.
Page 352
Item 4.
11Water Storage Projects
Halligan Water Supply Project
Halligan Water Supply Project would enlarge Halligan
Reservoir by approximately 8,200 acre-feet to
provide storage for City of Fort Collins-owned water to
serve City water customers.
Halligan 8,200
acre-feet
Need
1) Growth 2) Resiliency / Drought 3) Water Rights
Page 353
Item 4.
12Regional Water Supply Projects Unit Cost of Water Through Time
The Halligan Project remains the most environmentally responsible and cost-effective solution for
our water customers.
Page 354
Item 4.
Water Storage Projects
•Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(Northern Water) is pursuing NISP.
•It will serve various northern Front Range
communities, including many in the Northern
Colorado Water Alliance such as Fort Collins –
Loveland Water District (FCLWD), which serves
south Fort Collins and the GMA.
•NISP received all required federal, state, and
county approvals and will be moving forward.
•NISP provides greater water security for water
providers with Cache la Poudre River water rights,
like FCLWD. Critical resiliency for those who rely
on C-BT water due to future uncertainty of the
Colorado River.
13
Northern Integrated Water Supply
Project
Aerial view of proposed Glade Reservoir
location (courtesy of Northern Water)
Page 355
Item 4.
Option 1
Do Councilmembers agree with City staff further engaging
with Northern Water on NISP and its mitigation projects to
continue alignment with City environmental and river goals?
14
Nokhu Crags -Cache la Poudre River
Watershed
Page 356
Item 4.
Option 1
Engagement with Northern in the necessary elements of NISP going forward.
City of Fort Collins has been invited to be part of the process. The process will proceed with or
without the City of Fort Collins.
•NISP Adaptive Management Plan –
•Scope -Diversion to South Platte confluence
•Stream Channel and Habitat Improvement Plan / Process –SCHIPP
•CPW, Riverwide Master Plan
•Water Quality Aspects –E.Coli and Nutrient mitigation
•CDPHE
•Potentially CPW, Windsor, Greeley and others
Option 1
Page 357
Item 4.
Option 2
Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiating with
Northern Water on potential collaborative agreement related
to NISP, the City’s water storage issues, and the City’s
environmental and river goals?
16
Cache la Poudre River
Page 358
Item 4.
17Option 2
Option 2
(includes everything in Option 1 and potentially the following):
•Pursue if-and-when available water storage options to store water in Glade Reservoir.
-If storage is available in Glade after the participants –the City would be permitted to
store CLPR water rights in Glade.
-Better utilization of all CLPR water rights, providing more resiliency.
•Explore additional ideas to mitigate NISP impacts to Natural Areas including evaluating
the long-term operations of the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF).
-Explore opportunities to run water further down the CLPR.
-MWRF is a key variable in this conversation.
•Continue to develop watershed and flow improvements in addition to what is required
through the NISP Adaptive Management Plan.
Page 359
Item 4.
18Discussion
1.Do Councilmembers have any questions or comments on the City’s water
storage situation?
2.What level of staff engagement is expected as NISP progresses?
•Option 1 –Do Councilmembers agree with City staff further engaging with
Northern Water on NISP and its mitigation projects to continue alignment on
City river and environmental goals?
•Option 2 –Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiation with
Northern on potential collaborative agreement related to NISP, the City’s
water storage issues, and the City river and environmental goals?
Page 360
Item 4.
THANK YOU!
Page 361
Item 4.