HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/26/2005 - THREE-UNRELATED ORDINANCE DATE: April 26, 2005
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
STUDY SESSION ITEM
Steve Roy FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Tess Heffernan
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Neighborhood quality has been a topic of concern for some time. Many residents believe that
"over occupancy" of rental units is at the heart of neighborhood nuisance problems. At the same
time, opinions vary widely as to the validity of regulating the number of people who can live in a
home, whether it be based on their relationship to each other, building size, or any number of
factors.
For many years Fort Collins has had a law limiting the number of adults who may reside in a
dwelling unit. It is a widely-held perception that this law is not effective because it is very
difficult to enforce in its current form; thus people choose to ignore the law. This session will
further explore the issues surrounding occupancy and options for change.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have questions about the system improvements and other activities that
have occurred over the past year?
2. Does Council wish to continue to regulate occupancy in rental units?
3. If yes to#2, should occupancy be regulated based on relatedness?
4. If no to #2 or#3, what other direction or alternatives does Council wish to consider?
BACKGROUND
Issues and Actions to Date
The quality of our Fort Collins' neighborhoods has been and remains a topic of great interest to
Council and all our community. There is a perception that many neighborhoods are at risk of
deteriorating due to problem properties and their impact on surrounding residents. Neighbors
cite issues such as noise, loud parties, rubbish and weeds, rentals housing more than three
unrelated adults, parking, speeding cars, and the like.
In December 2003, the City convened a task force of staff from across the organization to
address these and other issues impacting neighborhoods. The task force recognized early on that
a multitude of approaches from different City and community entities was required in order to
effect lasting change. Solutions have, by necessity, involved Police Services, Municipal Court,
the City Attorney's Office, Code Compliance, CSU Judicial Affairs, Animal Control,
April 26, 2005 Page 2
Neighborhood Resources, the City Manager's Office, Building and Zoning and others. All of
these agencies have and continue to work to improve enforcement practices, share information
more effectively and integrate existing resources where possible.
Over the past year and half the task force has recommended a number of changes designed to
improve neighborhood quality of life. Council has been actively consulted with and/or engaged
in these changes, as illustrated by the list of meetings and activities described in Attachment 1.
During 2004 and early 2005 a number of improvements were implemented, including:
• Increased enforcement of the Public Nuisance Ordinance
• Better marketing of the Nuisance Hotline
• System changes to nuisance enforcement, i.e. additional cross-training and
education of response staff, more specific tracking of noise and loud party
complaints, etc.
• Party and noise system improvements, i.e. increase in penalties for first
time offenses and defendants must appear for arraignment
• Pilot Party Project implemented in spring and fall 2004 and
spring/summer 2005, increasing police staffing for and response to loud
party complaints
• Amendments to improve the effectiveness of five existing codes dealing
with unreasonable noise, animals, weeds and rubbish, outdoor storage and
public nuisances
• Community Party Partners program created to educate community
members who have received noise citations
• Consolidation of Neighborhood Resources, Code Compliance and
Building Inspection underway; this new "Neighborhood Services"
division will begin operations in June 2005
During the summer of 2004 staff members undertook an extensive public outreach effort in order
to gather feedback from community members about various options for regulation of rental
properties, changes to how the City regulates occupancy in rental properties, and other means to
mitigate nuisance offenses. During that same time period staff members conducted extensive
research of"best practices" used in other communities dealing with similar issues.
In the fall of 2004 Council members reviewed the considerable feedback received from
stakeholders and considered a number of options for regulation of rental properties. The
framework for that discussion is summarized in Attachment 2, October 12, 2004 Agenda Item
Summary: Rental Licensing Alternatives. This document is quite lengthy; however, when
viewed with the related attachments it provides a comprehensive picture of the issues and
options. One item of note: in the case of rental properties, community members are clearly split
April 26, 2005 Page 3
in their views as to whether or not property owners are ultimately responsible for the behavior of
tenants.
After extensive discussion, in February 2005 Council members ultimately rejected a proposal for
mandatory Residential Rental Registration and also rejected amendments to the Public Nuisance
Ordinance that would have added the possibility of revocation of the ability to rent a property for
up to 6 months. In March 2005 Council then began discussion of potential changes to existing
occupancy regulations, which brings us to the subject of today's Study Session.
Where We Are Today
For many years Fort Collins has had a law limiting the number of adults who may reside in a
dwelling unit. It is a widely-held perception that this law is not effective because it is very
difficult to enforce in its current form; thus people choose to ignore the law. Attachment 3, "The
3-Unrelated Ordinance", is a handout used by the Zoning Department to describe the law and
enforcement process.
During the community outreach held during the summer of 2004 many residents of single family
neighborhoods expressed the opinion that "over occupancy" is at the heart of the problems
facing Fort Collins neighborhoods. At the same time, opinions vary widely as to the validity of
regulating the number of people who can live in a home, whether it be based on their
relationship to each other, building size, or any number of factors.
People hold strong opinions about this issue and Council members have grappled with it for
many years. The discussion has intensified over the past year and a number of assumptions have
been made about the economic and social impacts of effectively regulating — or not regulating —
occupancy limits in Fort Collins. To test these assumptions and get a better picture of the impact
regulation might have on the housing market, the City commissioned an Economic and Market
Study in January 2005. That study provided a number of insights that were discussed in detail
with Council in March 8, 2005. (A tape of that session is included with these documents for
Council members.) Among other findings, the Study estimates there are approximately 5,000
Fort Collins residents currently violating the three unrelated law. It details the demographic
makeup of those "violator households" and predicts the impacts on those individuals and the
local housing market should the occupancy limit be strictly enforced. Finally, the Study
discusses likely impacts over the next 10 years given population growth estimates and estimated
growth at Colorado State University. The Executive Summary of the Study can be found in
Attachment 4. The entire study is available through the City's web site at fcaov.com/rental or
upon request.
As noted in the introduction, there are a number of questions for Council consideration in
regards to "if' and "how" to limit occupancy in a dwelling unit. Each decision, in turn, leads to
more questions and decisions as to how best to address this issue. Should Council decide to
amend or otherwise change the way occupancy is currently regulated, staff will need
clarification on the following questions in order to proceed:
2. Does Council wish to continue to regulate occupancy in rental units?
3. If yes to #2, should occupancy be regulated based on relatedness?
April 26, 2005 Page 4
a. Does Council wish to make the existing law limiting occupancy to three unrelated
adults a civil offense in order to be able to better enforce it?
b. Should the prohibition against more than three unrelated adults apply City-wide or
only in certain zone districts or neighborhoods?
c. Should the prohibition apply only to single family dwelling units or also to dwelling
units in multi-family homes?
d. Should the baseline maximum number of unrelated adults remain at three or should
another number be considered?
e. Should exemptions be allowed for higher occupancy?
1) City-wide or only in certain zones?
2) In certain kinds of units?
f. If exemptions are allowed for higher occupancy, what should be the method of
enforcement?
1) State the exceptions to the general rule without monitoring or regulating,
except on a complaint basis, or
2) Require owners to apply for a variance, which allows for monitoring in the
first instance but does not provide a mechanism for withdrawing permission
to rent to higher numbers if the conditions are not met on an ongoing basis, or
3) Require that a permit be issued, which would not only allow for initial
screening of those who are eligible but would also provide a mechanism for
revoking the permit if a property falls out of compliance
4. If no to #2 or#3, what other direction or alternatives does Council wish to consider?
a. Repeal the existing 3 unrelated ordinance?
b. Enact enhancements to the existing Public Nuisance Ordinance so that only "problem
properties"would have an occupancy limit?
c. Enact a probationary rental permit system such as that used in Raleigh, North
Carolina?
d. Limit occupancy based on standards such as maximum number of bedrooms or
square footage per person, or availability of off-street parking? If occupancy is based
on standards such as maximum number of bedrooms (etc.) what shall be the
mechanism for ensuring compliance with those standards?
1) State the exceptions to the general rule without monitoring or regulating,
except on a complaint basis, or
2) Require owners to apply for a variance, which allows for monitoring in the
first instance but does not provide a mechanism for withdrawing permission
to rent to higher numbers if the conditions are not met on an ongoing basis, or
3) Require that a permit be issued, which would not only allow for initial
screening of those who are eligible but would also provide a mechanism for
revoking the permit if a property falls out of compliance
Financial Impact of Increased Enforcement of Occupancy Regulations
A decision to improve the ability to enforce occupancy regulations will necessitate a number of
changes to the City Code so that violations can be successfully investigated and prosecuted.
This does not come without some cost. A general estimate for additional staff to implement
April 26, 2005 Page 5
these services is one FTE with a one-time cost of $30,000 and ongoing of $70,000 for salary,
benefits, vehicle and equipment. This position could be a Housing Inspector, Code Compliance
Inspector, or some combination of the two. A more detailed discussion of these costs will be
provided once Council determines which direction they wish to follow.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Meetings and Study Sessions Regarding Rental Issues, January 2004—April 2005
2. October 12, 2004 Study Session Agenda Item Summary: Rental Licensing Alternatives
3. Handout: The "3-Unrelated Ordinance"
4. Economic and Market Study Executive Summary
ATTACHMENT
• Council Meetings and Study Sessions Regarding Rental Issues
January 2004—April 2005
January 27, 2004 Study Session: Update on Neighborhood Quality of Life Strategies
March 9, 2004 Study Session: Recommendations of the Neighborhood Quality of
Life Task Force
April 20, 2004 Regular Meeting: First reading of amendments to five nuisance
codes (approved)
April 27, 2004 Study Session: Neighborhood Quality of Life Task Force Update
October 12, 2004 Regular Meeting: Rental Licensing Alternatives
January 25, 2005 Study Session: Rental Registration Program and Neighborhood
Quality Regulations
February 15, 2005 Regular Meeting: First reading of Rental Registration Ordinance
(defeated), Public Nuisance Ordinance Amendments (defeated),
and Nuisance Gatherings Ordinance (approved)
• March 8, 2005 Study Session: Economic Study Results and Three Unrelated
Regulation
April 26, 2005 Study Session: Three Unrelated Ordinance
•
__ ..... . ...... __. . _.
ATTACHMENT 2
• October 12, 2004 Study Session Agenda Item Summary and Attachments
•
•
DATE: October 12, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Darin Atteberry, FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Steve Roy and Tess Heffernan
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Rental Licensing Alternatives.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council wish to proceed with the package of alternatives outlined in this document?
2. What feedback is Council seeking from citizens from this point forward?
BACKGROUND
At the April 27,2004 City Council Study Session Council members discussed a number of new and
ongoing initiatives designed to have a positive impact on the quality of life in Fort Collins
neighborhoods. At the conclusion of that discussion,Council directed staff to continue those efforts
and also explore mandatory residential rental licensing. Specifically, Council instructed staff to
develop an ordinance and related standards for Council consideration,look at variables to find the
best"fit"for Fort Collins,and ask the community for input on the potential licensing variables.
Since then, members of the original Neighborhood Quality of Life team and other staff have
conducted research into"best practices"in other communities with the goal of finding components
that could work well in Fort Collins. Additionally, the team has carried out a fairly extensive
outreach program designed to gain input from specific stakeholder groups and the community at
large.
Community Outreach and Feedback
A variety of methods were used to gain community feedback on the subject of rental licensing. And
as most Council members have learned,many citizens have a great deal of passion for this subject.
Over 1,200 responses have been received in the past 3 months alone.
Meetings were held with a variety of stakeholder groups, including landlords,property managers,
neighbors, affordable housing specialists and CSU students. Additionally, a public meeting held
August 30, 2004 drew between 250-275 participants. One-on-one dialogues took place through
email,letters and phone calls. The City's website was utilized not only to provide information,but
to provide the opportunity for participants to fill out a survey and attach any comments they wished.
(We acknowledge that many citizens were unhappy about the format of the survey and regret this
was the case.) A City News article was included in 60,000 utility bills, Cable 27 and traditional
news media were used to inform people about the topic, and surveys and fliers were distributed at
Neighborhood Night Out and other community events.
October 12, 2004 Page 2
• A summary of feedback received from citizens is included in Attachment A. Council members have
received much of this information as it has been collected;however,complete copies of all feedback
are available for further review if desired.
There is a great deal of polarization in the community surrounding the issue of rental licensing. As
might be expected,many landlords and property managers believe it to be bureaucratic,costly and
ineffective. On the opposite view, many neighbors of rentals feel rental licensing will prevent the
further deterioration of their neighborhoods.
The community dialogue surfaced a number of key issues surrounding rental licensing. In the
broadest sense, many stakeholders question the ultimate goal of rental licensing: is it designed to
improve the health and safety of tenants, address nuisance behaviors, or both? In any case, the
following reasons for or against rental licensing were cited.
Those in favor believe rental licensing is needed because:
• The quality of life in many single family neighborhoods is deteriorating at a rapid rate;
something must be done
• A rental property is a business and should be licensed as such
• Neighbors and the City are being forced to take on role of property manager
• Landlords should be held accountable for the condition of and activities at their
properties
• Licensing is one way to help enforce existing ordinances
Those opposed believe rental licensing is not a solution because:
• It is a misperception that landlords can control tenant behavior,rental licensing will not
have an impact nuisance behaviors
• These types of laws are intrusive and an infringement on the rights of property owners
• The cost of housing will increase;transitional and lower-income residents need a place
to reside at a reasonable cost and this will make rents rise
• A small percentage of property owners/managers cause problems and there is no
justification for additional burdens on good owners/managers/tenants
The following chart shows how rental property owners/managers and neighbors of rental property
answered the question, "Overall, are you in favor of rental licensing?" Tenants and other
stakeholders were fairly evenly split in their support.
On a more positive note,there are three areas where the majority of respondents are in agreement:
1. The current ordinance limiting occupancy to three-unrelated adults is not effective. It
exacerbates problems because it is very difficult to enforce in its current form. This leads
to deception and a perception that laws can be ignored.
2. Laws that are on the books need to be enforced,especially those surrounding nuisance issues
(most commonly noise, parking and property upkeep). Both those against and in favor of
licensing want to prevent neighborhood deterioration and want the City to increase its
enforcement efforts.
• 3. More education of tenants, landlords and neighbors is needed. One tool frequently
mentioned in regards to tenants is that of a lease addendum outlining the various City codes
and expectations of tenants. This is discussed in more detail later in this document.
October 12, 2004 Page S
Options for Council Consideration
In addition to the feedback outlined above,members of the project team have spent a great deal of
time delving into how other cities use rental licensing or other methods to address neighborhood
quality of life issues. The City Attorney's Office alone has examined 19 codes from other
communities and 7 state statutes. (A matrix outlining many of those communities and related
regulations was provided to Council at the April 27,2004 Study Session.)
After much analysis of the numerous recommendations and research surrounding this subject, the
project team recommends Council adopt a"package"of five components that,when implemented
together,can ultimately address the majority of issues and concerns:
1. Amend the three-unrelated ordinance
2. Create a licensing process for units that can safely accommodate more than three
unrelated adults
3. Amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to include the potential for revoking the
ability to rent
4. Implement a mandatory rental registration program (either city-wide or in targeted
areas)
5. Add a Nuisance Gatherings provision to the current code
A detailed discussion of each of these components follows.
1. Amend the three-unrelated ordinance
The three-unrelated ordinance can be amended to make it a civil infraction and thus lower the
burden of proof and expand the kinds of evidence that can be offered in court. Project team
members believe this will enable the City to more effectively enforce this code. Some level of
neighborhood involvement will still be required for effective enforcement. The proposed changes
would include the following.
a. The occupancy limit provision would be removed from the zoning code and rewritten in a more
straightforward fashion. "Occupied" would be defined, and "dwelling unit," "owner" and
"family"would be redefined.
b. A violation of this provision would be made a civil infraction punishable by a fine only,rather
than a misdemeanor criminal offense with a possible jail sentence. This would: (a) lower the
burden of proof(from proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proof by a preponderance of the
evidence); (b) allow the prosecution to call the defendant(s)to the witness stand; (c)relax the
rules of evidence;(d)allow cases to be heard by a hearing officer to avoid a substantial increase
in the Municipal Court caseload.
c. Upon receipt of substantiated complaints investigators would: (a) contact the occupants and
inspect the premises, (b) check the license numbers of cars regularly parked in front of the
premises against Department of Motor Vehicles records to see who owns the vehicles,(c)and/or
seek information from the Postal Service as to who receives mail at the premises in question.
October 12, 2004 Page 4
• d. If the investigation indicated a violation,then the tenants,owners and property managers would
all be cited for the violation. Upon conviction,fines would be assessed against each defendant.
Fines would increase for subsequent violations.
Additional staff will be needed in order to effectively investigate, gather needed evidence and
prosecute this revised ordinance. Details on those costs,which are estimated at$25,000 one-time
and$80,000 ongoing, are included in component#2, which follows.
2. Create a licensing process for units that can safely accommodate more than three
unrelated adults
If the three-unrelated law is effectively enforced,many renters currently living in units with more
than three adults will need to find alternative housing. At the same time,there are units throughout
the City that can safely and effectively house more than three adults. Therefore,in combination with
better enforcement of the three-unrelated law,project team members recommend the City create a
licensing process for units that can safely house more than three unrelated adults. Conditions for
receiving a license would include the following:
a. The unit must pass a mandatory inspection to ensure existing rental housing standards are
met,and to determine the maximum occupancy allowed based on conforming bedrooms and
other requirements
b. Accommodations for off-street parking must be met
• c. The owner must have a record of no or a minimum number of previous code violations at
that address
d. Tenants must sign and the owner keep on file a lease addendum or some type of information
disclosure and acknowledgement form that summarizes City codes. This addendum could
also be used to document the license number of the residents'vehicles and other information
as desired. An example lease addendum is included in Attachment B as an illustration.
Repeated nuisance violations must be avoided in order to maintain the license. Cumulative penalties
for failing to operate in accordance with the license would include fine,suspension and revocation
of license. Failure to obtain a license would be a misdemeanor punishable in Municipal Court;the
City would first have to prove that there are more than three unrelated adults living in a unit before
issuing a citation for not obtaining a license.
Affordable housing providers who are subject to federal requirements would be exempted from this
ordinance, as would other specified uses such as safehouses, Hospice and the like. Any use
exempted from these requirements would be specifically listed in the ordinance. Owner-occupied
units would not be exempted, because if they were, a parent could purchase a home for a student
who, in turn,could rent rooms out to more than two other people.
It is worth noting that if the three-unrelated law is enforced without an altemative such as this,it is
highly likely that more homes will become rentals, many of them in single family neighborhoods
throughout the city.
• Some have suggested a Rental Licensing Board be created to approve each license and hear appeals.
A more common structure used by many communities is that of administrative staff who approve
a license based on pre-determined standards,and a Rental Licensing Board who hears appeals. This
October 12, 2004 Page 5
aspect of the program will be researched in more depth and developed after further direction from
Council.
The costs for this program are based on an estimated 3,000 single family and duplex units that could
potentially apply for a license:
Total program cost: $210,000
— Includes 3.2 FI'E(compliance inspection and administrative staff)and overhead costs
— Total fee per unit: $80-$90 annually
3. Amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to include the potential for revoking the ability
to rent
Currently, the maximum penalty for violation of the Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) is that of
a court order requiring action to be taken to abate the nuisance plus cost recovery. The project team
recommends the PNO be amended so that the ultimate penalty would include a court order revoking
the ability to rent a property. This change would represent a natural evolution of the PNO which,
at Council direction, was originally used to educate property owners about violations. A "zero
tolerance"philosophy has since resulted in an increase in the use of this tool,especially during the
past year. This change to the PNO, in tandem with a mandatory rental registration program
(outlined below), would in many ways have the same impact on nuisance behaviors as a more
traditional licensing program without the cost or complexity and without adding more ordinances
and new requirements.
4. Implement a mandatory rental registration program
The team recommends that the City implement a mandatory rental registration system to obtain
information regarding the identity of owners, occupants and any local management agent. This
program could be applied city-wide or in certain targeted areas where there are a higher
concentration of nuisance violations,depending on Council's preference.
Some argue that the City does not need a registration program because owner information needed
to enforce the nuisance provisions of the City code is already available through the County
Assessor's database and,in some cases,through the City's Utility records. While it is true that the
City can identify and contact the majority of property owners, there are shortcomings in existing
processes and resources that a registration requirement could help with.
Registration would shorten the period of time generally needed to identify the property owners and
provide more reliable,current information. The hope is that this program could be accomplished
online and include elements such as:
a. The name of a local contact person who has been authorized by an absentee property owner
(who might otherwise be unresponsive)to accept notices and service of process
b. Names of tenants,either on file or available at the request of the City; this information would
be helpful in either citing tenants as well as the property owners for certain kinds of violations
and in investigating and prosecuting any occupancy limit violations
c. Confirmation that a mandatory lease addendum or information and disclosure statement has been
signed by tenants (as described earlier).
October 12, 2004 Page 6
• An added benefit and potential consequence of a mandatory registration program is that many illegal
units,such as single family units that have been converted to duplexes,will be identified over time.
Some units, such as apartment complexes with on-site managers, would have fewer reporting
requirements. This program would be a large undertaking and details should be developed with
input from stakeholders,especially those most directly affected. The project team recommends an
ad hoc group that includes representatives of rental property owners, managers, tenants and
neighbors be formed for the purpose of determining the specific elements of a registration program.
The cost of a registration program would be assessed per building rather than per unit. Anticipated
costs for a rental registration program are:
First 1-2 years: $420,000—7 FTE,space,equipment,database development,software licensing and
overhead. This includes contractual employees to get the program up and running and ongoing
administration of the program, including prosecuting violations.
Remaining years: $120,000-$240,000 annually, depending on the details of the program,i.e.the
amount of information required and how frequently updated.
Total cost per building: $35 -$45 for first time registration; $10-$20 per year for renewal
S. Add a Nuisance Gatherings provision to the current code
• A final tool,a Nuisance Gatherings code addition,is based on an existing ordinance in East Lansing,
Michigan. This ordinance addresses social gatherings or parties which result in a variety of nuisance
behaviors occurring on neighboring properties. It also has a provision for recouping costs to the
City in regards to overtime of Police, Streets or other expenses and holds the owner, occupant,
tenant or others having any"possessory control'accountable. A copy of that ordinance is included
Attachment C.
Another section of the East Lansing code deals specifically with litter left following a large event
and a faster process for abating that nuisance. Staff is examining this provision to see if it, too,
would be a helpful amendment to the Fort Collins code.
The Nuisance Gathering code change would be in conjunction with continued efforts to more
effectively and proactively enforce current nuisance laws,including loud parties,code compliance
issues and the Public Nuisance Ordinance. At the September 28 Study Session on the 2005 budget
exception process,the City Manager recommended an additional Code Compliance Officer and one-
time funding to continue the Police Party Project in 2005. If approved,these positions will greatly
assist in meeting increasing demands for enforcement.
The project team anticipates a 6-12 month timeframe to develop, bring before Council and
implement the majority of the five alternatives. The simpler code changes can be written and
brought to Council within the next few months.
October 12, 2004 Page 7
Long Term Actions
Project team members would like to continue to examine a number of other initiatives related to
neighborhood quality of life. They include:
• Continued expansion of enforcement efforts; Staff members are currently exploring whether
grants targeting crime prevention, underage drinking and other areas could be tapped to help
fund these efforts
• The Board of Realtors has expressed interest in developing public/private collaborations to build
additional student housing. The hope is that Colorado State University will wish to be a partner
in this discussion, especially given the estimate of 5,000 additional students in the coming
decade.
• Explore potential incentives to encourage student renters to seek housing close to the University,
minimizing the"clash of cultures"that sometimes occurs in single family neighborhoods
• Police Services hopes to have the daily Case Log available online by early 2005. This will
enable property owners and managers to easily and proactively check for police calls to their
units,whether or not a citation is issued
• Assess the effectiveness of the components detailed in this proposal on an ongoing basis,
assuming Council wishes to implement them.
ATTACHMENTS
AUachment A: Summary of Community Feedback
Attachment B: Example Lease Addendum
Attachment C: Example Nuisance Parties Ordinance
Attachment A: Summary of Community Feedback
Item Page numbers
Chart of total responses 1
Summary of comments 2— 11
Rental survey results 12— 16
Stakeholder meeting notes 17—31
•
•
Ix2
2 K
\ k
LL I0)
� 0
:E
$
■
§
IA
£
4
N
2 ° Go
0 »2 A §
� �} � � ��° , ��» \ y & ■
KA
2 0-r-
^
w ■ m
§ 7 � %
§ \ �
t
\ �
q
• EMA Phone Pa Surveys,Other Contaminants:
Dab Comments Mediod View
In 1997 Una Awry Park Neighborhood Association was astabashed because the quality of life in our
neighborhood was da0srksatirq. The Association no longer has leadership.because it is a toeing
battle without support from the Cty. I have copies of newspaper articles from I=that refer to the
dectine of the areas emend CSU. I waidred the production of-The House Next Door.Student or a
FarrWy'on 6/120". Doug Brobst,a rep of the Rolland Moore Weal Neighbahood Network,stated
that we should let ere officials know the problems we are facing. Darin Aeeberry.stated that the Waue
Is a thigh priority lor the council and the mayor. Marty Tharp has been waking on the student rental
Issue forever,and I feel that 1 have been communicating with the City Council for years. How long well
It be before something Is done?When will CSU take responsibility for their offcarrpus ssrdenta? I
am sick of reporting this neighborhood to the nuisance hoUkhe. The mix of greedy landlords and
t/ WW4 irresponsible young people islethal. Email For
It has bean yeas,and I'm sW waiting for something to be done. I've begged for the no more than
7//42004 tree unrelated ordinance to be emoroad. Email For
Did 1 move to Boulder by socklerht or is it Just my imagination? This issue will get me to show up In
7/152004 protest. Emen Aaakert
The Idea of holding one parson acoountabis for the actions of another is wrong. It Is easy to go after
the landlords because we are usually accessible and will probably actually pay a fine. What kind of
responsibility is that lieadling to renters,that their behavior is eventually someone alse's
consequence?On occasion the City has notified me by mail of a nuisance and I follow up an It. This
711602004 is done wlthcut a licensing process. Letter Against
It Is a business and It is right to license and regulate the business so that your constituents are not
hammed. This Is not a partisan issue. Please help tal There were tyers handed out recently telling
7/172004 homeowners in my neighborhood that a rental group wants to buy our homes. Email For
We are hoping the rental tomalrg Is passed by City Count Rental homes devalue the rest of the
7/172004 homes in the arse. Email For
We support the concept of goenskV of renal units in FC. This type of program will help preserve the
quality of neighborhoods and will provide a more direct and enforceable way of addressing problems
• 7f2?/2004 with rental property. Email For
Creation and enforcement of a rental registry wall be dttalt ff not Impossible. The law will be
circumvented regularly and City staff will have to strengthen the mechanism,thus Increasing staffing.
While I have nothing but the highest regard for Stave Roy and his staff.my Impression is that the City
7232004 lis buying a IawsulL Email Against
7/302004 Opposed to rental flownsing. It will have unintended consequences. Phone rat Against
7/30/2004 If laws are on the books,enforce thou first rather item infrkge on property rights. Phone call Beef
1 live In the NW part of FC and In late July 1 ate my street change from a quiet happy pace Into a
gheto4lks suns. The downtown homeowner like me soon lemma that she is outnumbered by
renters.that a quiet family neighborhood Is not rangy possible In Fort Cdtns. Lets promote owner-
occupied hones In central FC as away of supporting downtown businesses,and reducing irsl&:,
parking and pollution problems. Lets argon and rethink the favored stabs that absentee landlords
presently have.What could be more American than supporting homeowners who take pride in their
7/302004 tames,obey the law,and want safe,quiet sbeets? Letter For
I lease a home in FC and signed an agrearnerd with a properly management grail who made several
commitments to corduct"drive by Inspections'and several in house Inspections. None ware made
and not until my former neighbors watt complaining about several nulsances was I aware that there
was a problem. Perhaps the solution would be to license the property management oanpanies but
7/312004 only with criteria that forces them to perform Inspections at predebrmkhed tnhetables within a window. Email For
I am a landlord and properly,manager. Very much opposed,it will raise rams. Need to do more
S/2/2004 education of landlords. Phone Call Against
822004 It will drive up our cost and ifs already OIIBaut to come out ahead ranting a home. Phone call Against
I support incensing. Drunks and notes. We now someone to take responsibtlty and sane way to
&WO04 1control this. Phone call For
812MM 11 live in an apartment with$575 a month rent 1 Can't atom any Increase in my rear. Phone call ?
Calling the polio@ has been very Ineffective.as responding to these types of calls are net a Wkx*. I
don'tthink 1 should have to cat the police every day about this. The property manager of the problem
house next door tells me that there's nothing I Can do about how many kids live in the house
8 2004 `because the city doesn't enforce that anyway Letter For
•
3
Unfortunately.we am$Wrong to fee Our subdiNslon turn aver bwteres tie rented market I see It as
an amdkp of our neighborhood. We have Sawa douses where parents have purchased a hams for
telr oWsgeage children,who In cum rent N out to some oftheir*lends. Most homeownefa
associations are powerless to deal with awe Motions. Our neighborhood does not hws the
resources so deal with these problems. I balm part d the'allordeWs housW problem In Fort
CaWa b beans d the sahraled renter market. 1 balm a sap an the number of 5aaelated'aduits
armo04 In a house is mz I balm UM enforcement will be beue. Email For
&N2W4 am not on a more
The rented market Is terrible,ggdlrg worse,and to environment O.G.recent and proposed legislation)
makes It feel like to city govemment wants b Oat rid of ranted properties. no a bit cydcal tat tilt
BarWrp program Is just a revenue ganarairg scheme. It would be nice if you could present a more
balanced point of view to help give de community acres paapaWve on tint hstwAoss PC want
single family rental properties at all or are they vlewed as a'rklsana'to be su nk~ If the
814R004 1111cansing program would lave no fees associated with It I wouldn't are In the least Email ?
In support of a rental licensing ardnance because many rentals In area.would be dos to bow who
ly4r2O 4 are came.be We t0 nosily of problenm. Phone al For
Wild pandas at hare,double paling,4.5 people In 3 bedroom,ore,eta I Odic wine a full page.
8/4/2004 terrible. Paper survey For
I have college students an boih aides of mil and when 1 led dram about their wdatons they tail me
tf4@004 'tough'. Whet an you apposed to do? • Papa survey For
Monitoring leosnt b"Wor is dMlalt N not Impossible an a daily basis by landlords.The ordinance
should not be podtive and discourage landlords tram providing housing Met allows transitional.low-
Income income students,and other population a much mended place b ne"at a reasonable cost. It
seams as thigh the preponderance of problems is in sh4a family housing With multiple unshod
ff mom iparlies.Focus an problem areas. Email ?
Why not Naas an ktomadan shag b unhappy residents who dint like the rental had to two.so
Oft an follow already established city guidelines are pedhaps refine the process of compliance for
S/5=" all Ropeerbac. Emil Against
Within limits.I dont hew a problem with a foaming program. What I am concerned about Is being
penaiasd(monsfa ly)by the bad landlords amifor Wtahb(het In mind that a WWlord has Nader
hands tied to a large degree by antldaokni albs laws►. Pedmps two Is some way you can
sbuckre to fading for the program so OM had landlords who are violating certain standards are
fined.rather than charging an landlords a licensing tea. Ucensing should be applied to and paid for
ty512004 I by ALL properties regardless of whether they we rentals or owner-ooaupiW. Email For
Fort Collins Is always big about riling affordable housing and then wants to basically charge people b
create standards that are already titre?Rental reins wild skyrocket because of the bcic ofsupply and
roans in houses well be a waste of space causing urban sprawl and traMc bow. A family cant even
be decided by the Supreme Corot,how does gee City of Fort CoWne S)Ved to defend We right to
tr5?2004 discriminate against other peoples choice of ibstyles? Email leg
t am a community apartment manager and we make suns we fallow aid nles and regulations involved
in renting our apaknenb. We aaradty have our awn rise and occupancy regulations and
requlremenb of our residents. I fed Met axis"ordinances should be reviewed and enforced before
anything new Is added. Education,commutation and commiknent to our community are to
802004 answers, Email 'Beelfup
As a home owner in a h at y rented neighborhood I hope you approve tea rental tica a ft plan In order
b help conk o tofcantrol landods ant tenants. We haw Me poica Nit renal properties inn our
tf5?2ol)h neighborhood frattuseelly for a vainly of reasons. Email For
Please take Into co sideation the taw income family.and nose Of a who are ranted property,owners
tr5r2004 who can't afford another fee or cost increase. Emil
IYn opposed to rend licensing. 1 dent think Its right for the City to tell anyone toy can't red link
8?5/2004 . Wit I be forced to sell my property? Phone ail AgWW
I'm concerned about Inspection fees and trot the Cip.will klbfeaas fees every year. I Om several
t1 A04 and only made$000 last month-I don't want to pay another fee. Phone call ?
It is quite impassible to control the behavior d Others,ant to hold the owner respormible for What to
ttoante do Is jug absurd. Creaing laws dead require the city to license.Inspect,and closely observe
the business;transactions In awry ra"unit In tit city Is Intrusive and an inbhpement on the rights
of the property owner. Taking that money from the rental Industry,in addtaon to adding the burden of
adddlo ad paperwork and even more anusocpic supervision of tine business leaves Property owners
&W2004 with two options:sell their properties:raise their reds to cover the additional emenses. Email AgainSt
4
1 am on the Board of Directors of the Indian Mile Homeowners Association and a homeowner in the
6 2004 neighborhood. We have experienced difficulties with ado specific Issue from time to tlrne. Ernall For
I support Ncensi g. We are getting more rentals In our neighborhood. Students are a big problem-
ONW2004 aren't around lag enough to care. Phone call For
I am a sanior dozen and I am apposed to rental licensing. Many seniors are young families are
84=04 struggling. This would elect both landlords and tenants. letter ftsinst
I feel Roe I am being penalized away trough I do everything don. t expenses keep going up like they
8/82004 do In Ns city,it may mean putting our money from this market and looking elsewhere. Email Against
Licenakg and punishment for Infractions should only be required if the property
owrerlmanagar/lannt falls to mast city requirements. The alhuisk ow er/manager/tanant who
complies with existing laws by reasonable and decent renal ocaparwy policies and good sense
should not be punished by being required to submit to Mantlet outlay for the license and the
8/82004 nuisance and bother of lice sure. Emil ?
Maybe there should be a check off Rat of required responsibilities of the tenant.that Is filled out
monthly by the owner and signed by is tenants. Then they can take care of any problems before
SWAN they get out of hand. email ?
Reaidemia rentals are commercial enterprises in areas of the city zoned for single family dwellings.
There Is a precedent for licensing business enterprises In these zones(home occupation Ncenee).
This should be extended to these rentals. Neighbodoods are the heart and scut of FC. Umep fated
802004 rentals leer at this important fabric of our City. Email For
I am not In favor of rents licensing. Landlords who neglect their properties should be Issued citations
and appropriate penalties. Tenants with inappropriate neighborhood behavior should also be dealt
802Dg4 with through the WK Wet as any over neighbor. Email "nst
1 do not believe that rental loersing is necessary nor advantageous to FC. it seems to me met this is
a reactionary response by the City Council to a few squeaky wheels. It seems that the problems
associated*0Irresporhsible lenants and landlords could more econonkaW and e8ldently be
8/1g/2Dg4 handled an a can by case basis. Email Against
AN too dear when a nuisance Natation has occurred and been reported,nothing is done to owed the
problem 1 have mowed down 346M tag weeds and'Wanad'free branches that hag over the
sidewalk making It impossible to pass. If we are going to have a nuisance ordinance,Mau enforce It
8/1oaM Put same bath in the existing ordinencea and enforce the code. Emil Beef u
• If there is a problem why doesn'tthe City enforce the laws on the books? If you implement licensing.
and don't enforce It any better tier to existing laws,what have you gained? Why would you think of
heating tenants as second daze resklents viihen tare am plenty,of home owners that don't We care
of the property they live In. I cant help but suspect that the City might be having a problem wilh the
81102004 'under 26 genambon'. If this Is the ease,why not enforce the 3 or more unrelated tenants ordinance?Email Beet
8/1D2004 Think long and hard about licensing. Adds another expense and dsvakros properties. Phone can Against
This Is not a good way for the City to collect revenue. Follow through*nth the City Flan that Is already Comment
81102004 In place. Sheet Beef
Unregulated rentals lead to aware economic deterioration of the neighborhood. These landlords are
essentially ratankg an area without having to go trough the processes,safeguards.and exposes
of building an apabnent oomplac The stress of living in a teenage or young adult daninaled area Is
enormous. The police do respond,but what do Oft do? Our community servards reed to look out
8/11/2004 far to homeowners needs and dots rather than placing emphasis an unbounded five enterprise. Email For
I would hope that some means are devaopeel to gat revenue from the violations so Ne'good guys'
all1rAW are not paying for lie enfanernent. Email ?
I am definitely in favor of rental licensing. During tie past few yeas.Here has been a negative
Impacts an our neighborhoods because of the increase in rental properties. There is a 3-bedroorn
ranch house being advertised In my neighborhood as a t bedroom. At this rate,we will not be able to
iY11/2004 all this Uhe Choice City for very much lager. Email For
I have lived In FC for 25+yam In Woodw est subdivision and seen the increase In rentals. Next door
there are 4 unrelated people living there wilh T can In owl. I want to live in an area zoned singe
family homes and remain that way. Real estate companies/executives promote these properties as
81112004 apartments.this of behavior needs to be stopped. Email For
Create a database and update It As an apartment owner,I would be happy to comply for a small fee.
8111/2004 Charge those who don't register. CAA comment FAgwmA
•
5
I have Ilved in the IdeadmNark neighborhood fer 2s years. In the vast mid rtly of cases,ranlal
properties are not kept up In to appearance and repair of On house end the yards are usually In bad
corditloo. RaMda~have 54(or more)vehicies poked In both driveway and street H Is obvious
go number of unrelated adults living there exceeds city regulations. AN of these Issues need to be
&IZ2W 4 addressed b preserve the quality of We and prop"values of Osman-ooapled homes. End For
Shouldn't we simply utilize our anent took? 1 have been a property manager for 10 years. I suggest
that people should register Mein rental property and a penally kr anyone OW doeanY register goat
mlal pmper"I s). We need to Wow who W contact to entome the nuisance ordinances or building
M122004 sod zorft Issues. Charge a 1000)fee for not registering. No Inspection reputed. Email Beef
Our neighborhood submitted a letter W a property mamma and WNovred up with a phone call about
m4tlpe disturbances In one of de houses Vny manage. He seems wdntenaskd In aAevlatlng the
problem. This is a perfect example of why via need the properly managers to' responsible for
8H22004 dal tenant. End For
Ttsaerinraklad law Is a good law and ilansing should help anWroe IL Lloensing will make landlords
part of the solution Irotsed of the problem. Rigid now May an break to tlaee4raela ed law vvilh no
Ask. Why aren't laity dkials doing more W enforce the zosng love? If Mere are pmaerru enWrch
Men fix them. Don't Wes away a good law. Why rent reallors required to tell their clients about the
an2mu nuisance laws and t reevnMated? Email swuo
Treating rental odte dHkraney than owmer occupied maWanas Is totally urdak. Property ownership
811220a4 Into is available from county clerk in case of violations,so why pay to Information? Email ?
The City known how to nesrI property owners regerdkg notes,weeds.sofas,partes,air- Make Me
SI122004 tanarrk s000wAilide and responsible.Nat We real adubs. Emal
e bmOt a home In SE PM Us and err surrdaMing neghbors all agree the the property manager
snd owner should be responsible for keeping the property dean and sale. It shouldn't be up b
8I12004 neWdas to conk at problematic tenants. Email For
1 Feel BOR has power,suspicious of their maeves. H you own kweaInmrd property.you own a small
8/12MM business. Phone ail For
1 feel this is a cheap way far the City to Increase Its revenue withal providing any Increase In
S/1SP2004 services. It Is easy to SW out w1w the property owner Is. Email Against
Lino In 800 block of Tknbe ins. Feels two are good and had renkla. Wank to am at mldnwm a
8111I2004 registration program. If so,halt contact awnas directly. Phone call ?
The rental I manage.as well as Mae of my neighbors what are slaient cantata,shlw W have a
positive Impact on our neighborhood. Please cackler not applying rental Matnalq to neighborh axis
81182004 with a low density of rental houses. Snail Against
In managing a home for 10 yen,my moat sadaus problem were 2 foils In their We...not convinced
tie 34arelated is necessary. Selecting temards Is a crap-shoot Zoo tolerance should be the policy.
8f1&2004 Allocate additional fells for neighborhood resources. Email Beef LID
By Impogng restrictions.the City Walk the number of rental knits available and than drives up the
alIW2004 oasL H the goal is to tame whop Alder"noisy gatherings.there are sunify better nays to do H. Email
I have Wed In FC for 26 years. A parson carrot help but notice the slow ded ins of the alder
neighborhoods due to Investors gabbing up houses that came an the madML A severe lack of
resporsblilty,for acreentng Imarts.property upkeep and total disregard Wr land tie codes seeks b
be the norm In Mis city. Something needs to be dace and a good alert is W got rental owners
attention by hitting them in to pocket took and enaring flat lack of responsibility WN not be
8202004 Marshall. Emil For
I'm not convinced that 4 students in a haw problem are no more likely than 3 to cause proble I saw you
direct the PD last spring W put more etfart into responding to citizen case.and I sure hope that~
81202004 is ongoky. Allocate additional funds for neighborhood response. Email AMW
I feel that my R4.neighborhood is being de facto re-zoned by the proliferation of rentals with more
than area tenants. Who would want W move W Village Wee Meuse days? Fewer residents have
vested Interest In the neighborhood. Like any other business owner.rental unit rwvne s should be
awr=4 responsible for maintaining appropkiak standards. Email For
Currently ordy a an o portion of rental trite muse problems or any type. Will cake rem prices. This
ordkka ce may k~erode Individual privacy Any additional W"should deal with personal
8102004 Iresponsibillty,of the violator. Email t
Owners and occupants are riot currently hell acookmteble. Since vve live in a college town,it is
expected that Mere was be marry rentals. Thai's why the City has to be all Me more concerned about
823I20W enforcing ordinances Mat wtN keep FC from becoming a slum. Email Beef
6
• The violations That currently occur are already covered by ehdsdng ordinances. Please don't create
8f2312004 more fees and trudge for FC residents when the economy is akady struggling. Email Against
1 UW by Overland Park and our neighborhood IS being transformed Into dorm rooms.and were 4
Mlles from CSU. Our street is sold cons. We are told OW Bauder Elementary Is long students.
8r2MA" We really need acme control an are numbers of occupants in rentals. Email For
Rental hcersing is abs cutely essential. Nothing draconian is needed•a moderate fee(max S101mo)
would go a long way towards oawrer accountability and coda erdacement Investment property Is a
business and needs some regulation. I sae far too many health and safely violations. Licensing vril
also help make many homes that are closer to'eff rdabe'available for time Mat time buyers and
arraWas renting since they do not have to unfairly oompele against investment groups buying"cash
owe'at higher prices and Wlafirg the neighborhood. We have privatized the profits when
unregulated,but publicized the costs#.a.police and other enforcement deperb Tanta)There is no
neiglhbodwW mh0shm ass anymore or safety of the violation reporter from retaliation(which does
812M2004 happen) Email For
Licensing is apparently directed at problem behavior In certain neighborhoods, I recommend stricter
enforcement of the nuisance ordinance. Pease look into a root taws analysis before assuming
8/2312004 landlords and property mimagers can change others behavior. Email Beef tip
The goals should be to put less pressure on the police to corneal bad tenant behavior thereby saving
resources. City needs to put some serious consequences an the tenants and iardlords.I sincerely
812312004 wish we didn't have to Implement licensing.but at this point there is no other choice. Final For
Same code hies should apply b resident owarers. Fkge cost to axpayere for maintaining database.
812=004 trwpections,enforcement. Information on properties is available at county courthouse. Email Against
1 can see same sort ofdatabase set up so omwWmanagew can be contacted qulcldy,ff there W a
problem. I can see a one-tme fee to do this. We need to upgrade communication between owners
and managers and Pdltce or BeWs offcs. We have ordinances In place and moat of the time cannot
8I2812004 get be City to do anything. The cost wig be outrageous to sup0ort reinventing the wheel. Email Beel'up
1 have endured pardons in houses near me,a girl student urinating an my hash,garbage,
trespassing... Posse tell no it I should be afraid or is the neighborhood going to be held to a decent
BIZGM% standard. Email For
The reowd rift should make dear to the authorities that they are deaing with a large number of
students who have little discipline. You cannot control this behavior with hatrmaasures that ptmy-
foot around the issues. The University has done We to aid the community. I have a right to a sound
sleep in my own house,and I will demand it of the authorities. Solutions are king overdue,so find
812542M Ithem and implement them. Email For
County records often have no address of home owner listed making it impossible to track the person
8I2872004 down. Renter are riot familiar with City codes. Landers are spoiled. Letter For
1 am disappointed that Council continues to try to regulate every boat of activity and target owners of
rentals as gre reason there are ugly properties. Deal with the less than 1%that are tiro problem and
SWI2004 embrace the diversity of the 99%who can make a positive impact. Email Iftainst
Rectal licensing should be used as a last resort tad. It would be wise to enforce the current
nuisance ordinances as they affect the issue now. The C y needs to be Was complacent about the
112T/2004 noise ordinances and make the tenant respomaibe. Email Bead
There are only 2 issues rental licensing can address:Propary owner contact Info and unit Inspections
8/27I2004 prior to leasing. Everytnng else can be amended Into*As"regulation. Emal ?
This is a knee-jerk reaction by an unimaginative City. Landlords have no copra over tenants,police
do. Landlords Inherently try to maintain decant tenants. The ones that don't can be dealt with via
existing building code and zoning violations. For problem areas try enforcing public congregation
Ages and noise regulation,Increase police patrols.send weekly Imo to residents.encourage a
8128I2004 church to outreach,require all residents to attend an 8 hour'character bulkflng'class. Email sw U
8f2812004 Rental market condition and building codes are enough to regulate rental housing. Email Against
Who do we call? I think a sign should be posed an the properly that lea the managerstownses
name and 24 number. There should be a One ff trey cannot be contacted. The managerlowner
8/28/2004 should not be able to say'Out of eight,out of mind' Email For
We've been subject to dog deals gone bad.public urination,vom ftIN.violent noise.Darkling dogs.
bad property care.etc... Contacting owners was useless,and when police were salad.nothing was
done. By not enforcing current rules.University Acres are turning into alums. Could as mayor's
ownership of a rental properly affect his judgment? Responsible ardordslagents should have no
&2&2004 problems with a properly written regulation. Email For
812t12004 3 unrelated is unrealistic. 5 bedrooms--5 tenants. jEmaU ?
7
The propessd ordinance is the wrap lod to address rental issues. Most landlords we probably
IXaagerd the ordinance anyway escalating an coat d arbraanad. A small a curd of Wiladve in
5282004 tins area would be was Invested rather fm blanket solutios to address specific targeted issues. Email Beet up
Renal timnelg is a bad Idea bemuse It dsaeases Individual meponsuRy and Increases ne power
of government. A free people have a respond WNY to a"social problems themselves wthart
having to govemmaa. I own and occupy a home In a rental neighborhood. I have the contact Info Ice
the property manages of rentals around me. Its easy. Moat of#me Idds want to be good
neighbors,but have tittle experience. As neighbors we should help Oiern. We need more individual
8282001 Emeti ftainst
tour mrlg ordnance Is not anlormabb.what would make Roaming enkroesble? We have a
&2a2004 nulsamm ordhanm for bless problems. Enall Bad up
This Is so overdue. Last I heard,only 2 states(Wsabaippi a CO)didft have tenant housing lines.
We Should be able to Malad our property and safely in our own homes. Property owners have no
8I2IMMU incentive to nwke tlless types d lermnb move and am live In Asa as a result Emd For
8I2912004 The and peWtiesshould be rpm to lsnanb Emd Beef LAP
City Could mandate certain clauses to be included In laeess to ensure that tenants ars not inooited,
and so specify the minhnum acceptable level Of smeNtlss. Landlord shad be held responsible for
violating such regulremends. Tenonls of rental hones should!not be treated cifferenly Iran people
8292001 looculrylog their awn hems whin It manes to violating City codes. Emak ?
1 have lived at my present address for 12 years. The quality of We has decileed and now rm moving
out d FC. tyre had to ask ter pia repealedly,on Sunday morning my neighbors wsre'AyaNng up'in
tI2W2DW tins garage'not something 1 want my tth grader lo sea. Email For
I own a condo slice 1995 and lyre never had a compblrt filed. SO why do you want me to be
kensed4 This whole idea is'mmake work'to appease neighbors with IsgNimate oomplakds. Instead
8128 M of licameft.arrest the nob$violators.fin the Wants•same as homeowners. Email Sew up
Left And out why"rent laws aren't wrorl rig and as them. People should have the right to rem
where it Is most affordable. i bdeve the ounert staplas Of rental tab wu sort out tine'bad'landlords
and properties. Current City codes don't provide a reasonable method for properties to be Improved.
8282004 I HOW team responsible for trek actions. Errall lewup
Umnsi g stir Just Ianit to number of good landlords bemuse investors want be able to afford to buy
property. 1 don't have time as a landlord.or means to prove the number of un4~or related
8rMM Individuals in my property, if my Innards are a problem.It shaddnt be my problem Email Lsinst
Lk4m you have one of these problem renters in your nelghboAood,you have no Use what a
8I3g2W4 problem they are. Email For
FC has always been a town tat took pride In the appesrenoe of hones and yards. Hold landlords
813020W arxcuriable. Email For
Neighborhoods within 3 miles of CSU are severely Impaebd by student rentals. Help us retain the
B/AMU quality of We and pimparly values in Ropers Pak. City has a right to regulate tom. Email For
3 of the 5 hones on my ccidasaC we rentals with 48 people Wing in tom. They average 5-7 tan.
One is a ldddle-condo'. Licsnalg Is nommary so that the number of rentals In one area tan be
ordrolled.1 work had 10 maintain my hone In FC only to And that I have no say over the demise of
8I301200/ my neighborhood. Email For
The residential renal business In a legili ads business and probably one of 80 major revenue
generators within the city. Rental activ Iles should be WarrtBed and tiansed the same as other
fY3012D04 businesses, Email For
I be"Rved downtown for 15 years. Properly owneralmenegers with numerous properties are
detnllely worse than smaller operations that lath to care sae. It is too much to ask me to time and
again impress upon the student isnants characteristics of reaped and moderation. I would hope toot
icensing would improve Industry quality without being completely punitive. If not enforoed,It Is no
81302004 help.. Email For
We have had problems with neighboring lenhants. We do not belbve licensing g should be InIluenced
er3a2004 by realbrs. Emall ?
I ere W Thundermoore. Renters should be treated on same as owner. A majority of the problem
arse from CSU students. Suggest a welcome program for new fotim to Ois neighborhood:renters
8f3a2OO4 lease that stabs City code wclatons:a copy of police report sent to owner Lsta ?
30vehaled dWnt work PNO didn't work;$1000 stele Utelg Nos didn't work;how M Oils work?
Umnshg provides landlords as the easy targets. Why not pass a bill reguirihg students to be
licensed?'Oh that would be discriminatory"Why then is it not discriminatory for landlords? it is tad
legislation because It Furthers the cwoept that problems can be addressed by Ignoring those
81302004 responsible,and shining It to easy target Lefler AgakW
Pktase use and enforce $eadamg taws wherever you can. Please consider amaN siguggions such as
8131I2004 ovmeromeled. Please do not provide higher fees sApqut providing some eval or service. Email Beef
up
813MA" Properties n single famay districts should be rensed o and omered by skgM tanrilies. Email For
1 own 3 rentals. Put some penalties n the lease. Greats a program where landlords that meat oenan
8/312004 requirements are desiywbd%tar rentals' Email Beef
up
Rentals stwua requke a tautness Neense. Uoensing 1s about renbr hoots and safety. Basement
8/3f2004 apartments need to be addressed. Email For
Landlords should not have the right to Impose such Monday on others simply for the sake of may
8I312004 Ipro8ta. Email For
Our nsiphbatiood has slowly declined Into rentals. Stability,b gone and replaced by yearly turnover
at students. Single fan*dwelling should mean what it says:one fancily,related by marriage.
81312004 bkftadopaan. ErneN For
Village West used to be a premier noWbomood and is now nied. There are parties.bottles and
8/3i AN garbage in .fights,public udnadon,speeding ears in our neighborhood. Email For
8/312004 Pubibh Online list Of rental licensee and Inspections. Don't harm Email For
Present crd wnces are not waWng. CNys nabaay tomarmpe tie problem l embamas,irp.'Asarenter.I would be happy subeidizhg any additioml fees my landlords ham as a result of more
81312004 we CNy polloss. Target problem properties with owner consequences. Email For
8/312004 Parking is my greatest conoem.
Email ?
We are against Noonsi g but for a regbtradw database to identify owner and code violations. Send
a/312004 fines o owner and t tlrey don't pay them.alb I a son o ask property,pet Nice toHOA's do. Email net
ifs unjuetlNabe to tilkrk tenant behavlor Is associated with number of brenls. Strongly support
SM 2004 eliminating 3-unrelabd. Email Against
HClty enforced current codes,we wouldnt need licensing. My son doesn`t go b the park because orb
8131IM" not peasant for him anymore. Ifs time we take back the neighborhood. Email Beef u
As a lsrldlord,t is difficult to Increase rents o cover escalating costs of Una",property Were.
81312004 insurance,advardsawL and repaMa.
Email Beal up
It seems the Coy b vsakg o6 tlaee neighborhoods abuttkg to campus as adage gteloes. My west
sIde neighborhood has pone from first-home families to 511%rentals In a years. Many neighbors have
moved away. By disregarding the Interests of wakng fanrdtes.the City may be ad6g We own it"
8/312004 In the long run.
This Idea is driven by good Mentions,but may have unintended Email For
requirements and occupancy O BnO The Ping
panty requlremants may be counter o to Glyn pen to o promote kf-PoI of
development arms. Some units will be taken off the market because Ifs too expanalve to make gem
81312004 compliant,pulling further pressure on rams lot the market drive landlord behavior. Email Beef
1 moved from FC because my neighborhood became over run by student rentals. The City or police
81312004 did nothing to help. Email For
QM2004 I am strongly against anyone maldnrp someone also respansale fbr aroth S scams Erred
Against
You assume the problem Is from rentals. The problem is from absentee landlords who are not
9/12004 accountable for condition of buildings and yards. The number of occupants Is rarely a problem. Email ?
These problems are not untyna to rental knits. L WAI g'Ad ncraaee tie met of fesWrp. It will only
make Inspectors wealthy. Neighbors should Invest their time in flatting 10 know the remers. Vklatore
9112004 shoul
If td be responsible. Enforce cuffed laws.
Email Beef u
he Issues are eotlepa reefed,then to college needs to be nvdved. Nuisance and noise needs to
9/12004 be addressed and handled betwoon City.police department,and the college. Email
Against
Existing tam would go away t sbicdy lino awM y enoroed. Should apply aquoNy to owner-
9/12004 occupied as wag. I am limited as to what I can do when I have a bad tesant Email Beef u
CONege rentals are a sentous problem in a number of nelghboriaods. Don't give In to realer pressure
9111=04 -Roaming Is a good Idea. Email For
Enrollment at CSU has increased and only 2 new buildings have been but Burden has fallen an the
City. 1 mile radius around CSU is`student phe8o'.no one wants to move two and schools in the
area suffer. What should be affordable starter hones are word more as shxkvg rentals. I support
92/2M rental licensing. Email For
Enforcement is a problem. Accountability far actions is great but doesn`t address the effect on the
922004 neighborhood feeling of late night noise,eta Email ?
Enforce our current ally ordinances. Adopt a standardized lease. Issues with tenants should be
922W4 tikecbd et tamnts. Email Beef u
922004 When is tits City going to step ataddng aralr Ile-b o ...the smdenb? Email t
•
9
More a(bc"W&Waw d of the existing laws. No need to burden mapwsae Wra orris. I support
accountability of repsal oRwWers. CSU mwt be more active. RagArs Igo sanctions MM)rather
tlsm property management(evktlon). Enforcement must coma from local law rawer than from
W30" owners and property manager amlorcemarrL Email See
uo
Rental pmpmaes*=W west minimum salary$Wnd his. Safely i specaons should be part otarry
17V3I2004 licensing program. Email For
Shift your foal from parks,bits paths,open space,and We dWa which affect narrow sectors of ths
papdtallm,and instead focus on the Ongoing bawl and probbns wth"dsnis and rankers,and to
associated detmiorallon d qualyr of Nis. I am disappointed to Mar dly aovem vent officals publicly
slab Yet they do not plan lo anka she current teas. My rWplWatwod b fed up with the Cllys
Inaction and bolt of rsspuedwneas. We pay the highad bees in to slab,aft lob of high-end
W312M anwAss,yet we do not protect the bask safety dour less affluent Citizens. Emall For
The aW$first priority should be to enforce the PNO. Licensing want have any affect t the nuisance
902 4 households*rant fined It Is coming up to 2 full years since the 1491gliborhood Summlr Email Against
This Is is Joke of the oenbay. Why should we expect Ills lo be adorned? What Is the purpose of
9r3rAw calilrg an area Singh F Dwelling and Morn allowing unreabd b mow in? Email Against
Even as a honneossr in'rental roar neighborhood.I don't think 9oardng b a good Idea. Instead,
OrMA04 enforce whale in place. Email Beef
914r2004 Dllfiadtb prove 3unrelated. other ?
I am a skhgb senior whose total rstlrpned booms consists of my 5 renal pnopallea.I fear to 0"
attitude toward dtlaena from my observations Oyer 34 yam. Ucersnng WO Impact me financially and
f aetonaily. kupscaons will be punitive requkkg me to make repairs and/or imprownsrds that I can
OMQ004 albrid. later Against
I am curious to know why this extra law of goverment red taps is necessary In the first piece.
WO)" Whore specifically Is to prodarn In to existing misshape? Email Against
TM PNO seems to have been a help In Our neighborhood(Avery Pwk4 Can sorneWng M put In the
ilcense that would require landlords fo provide bask bob such as rakes,snow shovels,fawn
916MW4 nvowers alk? Emil For
After 20 yams in Aspen Knob,I am saddened by the Is&of disrespect. I would love to know that
the dy ollcels I voted fa would show me their good faith by althar changing the law cur arnacng IL
twr=4 We are not epYab as we eve k amatl humble hones that we chimW. Email For
1 suggest gnu give each sfotlarnt to Malty neighborhoods an It y
9/72004 bilks far a ulna. Email ?
Licensing addresses the tx"V but not the bel avkr(nuisances} Landlords don't Crow caution to
the wind at the leaet hint of rental income. Rare s Nos Village got a*pedal w lance from 3-
9/ AAW Unrelated nee and seems to wank Perhaps more zones after thispattern? Email ?
t.icanelng well keep the quafily of the neighborhood,but wont fix robe problems. Owners should be
required a license to operate. Ike a CSU student and not all students are bad nalghbbrs,but are
9f72004 WnOW out. Email For
13 bedrooms=Max 2 occupants per bedroom/4+bedrooms=1 omymrkedroorn♦2 occupants.
9/ A04 Also be a amber of bathrooms component b the egwtion. Email I Sad too
I should not have to babysh away time there Is a charge in renbts. As lag as I have had the abBty,
to contact the landlord directly,I have had a good dasoship with the renters. However,this has not
WW2004 been Ike average situation. Email For
This proposal doesn'trecognize the responsible parties. Wok with CSU to entoroa acme severe
sanction on tees who doss the problems. Work with the Police to&W"y respond. Landlords
GS2004 we In ice-not enforors d khhal ordinances. Email Seel up
Hod seems responsible:One violations:won with CSU to kick them out for roped violates:
91902004 punkin the Nuisance How as to empower homeowners. Email Seefup
0/12/2004 Rental properties should not be held to a higher standard than nonasntal properties Email Against
It seems arbitrary that to City is terg tiling student rentals as the big livability bare,as a knee4o k
9/1212904 response to a low random dots. - Emil jAcainst
Have you put any*tort into finding out haw big Ike problem realty b? What percentage of rentals
cause problems?Unless this program addresses an Issue that affects a majority(>5 )of rental
properties,t'*an unnecessary hardship on malers and owners. Those who aken t walling to a"by
2/2004 s wont adds an ilea established a new m. Email
To charge the owner topolice the ads ofio the parsons living In a rental Is wrong just as holding herowners responsible for drunken driver*Is wro g. Please do not heap heavier loads on the batiks of
FW-1
:004 those of us already struggling to survive finandally. Ems
10
Solution Is to Institute community standards. Of the offending renters were to purd%ase the property
and contirnre to same offense,nothing Is gained. Hold residents responsible and require and help
75PLo04 the IanAord evict them. It Inspections are Ito should be forty Email ef
m Be up
Sae Papers"in fits town need some work. Unforkmatey,rental licensing ties to tuts off more
Man It can Chew all at once. I world much rather see 15 more poke ofiioom than 15 inspectors.
This IS not an issue that should be taken tightly or a decision that WxxM be me"in haste. Please
9!1 to hear the points you currently don't agree with. Email Beef
up
Look at mzoning areas around me nnimsity. Fort Collins needs to embrace tie fad Mat Its a
9/1152004 university town. Emak Iseduo
911gl1004 Problene art caused by a few. DonY Email Against
A nominal license fee should be imposed and certificate of Inspection required. If property or
occupants are in violation.cost of enforcement must be at the owners enpense. Tenn of license is
g202004 term of Mesa or until there are substantive changes in lease. Include a daabase of Information. Leger For
My neighbomood is unsafe for me and my children. I am a single mother with 15 students Yvlq
912lrA 4 around me In 3 houses who drink and smoke and ecresm. Please please enad ardameable Was. Email For
Communication with all concerned Is wanting and enforcement of the PNO lathe
problem. Thee are
so many rentals available that renters Can pick the beg-kept units. If a renter questions habitability.
9222004 May an call Torinspections,— Meter
Against
Single family homeowners need to be able to canted all rental homeowners and/or properly
managers when their peace of mind and safety Is being threatened. Same Iandl ydsuPlift we
outright haunting the ordinances In FC,and this Is totally unacceptable. Thanks so much to the
RMWNN for all their hard wok. 1 am outraged at tie City for allowing this student rental problem to
9f2 a N4 continue so low. Serious students must be as managed as we are. Email For
Very much in favor. A group 2 blocks away Meow very rowdy parses,no yard maintenance,trash on
front town,parks cars on lawns. The INtlei licensing lees should be kept low.with tax payers sharing
a portion. AN fines and penalties should be at a NO rate. Ensure enforcement-enforcement
agencies need to be adequately staffed and fundw. owners shed provide trash service,town care
and normal maintenance. Regietratlan database. Change b criminal offense. CSU should]raises
housing to sWdenm. Landlord and tenant responsibilities should be separate and distinct so Man
• each Is punished. Licensing will reduce profit of landlords mating to multi-tenants. HOAb am mostly
Ineffective. A landlord can control a tenants behavior by eviction. There should be no zoning.Rules
9232004 for tenants to Mane. Fmeil For
Please consider the landlords Wtc are responsible-we are diligent In keeping up the appearance of
our property. Many hone owners park an Moir towns but wont have to pay for a license. City should
ilr=2004 require an Information database. Email Beef
up
M Curious why you donY license renters instead of rental propertyl people who cause trouble can
923/2004 have leek tcense revoked. Email ?
Good neighbors are good neighbors,the number of people Is leas significant. To say we need
licensing because of health and*ably is just a thinly veiled attempt to make anyone who opposes
Gcenstug seem heartless. Empower tenants by giving them well-published Information an who to
contact If their property isn't safe. Few an you blame owner for Inadequate parking unless approved
use Is violated? Anonymity should be absdtaely assured-tie police laid a party who called to
complen. If tenant Is too noisy maybe they shorW get a week In Jail. What is the property owner
going to be able to do? Go over in the middle of the fight and t roaten them with a bet? Or kick a
rowdy tenant out so that they can just move and bother someone else? Rentals are rot a business,
9232004 rather landlords have made an investment. Email Beef
UD
923r2004 The Cuallfty brochure Is most Give It to all students at CSU. Email Beef
Lip
Licensing will make CSU look less friendly. Real estate and CSU are big economy boomers for our
9232004 area-try to help and not hurt t. Entail ?
I am currently a renter. If this an be done at Me cheapest rate possible that would be great
Responsibility depends on whose fault t Is. Relationship or status shWkl not make a dtfaence on
9232004 who can Ave Ingather. Email For
g232004 I would ilia to see evidence from coiner cities.
Th Email ?
e City must have a means to know Metro a stung enforcement arch nwrney to handle the
tasks addedto the licansina Prooram. Education is a right,a wivilege.and a resoons"th, Email For
YW have to realize that the majority of renters In Ft Collins are college students and most college
9M 2004 students aren't related. Email ?
Reduce the police response time. The City should handle this as step at a time and begin with
&2VM" u tl Me daabase d gMperly Email Beef
9252004 owners need to maintain or repair property and not leave it up 10 the tenants. Email For
11
one rental house an our block made a fire pie in to middle of to yard. Need to have doaanent tat
inloims tenante of their responalbWlin In a neighborhood. Owner should be responsible when Issues
M 2004 have b be Investigated by City and ow for We time. Emati For
Who Is going b enforce occ psnxy requirements based on unrelated adWb? What proof wer
coestlbrle sooeptebte proof that two People are abkgeblood reatvesmanhHy7 What care of
complaints will be handled by p olce7 Rossi kanshV folds?Clgr kapecos?WW dmm be duplba#on
912642004 of ? Who will varly complaints are and not vindictive? Email 7
My wale and I carry back from living in CaYfonda and became very aware of the Impact of rentals. it
9129I2004 its now the d not#0*chow*cW. Los of rowdy Young people.yelIku drinidna and duls, Email For
Why would you spend our tax aouea an sonm* rg that otar communities lava already spent their
8/30rwm good morm and weren't able to enkros. Email Beet
I We be increase in nuisance Ilnes and I Issi this direction Is efiectlw and should be given another
year or two. I was rental o er In Balder for nearly 20 yeas and bund the lawdondaance biattective
10/4rAV" in&nkkv to number of tenants and reducing nose complaints. Email 7
You have!eked about your valuable core downtown area:you we losing you vaduable'Coro',
responsible.taxpaying,and Marne dtiaens. This Is dellnh*a town owned by CSU and landlords
ant Isn'tter relli akizens anymore. We feel thatwe are being forced out of our home of 3S years.
whIch look us 30 yeare b pay for. We regret abhor.and are sidkered by bekg Icroed out of cur
home by to Irresponsible parties Involved In 96 most s portcI g decision. CSU needs to take some
10d/2004 lossoonsibilliv.Parente and landlords need b be notified of violations. Emal For
No In favor.enforcement Is key because the stmdards we In place. Ivey is neighbor
aaoemdmnplabb to a proeellve source for resolution with deer penalties Including a akhple Hen
? hold. Paper survey Beef u
? Not in favor. Tougher Ana b tenants far notes and nuisance be aviaa would asneade more maw PAW survw MOW
1 wficb-heartedly disagree with this ordnance. Please enforce regulations we have. This will haw a
? terrible effect on affordable houshig. Paper survey Beef u
ff parent Iwm aren't bekg enforced.ben thte te a legal tewa If you Insiigwte Ioweift my ProPecty
7 maraiger will Increase costs and 1 will now. Beef
As a home aver.nod to a rental property.)am very iced of the multiple problems Caning from the
adjacent rental property.I believe that as a permanent resident and taxpayer.that my rights should be
? protected from transiantMak taxes students. Paosr survey For
Student rentals are a real problem In FC. Landlords do Itlle to help these renters conduct themselves
In ways that are conducive to good raighborhood relations. Driving and parkkg an lawns Is a
problem. We haw no enforcement of current ordinances. ff is time the Oil has some type of rental
? ti fee and eff wive arlorcemanl Ranters and landlords need to be hold accountable. Pow survey For
The new problem of our nelphbore letting friends park by their hale and ten Carpooling to school
? leaves no roan for us to park. Emall For
Nomeovwters glue stability,character,and continuity to neighborhoods They invest their Ile savings
In their hones. The City needs to positively support dwneaapbd bones. Encourage people to Survey
? move into Cennkal FC. comment For
? 1 did not work this hard to buy a house in the middle of a Oomifty, comment For
rm a property owner. If the ewer doesn't comply with standards than Inform the owner and One Ore
? or take them to cart lErgorce parent hswa. Paper Survey awup
7 A schedule of violation basins must be established and For
Pardng:No more than 2 off-street vehicles per hale. Reo ead"vahides of certain length oonnt
as 2. Dumps*Counts as f. TeraAs provide Inbmatlon on vehicles. Vehicles not awed by fervent
are considered may be considered abandoned. For every legal bedroom above 2.!ere must be 1 off
? street periling space which Is payed or araveled. Paper Survey ?
UaMW Rests with away,but costs are shared with l aanta. Owners should provide Information on
7 home assessors information is not timely or accurate. PaperSurvey Far
? SihuNaMd may violate civil rights. Better to Just oplert number of adlste. P ?
I am for Hcerobg which addresses health.safety.paring,000pancy,and nuisance issues rm not
for one which looks to daaanent buadbycode violations. Knowing who Is living in a property baietite
owners and neighbors. Inspections should only be used to for health and safety Of the reporting of
? criminal activity and not for building code violations. Surm For
Renters and landlords need to be held accountable. Some landlords feel like teyre bong penalized
even thoWh they do everything right. The ordinance shard not he punitive and discourage,landlords
tmm providing housing that snows transitional.low4noome students and cuter populations a much
7 neededPlace to reelde at 8 reasonable COBL Letter ?
Rental Licensing Survey Report
i showing totals from: online survey I naner survey_ both
• Questions
Please select one that best fits you:
Totals Answer
211 Rental Property owner
19 Rental Property manager
47 Tenant
393 Neighbor of rental property
72 Other
Please rate the following:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how important Is It to you that rental licensing addresses the following issues?
(1 indicates very Important and 5 not important at all)
Health and safety of tenants
Totals Rating
258 1
107 2
127 3
56 4
194 5
Occupancy ( of people per unit)
Totals Rating
340 1
79 2
84 3
48 4
191 5
Parking requirements
Totals Rating
297 1
99 2
112 3
69 4
165 5
httpJ/webux.fegov.conVdev/rentallicemingtreport.php?scope=3 10/5/2004
Rental Licensing Survey Report
Noise and nuisance behaviors 13
Totals Rating
421 1
63 2
51 3
40 4
167 5
Accountability of property owner,
property manager and/or occupant
Totals Rating
419 1
53 2
61 3
31 4
178 5
read all comments from this section
Which answers do you believe to be most effective and workable as part of a licensing ord
(Check all that apply)
1. Ucensing application requirements
Totals Answer
533 Name of local agent or contact
338 Usting of occupants
434 Signed disclosure stating compliance with rental housing standards
402 Certificate that number of occupants Is within limits
283 Other [ read the'other' comments from this question ]
2. How should occupancy limits be addressed?
Totals Answer
352 Standard number of adults
304 Number of bedrooms
108 Square footage
86 No occupancy limits
http://webux.fcgov.com/dev/rentallicensingtreport.php?scope=3 10/5/2004
Rental Licensing Survey Report
244 Other [ read the'other' comments from this Question ] 14
• 3. If occupancy limits were based on number of adults, which would you choose? (Family is defined .
number of people related by blood, marriage or adoption.)
Family with no more than:
Totals Answer
194 4 unrelated adults
262 3 unrelated adults
105 2 unrelated adults
68 Family only
277 Other [ read the 'other' comments from this question, ]
4. If occupancy limits were based on number of bedrooms, which would you choose?
Totals Answer
37 Not more than 3 people per bedroom
210 Not more than 2 people per bedroom
54 2 more people than number of bedrooms
320 1 person per bedroom
. 247 Other [ read the 'othee comments from this question j
S. Term of rental license:
Totals Answer
330 Annually
98 Every 3 to 5 years
208 Ucense valid until change in ownership
255 Other[ read the'other' comments from this question ]
6. Types of rental units subject to licensing:
Totals Answer
503 Single family homes
202 Certain zones
396 Duplexes
332 Apartments
192 Owner-occupied
http://webux.fegov.com/dev/rentallicensing/report.php?scope=3 10/5/2004
Rental Licensing Survey Report
204 Exemptions [ read the 'exemMons' comments from this question j 15
189 Other[ read the 'other comments from this question ]
7. Ucensing fee:
Totals Answer
476 Nominal fee per unit, to cover administrative costs; Inspections charged at market value (If
69 Nigher licensing fee, but no inspection fee
306 Other [read the'othee comments from this question. ]
S. Type of license violations:
Totals Answer
476 Failure to meet rental housing standard
446 Failure to obtain license
475 Failing to make corrections
519 Multiple nuisance and noise violations
454 Occupancy violations
288 Other [ read the 'other' comments from this question j
9. Uability should fall upon:
Totals Answer
300 Property owner
150 Property manager
272 Tenant
350 Combination
244 Other [ read the'othee comments from this question j
10. Parking requirements:
Totals Answer
364 One space per bedroom
107 1.25 - 1.5 spaces per bedroom
154 No parking requirements
246 Other [ read the 'other' comments from this question ]
It. Overall, are you In favor of rental licensing?
httpJ/webux.fcgov.com/dev/rentallicensing/rcporLphp?scope=3 10/5/2004
Rental Licensing Survey Report
Totals Answer Breakdown 16
Rental Property owner: 19
Rental Property manager: 3
384 yes Tenant: 18
Neighbor of rental property: 317
Other: 27
Rental Property owner: 164
269 No Rental Property manager: 15
Tenant: 13
Neighbor of rental property: 47
Other: 30
Rental Property owner: 14
54 Unsure Rental Property manager: 1
Tenant: 16
Neighbor of rental property: 11
Other: 12
Rental Property owner: 14
Rental Property manager: 0
35 (Note: this option was only on the paper form) Tenant: 0
Neighbor of rental property: 18
Other: 3
httpJ/wcbux.fcgov.com/dev/rentalliceming/repoit.php?scope=3 10/5/2004
17
m Q D
$ Piz
«
� m
$3o � g 999g8 I
o 3Eo` apLpCptg
A mJ W W $
o " 32
is
gg�a g n �
ci
CL
VO
p, a
go
� SS
LL � 33A
Is
• The Group Real Estate
July 13,2004
Presenters: Tess Heffeman,Ginny Sawyer
Staff- Darin Atteberry,Steve Roy,Felix Lee,Peter Barnes, Mark Radtke, Greg Byrne
Audience questions and comments
- There appears to be a failure at a lot of different points...there are several laws
already on the books...the City already does regulate parking,nuisance
complaints,etc...What has been done to enforce these laws?
- It looks like this is already a done deal. I don't see the question(on the survey
forth)of whether we believe licensing is a good idea—it's not
- I understand there are problems,but what can you do. One thing I did in my own
neighborhood was visiting new neighbors who are renting and let them know the
standards of the neighborhood. What is Party Partners and how does it work?
- Tell us the experiences of other cities who have licensing ordinances....you say
Boulder's has been in place for 20 years—but I know from personal experience
they continue to have problems
- Why not give landlords more power to do something about the problems. You
can't predict what a tenant will do when you rent the property. Landlords need
more power to remove tenants who are causing problems. I recently had a
Section 8 rental that I couldn't get rid of for months. Eventually my costs to
make the repairs to damages caused by the renter topped$8,000. Give us a
method to get rid of them.
- A lot of folks think this is not a good idea The problems revolve around CSU
students. CSU does not have on-campus housing for sophomores,juniors and
seniors. They are the problem and thus become the tail wagging the dog. CSU
needs to take more responsibility for off-campus student behavior.
- I have not had one complaint in 20 years of being a landlord Those landlords
who are irresponsible will continue to be irresponsible with or without a license
- There are also problem neighbors who just don't like having a rental property
next door. Their behavior toward renters and the landlord becomes harassment
- Would you clear up a point with several City Council members who say that we
license businesses in Fort Collins? We don't license most businesses—generally
just businesses that operate out of a home.
19
- We talk about more enforcement. I called the nuisance hodine twice during the
week and once on the weekend last week and got a recording each time. Then I
get a menu with seven options. I'd like to talk to a live person to deal with my
problem
- We need to look at the economics of inspecting homes and enforcing licensing,
how many additional city staff will it take...what are the penalties....are you
going to seize property
- With older properties will it be a health and safety inspection or will it end up
forcing owners to bring their properties up to current building code
- If a complaint is followed by an inspection that determines no violations, the
person Sling the complaint should pay for the inspection
- Landlords can help the situation by providing their phone number to neighbors
- Larry Kendall: Under the heading"types of properties to be licensed"I suggest
we exempt condos,townhomes and residences already covered by Homeowners
Associations. They already have strict standards to comply with. I also want to
point out that ten years ago I helped to support an apartment complex proposal for
the Prospect and Shields area did was voted down by Council...a project that
would have reduced the conversion of single family homes west of campus for
student housing...I've driven through the neighborhoods just west of campus and
it's creepy...but licensing won't do anything to improve the situation...just as the
public nuisance ordinance didn't do anything to improve the situation. We don't
want to end up like Boulder where they have worked against themselves by
boarding up properties drat don't meet their inspection code and now sit vacant
because a property owner can't afford the$20,000 to$100,000 repair costs.
Council needs to think about the unintended consequences of such an ordinance.
Colorado Apartment Association Board of Directors 20
August 10, 2004
1. Why is the nuisance ordinance not working? Why is it not enough? Do you have
any other ordinances that cover areas such as appearance,parking, and
occupancy? All of which the current nuisance ordinance does not cover?
2. I own 28 apartments and it would cost me$28,000 to have each one inspected.
3. How can you make a landlord or property manager responsible for a tenants
actions?
4. People will be selling their homes because the big brother is intruding. This will
cause a housing shortage.
5. The nuisance ordinance required me to send in 2 forts to register each of my
tenants to Utilities. Then I was chastised for sending them in 1 envelope. The
City needs to have better communication.
6. Doesn't the assessor's office have a database on all rental properties? Where can
you get this kind of information?
7. We try to treat everyone the same in this industry. I find it difficult to get the City
to enforce the nuisance ordinance. We need to enforce those issues in place and
an occupancy law is a good thing to have.
8. It would be nice if it was per bedroom. I'm concerned that we've got both sides
of the fence working here. Marty Tharp felt that the City wasn't doing it's job to
enforce the existing laws. Occupancy limits doesn't help the parking situation but
rental licensing would be too expensive.
9. If health and safety was the purpose, I would be all for it.
• 10. Doesn't the building code official have the right to say that a certain house is
unsafe and then board it up? Yes,then why do we have to license to enforce what
you currently have already? If the property manager/landlord signed on
compliance, what would the judge sad 9
11. If the City does an inspection on the property and clears it,does the City have
liability if a violation is later found?
12. If we could get communication from the City on nuisance violations we would be
good. It goes back to communication.
13. Is it tossed around that the owner would contract with the inspector or would the
City contract with the inspector? What would the City do if during an inspection,
they found a bag of drugs and money? What if the tenant didn't let you in?
Could you call the cops? The cops have no warrant and therefore cannot do
anything.
a. We have databases of our tenants. What if we came together with the City
and created a database and updated it through membership? I would be
happy to do that rather than pay a licensing fee. Then we could penalize
people who don't register to be on the database. We could have a small
one-time fee to create this registration system in the beginning and that's
it.
14. Why isn't owner-occupied single family homes included?
15. What is staffs concept of rental licensing right now?
21
16.About the parking issue. I'm assuming you can't ticket cars right now because
there are no limits to how many spots they can take. Are you presenting to us
where tenants can park without being ticketed? You are trying to solve a problem
that we nor the police can solve.
17.It is discrimination if you licensing rental properties and not home owners as well.
18. I have a family of 5 children and we all have legit drivers licenses and cars and
we all park outside of our house. I don't think it's right for you to tell people that
they cannot park on their street. Our neighborhood all gets along great and we
discuss things with each other. If people are upset about rental homes,they need
to move to an area like this.
19.The enforcement of the nuisance ordinance is an effective tool.
20.Put some teeth behind what you have.
21. I've seen cops at the local coffee shop sitting around for hours. One time I even
called Marty Tharp and she came down to see them. We have more cops out on
patrol than people think,can we get these cops to enforce these types of things
that we are having problems with?
22.Why are they so behind in the assessor's office?
23. I like the idea of a central registry. We could penalize people who don't register.
Also,have stiffer fines for violations of the nuisance ordinance.
• Fort Collins Housing Authority 22
August 26,2004
1. There are tons of mixed use neighborhoods with single family homes. I hop this goes
beyond just single family homes.
2. Lawrence, Kansas is a good example of an area that didn't address mixed use homes.
3. The worst cases are in single family homes that have been chopped into separate
units.
4. I think our whole board thinks that rental licensing should not apply to properties
covered by Housing Authority
5. Your survey pre-supposes we are in favor and it's not fair.
6. Have fiscal documents been done on other communities that would model our
licensing ordinance?
7. There are currently lots of things on the books,has the study group put together what
codes might overlap licensing? I think we should enforce current codes.
8. There are a dozen cities listed,can you get studies about their targets,outcomes,
evaluation, and effectiveness?
9. "Slum"is an unfortunate word. The market is taking care of neighborhood values.
10.I don't hear anything about the landlord gouging students because it's getting
outrageous. Students are paying outrageous amounts of money to live here.
11.The landlord might not know about garage tenants. How often do property
managers/landlords go into these units? Are you trying to get rid of out-of-town
landlords?
• Marty Tharp's Comments
1. There are 3 problems that I want to address:
— Health and safety issues
— Do away with unenforceable ordinances
— Preserve city core
2. I don't want this to be a substitute for current ordinances, I want a zero tolerance level
in FC.
3. It is currently done on a complaint basis which is not working. It's not feasible to
have habitability complaints come from landlords and tenants.
4. Landlords need to be responsible for their property.
5. I only have single family homes in mind to be licensed.
6. 1 have a new idea since I'm not a trusting soul on registration: be able to use
certification for homes with 3 or less renters; for homes with more than 3 renters have
inspections.
7. Rental health and safety is important to me and inspections enforce health and safety.
8. I am concerned about enforceability and how to increase it. It would help by making
it a civil offense rather than criminal offense.
9. Owner-occupied homes bought by parents and managed by students(kiddy-condos)
are covered by land-use codes that say you can't have a boarding house in FC single
family homes. Some aspects of the land-use codes are confusing to me.
23
10.Owners in older neighborhoods have the right to have protected properties,want
surrounding properties maintained,and peaceful neighborhoods.
11.I don't want to make people feel pushed out or uncomfortable.
12.I don't think inspections should have to be a burden.
13.We aren't anywhere near passing an ordinance;we are in the process or crafting one.
24
• Rental Licensing Public Meeting
August 30,2004
Summary of Small Group Comments and Recommendations
What are the benefits of rental licensing?
1. Investment property is a business and needs some regulation. These landlords are
rezoning an area without having to go through the processes,safeguards,and
expenses
2. Makes it easier to locate property manager/owner information and know who to
contact if there's a problem
3. Raises homeowners' standards
4. Owners held responsible
5. Strengthens enforcement of current codes
6. Addresses health and safety of tenants and neighborhoods
7. Maintains property values
8. Improve character, appearance,and quality of life in neighborhoods
9. Creates a way to identify absentee landlords
10. Deals with"kiddie condos"
11. Improves parking issues
12.Licensing might help make many current rental homes available for first time buyers
•
What are the drawbacks?
I. It is impossible for ownerstproperty managers to control the behavior of tenants
2. We don't need anymore governmental regulations or bureaucracy
3. Why doesn't the City enforce the laws on the books? If you implement licensing,and
don't enforce it any better than the existing laws,what have you gained?
4. Limits the number of rental units available and drives up the cost of rents
5. Burdens responsible landlords
6. Doesn't address owner occupied homes and their problems
7. Decreases the amount of affordable housing in Fort Collins
8. Creates a class system
9. Feels discriminatory and an invasion of privacy
10. Wont solve the real problem
11. A database already exits and entities should work together to share information
12. Eviction is cumbersome
13. Cost of licensing
•
25
What methods are workable and enforceable?
1. Change 3-unrelated violation firm a criminal to a civil offense
2. Violators subject to higher fines
3. Registration database with landlord's information
4. Fine landlords who don't register
5. CSU needs to increase housing and education
6. Enforce and put some teeth into existing coda
7. More communication of current codes
S. Lease addendums with penalties
9. Raise the price of fires
10.Use the existing Lanmer County database
11.More education and information to tenants about violations
12.Use registration database fee to fiord more police and code enforcement officers
13.Use neighborhood associations and homeowners'associations
14.CSU should require a"good neighboring"class
15.One car per renter
16. Enforce the 3-Unrelated Ordinance
17. Landlords need to submit leases to the City of Fort Collins
18.CSU should expel repeat offenders
19.License of occupancy inside the front door or on a window sticker
20.Education packet handed out by realtors
21.License rentals and owner-occupied homes
22.Hold tenants accountable for their violations
23. Charge for inspections only
24.Create an appeal review board
25.Beef up eviction procedures
26. Create a tiered fine system for repeat offenders
27.Establish special"gathering permits"
28.Better access to public information
29.Incentives for responsible landlords
30.Re-work zoning laws
• Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network(RMWNN) 26
September 20,2004
Meeting Summary
This meeting was hosted and facilitated by the neighborhood organization. Staff guests included
Eric Hamrick, Kurt Kastem,Marty Tharp,Ray Martinez,Darin Attebeny,Peter Barnes,Beth
Sowder,Tess Heffernan,Felix Lee, and Ginny Sawyer. There were approximately 80
neighborhood attendees.
P. Neighbors presented a power point presentation describing the state of rentals in their
neighborhood
► An educational piece was presented on how to track police calls and follow-up on those cases
in municipal-court
P. Four or five neighbors presented testimonials to their experiences living near rental property
► The Mayor and all Council members were given a chance to speak
► Staff addressed the rental licensing timeline and other specific questions
RMWNN has presented staff and Council with two position papers since April 2004. Those
papers and other information from the neighborhood can be found at:
www.rmwnn.or¢
Main points presented by neighbors include:
• Rentals are a business that are really a`non-conforming use"in the neighborhood and
therefore should be regulated
• Neighbors believe in the 3-unrelated law and want to see it enforced
• Neighbors believe CSU has a role and responsibility in this issue
Colorado Apartment Association Luncheon 27
September 21,2004
1. I am disappointed that the City doesn't admit that there is a database and access to
landlord information.
2. Did anyone from the City attend Bouldees meeting about the issue of 3 unrelated
people in a house and fife partners?
3. Why is the Nuisance Ordinance not being enforced? Why create more regulation?
4. Before going"all or nothing",the City should see if having a database is successful.
S. Not all properties are problems,why penalize all of us?
6. I find it highly unbelievable that the City cannot find landlord information. What
about an ordinance that says landlords have to provide information? Does the
database have the capacity to carry more names?
7. What will the City do about irresponsible landlords that will continue to ignore the
rules and will not update information?
8. My property is in a trust and the City can still find my information.
9. I wish the City would recognize that landlords finance a home for other people and
the City shouldn't point a finger at anyone. CSU is cooperating.
10. It's irresponsible to add another layer with the current budget crunch.
11. My assumption is that nuisance issues are the problem and not health and safety
issues. Is this true for Council?
12.At the August 30'h Community Meeting,it was eye-opening to many people who
were amazed at the lengthy eviction process and that it takes 2 weeks in court, and a
judge has to evict. Also,that there has to be a 24 hour notice by the landlord to
inspect a home.
13. We(CAA)need to take a stand and write the Coloradoan about the eviction process
and let others know about it.
14.The City doesn't know where the rentals are,the neighbors know. Licensing
everyone is overkill.
15. Welcome to Stepford where your property has to be perfect. It comes to a point
where we're not going to get everyone to comply.
16.My rentals are by CSU. Is the City looking at on-street parking permits because it is
a problem?
17. Is CSU looking to build a parking structure?
18. Is then:any way for CSU to issue parking permits for students living near campus?
19. If there is a liaison between the City and CSU,can there be a liaison between the
City and the rental community?
20. There used to be a class at CSU called"Rent Smart"that would get students to ask
questions of landlords,and it offered them 1 credit.
21. Where would we go to rally for more enforcement of current laws?
22.I have rentals near CSU and we have good enforcement from the City.
23. I can understand the need to address health and safety issues. I have a problem with
making the landlord responsible for the violator's actions.
24. It seems to me that the survey is biased and that City Council has already made their
decision
28
25. In May,the Nuisance Ordinance was strengthened and fines were increased, Is there
• any thought to take some time to let it see how it's working and if the City is moving
in the right direction?
26. How is this information getting to City Council? Were Council members invited?
We have a done deal vocal community.
27. It's a good idea to have the minutes of this meeting and a delineation of ideas signed
by us and sent to all Council members.
28. The real problem is that the City doesn't have enough police. If you're not truthful,
you're wasting time.
29. There is a Property Managers Association and not a landlord association.
30. The City should have more resources for landlords and new landlords. (Online
resource,packet for new landlords to the area, list of members)
31. The City needs more money for enforcement.
32. 1 am a responsible landlord—I hand deliver my information to surrounding
properties.
33. Currently,there is no legal means of finding out who the tenants are.
34. There needs to be a dorm education program for students who are exiting the dorms.
Associated Students of Colorado State University(ASCSU) 29
September 29,200
1. What kind of feedback are you getting?
2. Are you tracking the amount of homeowners,landlords,tenants,etc that are
responding?
3. How will licensing be more effective than what is currently in place?
4. How effective are the other rental licensing examples in other cities?
a. How were students impacted cost wise?
5. Would landlord or owner be responsible for the inspection fee?
a. Buying a home requires an inspection anyway
6. Have you looked at Boulder as an example?
7. Is the City looking at avenues to license irresponsible landlords such as licensing
only after a certain number of violations?
8. With limited staff;how do you expect to control this?
9. It seems to me that zoning staff have become a quasi-landlords of the city and it
shouldn't be that way.
10. Seems to be the way things happen in the City where a decision is made before
really thinking about it and the repercussions.
11. Is the City's specific goal Health and Safety(H&S)or nuisances? The City can
easily address problems without requiring licensing for everyone.
12.Is the City getting more calls on nuisance or H&S issues?
13. Thus far,has the increase to nuisance fines decreased bad behavior?
a. Is there any other approach rather than adding more laws?
b. There are 25,000 students here that want to hang out and I don't think it
will have an impact.
14.I five on Howes Street and we didn't contribute to the riots but we feel the impact.
15. There should be better relationships between the Police and students.
16. What is the percentage of complaints to the City about homes in the CSU area?
17. Is the Party Partners program effective?
18. Landlords don't have the time or resources to babysit tenants or be responsible for
their behavior.
19.I think it would be effective if students had to go to Party Partners after we've
been informed that there is a problem.
a. Educate students before a big problem starts—mandatory lease addendum.
20. It would be extremely unfair if the City held owners accountable for tenants
actions.(student)
21.Kids intentionally move to certain areas because we know it's a fun time.
22.3-Unrelated Ordinance forces students to break laws with landlords consent and
needs to be taken off the books.
23. 1 think a full year of data should be required to analyze the effectiveness of other
programs such as Party Partners and increased party enforcement.
a. There are Supreme Court ruling about excessive government takings.
b. A uniform lease addendum makes sense to me and the landlords and
students should abide by these,period.
30
24. Looks to me that the City is having a hard time determining the definition of a
• tenant(in response to not knowing who might be living in a house).
25.Is the City compiling numbers on cost, feedback,etc?
26. The City needs to define the what H&S is meant by the City and by the neighbors.
The City's definition is structural and up to code. The neighbors definition is
tenant behavior concerning the neighborhood.
27. The City Attorney needs to define a legal binding term(in response to the concern
that rentals are a business).
28. If the City were to do inspections based on H&S reasons,there are plenty of
homes(1890's, etc)that would be cost prohibitive to upgrade.
a. Are you looking at any grandfathering clauses or exemptions?
29.Neighbors don't want to see any rentals in their neighborhoods,period.
30. Are homeowners subject to licensing? That's discrimination if not.
31. It seems like there are many unanswered questions and the City has a lot of
homework to do..
a. Why are you going after landlords when you can do effective education to
the students?
b. You're dragging responsible landlords along with you.
32. It's obvious CSU is a community within a community, are you looking at a
certain zone around CSU?
33.There are substandard properties and major issues that need to be addressed.
Landlords need to bring their properties up to code or get out of the game.
a. If their property was up to code, thee►landlords shouldn't be worried about
• licensing.
34. I had no idea about being able to get a free inspection from the City if we had a
concern about our property. In addition to educating students about behavior,the
City needs to educate people who are looking to rent about sub-standard
properties and H&S issues.
35.During semester changes people are paying more attention. It's a good time to
implement education when people are coming and going.
36. Students don't like requirements because it feels like we're not given the respect
for being a student renter. It assumes lack of responsibility.
a. Student's don't know the Health&Safety codes.
37. There should be a disclosure along with the lease addendum that delineates Health
& Safety standards and is signed by tenants.
38.What about a liaison between CSU and landlords where student housing has to be
certified/approved by that person.
a. It may be discriminatory.
39. 3-Unrelated should not be on the books.
a. Community should recognize that hostility is being created towards CSU
students,however, landlords have problems with non-student renters as
well.
b. I'm worried that licensing might have an anti-student flavor.
40.Tenants need to be educated more about their living spaces.
•
31
41. (In response to the comment'If their property was up to code,then landlords
shouldn't be worried about licensing'),I have 51 properties and they are all up to
code. It's not about money or compliance,it's about freedom.
42.I have personal experience of people not being happy with landlords. H&S seems
to be a backdoor way of getting a licensing program passed.
a I was at the Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network(RMWNN)
meeting and I can tell you that most of their homes wouldn't pass code
inspections.
b. RMWNN wants to control behavior but their tolerance level is very low—
They called Party Patrol about people slamming car doors when they got
out of the car.
c. RMWNN doesn't care about renters H&S. They should realize that they
bought property right next to CSU and this is a college town.
d. The solution is proper enforcement of current laws.
43.Affordable housing might be hampered.
44.Do you think that investors will pass on the fee to tenants?
45.(student)I think a zone around CSU should be looked at. Move students to that
area and inform new-comers to the community about those areas.
a. It's easier to focus on one area and you would have a controlled
environment.
46.A natural zone already exists around CSU.
47.If your house is sub-standard,it's against the law. We don't need rental licensing
to make it more illegal
48.We have a situation where the City wants to implement another program,when
we have programs that should be working.
a. More enforcement(police)to know where the problems are.
b. Not hitting the problem directly.
Attachment B: Example Lease Addendum
LEASE ADDENDUM AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM
This Addendum to Residential Rental Agreement is made this day of
and is incorporated into and shall be deemed to amend and
supplement the Residential Rental Agreement made by the undersigned Tenant and Landlord,
their heirs,successors and assigns,dated .The Residential Rental
Agreement and this Addendum pertain to the premises described in said agreement and located at
. This Addendum is
required by Fort Collins City Code Section•••
In addition to the covenants and obligations set forth in the aforementioned Residential Rental
Agreement,Tenant(s)and Landlord hereby covenant and agree as follows:
A.Landlord's Covenants and Obligations:
1.Landlord shall keep and maintain the leased premises in compliance with all applicable Codes
and Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins and all applicable state laws and shall keep the leased
premises in good and safe condition.
2.The Landlord shall be responsible for regularly performing all routine maintenance,
including lawn mowing and ice and mow removal,and for making any and all necessary repairs
in and around the leased premises,except for any specific tasks which the parties hereby agree
• shall be delegated to the Tenant and which are identified as follows:
I The Landlord shall promptly respond to reasonable complaints and inquiries from the
Tenant.
4.The Landlord shall comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Fort
Collins and all applicable provisions of the Landlord-Tenant Act of the State of Colorado.
B.Tenant's Covenants and Obifgationns:
i.Tenant shall comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins and
all applicable state laws.
2.Tenant shall dispose of all rubbish,garbage and other waste from the leased premises in a clean
and safe manner and shall separate and place for collection all recyclable materials in compliance
with the City of Fort Collins's Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinances.
I Tenant shall use and occupy the leased premises so as not to disturb the peaceful
enjoyment of adjacent or nearby premises by others.
4.Tenant shall not cause,nor permit nor tolerate to be caused,damage to the leased
premises,except for ordinary wear and tear.
•
5.The names of the tenants,including those under 18 years of age,who may occupy this unit:
Name of Tenant(s)
6. We acknowledge that we cannot park on the grass or across the public sidewalk and that the
Landlord provides off-street paved parking spaces or other parking areas as approved
by the City.
7. Compliance with all Federal,state laws and local ordinances,rules and regulations is required
under this lease.
C. Occupancy and Fines for over-occupancy. The undersigned acknowledge and agree agrees
that the maximum number of persons pemutted within the regulated rental unit at any time shall
be . The undersigned acknowledge that we are responsible for complying with
the maxim u a occupancy limits of the City Code and that the City Code provides that violation of
the maximum occupancy limit can result m a$*fine for the first violation(the City Code also
provides that each day is considered a new violation)to the owner,agent and/or tenant.
D.Noise or Public Nuisance. Penalties for noise violations may result in civil and criminal
fines up to a maximum of$1,000 to the owner,operator,and/or tenant. A property is a public
nuisance if there are multiple violations of liquor,public health,safety or welfare laws and
ordinances. The penalties are substantial and may include eviction and forfeiture of personal
property,and may result in restrictions or revocation of the rental license.
Any violation of Fort Collins City Code may be deemed a public nuisance.
L Legal Agent This unit may have a legal agent,someone to whom the owner legally assigns
responsibility for all aspects of managing this unit. This unit does does not (CIRCLE ONE)
have a legal agent.
Agent Name:
Address: Phone:
We,the undersigned owner,legal agent,and tenants,have read the addendum,checked and
• initialed the addendum in the spaces indicated,circled items indicated,and filled in the blanks
with the correct information. We acknowledge receipt of the List of Ordinances attached hereto
TENANT SIGNATURES)AND DATE:
/ /
"Note"All tenants,except minor children of tenants,must sign this form even if they have an
oral rental agreement.
OWNER SIGNATURE AND DATE: LEGAL AGENT
SIGNATURE AND DATE:
• LIST OF APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES TO BE ATTACHED
•
Attachment Q Example Nuisance Parties Ordinance
East Lansing,Michigan Nuisance Party Code
DIVISSION 5. NUISANCE PARTIES
Sec.26-141.Declaration of nuisance.
A or parry which is conducted on premises within the city and which,by
reason of the conduct of those persons in attendance,results in any one or more of the
following conditions or everts occurring on neighboring public or private property.
public drinking or drunkenness;public urination or defecation;the unlawful sale,
furnishing,or consumption of intoxicating beverages;the unlawful deposit of trash or
litter,the destruction of property;the generation of pedestrian or unlawful vehicular
traffic,standing,or parking which obstructs the free flow of traffic or interferes with the
ability to render emergency services;excessive,unnecessary,or unusually loud noise
which disturbs the comfort,quiet,or repose of the neighborhood,including public
disturbances,brawls, fights,or quarrels;or conduct or condition which injures,or
endangers the safety or health of the neighborhood,or results in any indecent or obscene
rb or results in any immoral exhibition or indecent exposure by persons attending
the or pally,is hereby declared to be an unlawful public nuisance.
(Code 1994,ch. 106, §9.47)
Sec. 26-142. Prohibited;penalty.
Any person being the owner,occupant,tenant,or otherwise having any possessory
control,individually or jointly with o of an ices who either sponsors,
conducts,hosts,invites,or permits a or party which is or during the
course thereof becomes a public nuisance as defined by section 26-141 and which public
nuisance is either the intentional result of or within the reasonable expectations of the
person or persons having such possessory control is hereby deemed to have committed a
violation of this Code,and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties as provided
by section 1-12 of this Code. In any prosecution for a violation of this section,proof of
specific intent shall not be required as a necessary element but proof of general criminal
intent shall be a necessary element.
(Code 1994,ch. 106, § 9.48)
Sec. 26-143.Payment of cost of abatement.
The cost of abating a nuisance as defined by section 26-141 shall,to the extent
reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety,be charged against the
premises and the owner thereof as a single lot special assessment in accordance with
chapter l3 of the City Charter. Such costs shall include,but not be limited to,the
following expenses: East Lansing Police Department overtime expenses,public service
department of labor and equipment expenses, fine department and emergency services,
labor and equipment expenses,plus 15 percent of each of the foregoing expenses for
administrative burden.
(Code 1994,ch. 106, § 9.49)
Secs.26-144-26-170. Reserved.
• means an assembly of two or more individuals for any purpose,
unless all of the individuals attending the assembly are members of the same household
or immediate family.
(Code 1994,ch. 106, §§9.1. 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.2, 9.2.3. 9.101(1))
•
•
ATTACHMENT 3
•
The 113-UNREL4TEDffORDINANCE
What does the ordinance say?
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code stipulates that any dwelling unit,renter-and owner-
occupied alike,cannot be occupied by more than one family.There are three distinct types of
"families"that are defined in the Code that are legally permitted to live in one dwelling as a
single housekeeping unit. These are:
1. Any number of persons related biologically or through marriage,adoption, guardianship,
legal custody, etc.
2. Any unrelated group of not more than 2 adults and their(biological or otherwise related as
noted above)children.
3. Any unrelated group of not more than three persons.
This means that in most cases,if a rental dwelling unit is occupied by more than three persons,
they MUST ALL be related to each other. Conversely, if they are not all related to each other,
then such occupancy would be considered to be a zoning violation.The exception to this rule
applies ONLY to owner-occupied dwelling units. City Code allows an owner-occupant who is a
• member of any of the three types of"legal families"defined above to rent rooms to two
additional people,provided the owner obtains a Fort Collins"Home Occupation License"from
the City Building&Zoning Department. Such licenses cost$10 and are valid for two years.
Additionally,to qualify for the license,one off-street parking space must be provided for each
additional person and any bedroom for that use must have an approved emergency escape
window.
How are violations of the code enforced?
Violations of the code are enforced on a complaint basis and treated as being"non-observable"
by City staff. This means that enforcement personnel cannot readily ascertain a violation or
reasonable suspicion of a violation from a visual check of the property from the public street or
sidewalk. In order to pursue a violation successfully,the City must rely on neighbors,who can
observe the property on a continuous and regular basis or who have had conversations with the
tenants and are willing to complete a"zoning investigation form". This form can help provide
City staff with a reasonable suspicion that a violation may indeed exist as well as a neighborhood
resource who can provide additional information to aid in the investigation if necessary. Once
the complaint has been received, the City will mail a notice of the alleged violation to the
property owner,providing the owner with a 30-day compliance deadline to correct any"family"
violation that may exist. Additionally,when there is reasonable suspicion of a violation,a staff
person will visit the dwelling unit in question and attempt to interview one or more of the tenants.
Examples of reasonable suspicion may be a log listing vehicles believed associated with the
property over a 30 day period,a conversation between a neighbor and a tenant,or names listed on
the outside of a mailbox. These names should be able to be seen from the public sidewalk or
• adjacent property. The City does not encourage or condone the use of trespass or other measures
deemed illegal or harassing as a way of obtaining evidence to support a citizen complaint. For
more information regarding enforcement of the ordinance or to obtain a"zoning investigation
form", stop by the City's Zoning Department at 291 N. College Avenue or call 970-416-2745.
Enforcement outcomes
It is important that the complainants understand what the outcomes of enforcement actions can be
and what is necessary for successful enforcement. Once the City initiates action,one of the three
following outcomes will result:
1. The owner admits to the violation and voluntarily corrects the problem either by the
compliance date or by the date of an extension that is generally agreed upon between the
City,the complainant,and the property owner; or
2. The owner denies that a violation exists; or
3. The owner or tenants admit to the violation but do not correct the violation by the deadline.
If the owner voluntarily corrects the situation,then no fines are assessed. If the owner denies that
a violation exists,then it becomes necessary for the City to prove in the Municipal Court,beyond
a reasonable doubt,that a violation does exist. Without an admission of guilt by a tenant or by
the owner, such proof can be difficult to obtain, and successful enforcement may not result. If the
owner or tenants have admitted to a violation but have ignored the deadline,then City staff will
issue a Municipal Court summons. Since an admission of guilt has already been obtained,no
additional evidence should be required. hi such instances, and in instances where a trial results in
a conviction,the owner and/or tenants will be assessed a monetary fine and will be directed by
the Court to correct the violation in order to avoid additional fines.
ATTACHMENT 4
•
Economic and Market Study Executive Summary
•
R E S E R C H
ECONOMIC AND
MARKET STUDY
IMPACT ANALYSIS OF "THREE UNRELATED
PERSONS" ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT IN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Submitted by.
Corona Research,Inc.
1630 Welton Street,Suite 525
Denver,CO 90202
Phone: 303-894-8246
Fax: 303-894-9651
E-mail: KeyinOcoronaresearch.com
Web Site: www.coronaresearch.com
Economic and Market Study
IMPACT ANALYSIS OF "THREE UNRELATED PERSONS" ORDINANCE
ENFORCEMENT IN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
In January of 2005, Corona Research was retained by the City of Fort Collins to examine the
impacts of a strong enforcement of the City's "Three Unrelated Persons"ordinance. This ordinance
states that no more than three unrelated adults may share one housing unit The ordinance is
currently in place, but has historically been enforced at a very low level, if at all. As a result, a large
number of households are currently in violation.
This executive summary offers an overview of the key findings and conclusions of the study.
The full report provides much more information and detail to support these findings and
conclusions.
The following language was provided for this report by the City of Fort Collins.
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code stipulates that any dwelling unit, renter- and owner-
occupied alike, cannot be occupied by more than one family. There are three distinct types of
"families" that are defined in the Code that are legally permitted to live in one dwelling as a single
housekeeping unit These are:
■ Any number of persons related biologically or through marriage, adoption,
guardianship,legal custody,etc.
■ Any unrelated group of not more than two adults and their (biological or otherwise
related as noted above) children.
■ Any unrelated group of not more than three persons.
This means that in most cases, if more than three persons occupy a rental dwelling unit, they
MUST ALL be related to each other. Conversely,if they were not all related to each other, then such
occupancy would be considered to be a zoning violation.The exception to this rule applies ONLY to
owner-occupied dwelling units. City Code allows an owner-occupant who is a member of either of
the three types of`legal families"defined above to rent rooms to two additional people,provided the
owner obtains a Fort Collins "Home Occupation License" from the City Building & Zoning
Department Such licenses cost $10 and are valid for two years. Additionally, to qualify for the
license, one off-street parking space must be provided for each additional person and any bedroom
for that use must have an approved emergency escape window.
As a nomenclature note, households currently in violation of the ordinance are referred to as
"violator households"in this executive summary and in the full report.
• ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 1
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
As an initial step, the research team developed estimates of the number of households currently
in violation of the "Three Unrelated People" ordinance. The research team also documented the
relationship between the presence of violating households and other neighborhood nuisances.
THE NUMBER OF VIOLATING HOUSEHOLDS
There are an estimated 1,070 violator households in Fort Collins. Overall, 5,003 renters
will be affected by the enforcement of the ordinance, either by moving or by downsizing
their household.
As an initial step in examining the impacts of the ordinance, it is first necessary to know the
number of households that are currently in violation of the ordinance. The research team used three
methods to estimate this figure: an analysis of individual Year 2000 Census records (updated to
2004); an analysis of summary Census data from the Year 2000 (updated to 2004); and analysis of a
public telephone survey conducted for this project
The three methods of estimation produced somewhat similar estimates, ranging from 905
households to 1,266 households. Because none of the estimates is judged to be a flawless estimator,
none takes precedence over the others. As a figure for continuing the impact analysis, the research
team chose to average these three estimates,yielding a final estimate of 1,070 violator households.
At an average of 4.46 people per household, the 1,070 violator households contain
approximately 4,773 people. Additionally, another estimated 168 owner-occupied units would need
to shed a total of 230 renters to satisfy the ordinance. When this figure is added to the figure for
renters currently living in rental violator households, the total impact of the ordinance will be
changes in households among an estimated 5,003 renters.
IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS
Residents living in close proximity to violator households are significantly more likely to
identify problems with their neighbors in numerous areas, such as disruptive parties, noise,
parking issues and other neighbor-to-neighbor problems. Residents living in close
proximity to violator households are also more likely to have negative perceptions of their
neighborhood on specific issues.
During the public survey,households were asked whether any of the four houses nearest to their
own home contain more than three unrelated people. They were also asked independently whether
any of the four nearby houses experience other types of neighborhood problems. While the findings
do not necessarily prove causation or link negative behaviors directly to violator households, there is
a strong correlation between residents' proximity to violator households and their reporting of
problems such as disruptive parties, loud noise, inappropriate parking of vehicles, unkempt lawns,
trash or junk in yards, poorly maintained houses, and criminal activity. Actual figures from the
survey are reported in the full report
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 2
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
• SUPPORT FOR ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
A majority of public survey respondents would support stronger enforcement of the
ordinance.
More than half of respondents (56 percent) would support stronger enforcement of an existing
city ordinance that limits the number of unrelated adults who can share a house to three people. The
figure rises to 69 percent among households that have two or more violator households among the
four houses nearest to them It should be noted that this is an un-weighted survey of residents and
does not differentiate between registered voters and non-voters.
The following are selected key attributes of the violator population, both in terms of households
and the people who live in those households. Additional information is provided in the full report.
1. Approximately two-thirds of violator households occupy single-family homes.
One striking difference between violator households and other rental households is their choice
of housing units. Single-family homes are the housing of choice for two-thuds of violator
households,compared to only 22 percent of non-violator households.
2. Most violator households (64 percent) are only slightly over the three-person
ordinance limit,with four people sharing a housing unit.
• Only nine percent of violator households have six or more people, and another 27 percent have
five people.
3. The majority of violators(86 percent)live in three-bedroom units or larger.
Violator households make up 29 percent of the market for four-bedroom units, and 51 percent
of the market for five-bedroom units. They make up 4 percent of the market for three-bedroom
units,and less than one percent of the market for smaller units.
4. The average household incomes of violator household are generally higher than
those of other renters,despite the fact that individual tenants' incomes are lower and
individual tenants in violator households are more likely to be below the poverty line.
Violator households tend to have higher incomes than other rental households, in large part
because they have more people generating income. A total of 62 percent have household incomes
above $34,000, in comparison to only 40 percent of other rental households. However, taken
individually,52 percent of the people living in these households would be below the poverty line.
5. Household rent levels tend to be high among violator households.
When examining rent levels,violator households tend to pay higher rent levels. Nearly half(49
percent) of violator households pay rents of$1,102 per month or more,compared to only 10 percent
of non-violator rental households.
• ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 3
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
Interestingly, a significant subset of violator households pay low rent levels as well. Violator
households are more likely than other households to pay rents of less than $550, and also far more
likely to pay rents of more than$1,102.
6. The rent per person in violator households is nearly 50 percent less than that paid by
other renters,on a per-adult basis.
While violator households may pay more total rent, they have more adults who are contributing
to that rental payment. While nearly half of other renters have payment obligations of $400 per
month or more (in the Year 2000),nearly half of violator households paid less than$200 per month.
On the whole, the median rent obligation of a tenant in a violator household is almost exactly half
that of a person living in a non-violator household.
7. Overall,71 percent of violator household tenants are college students.
Among tenants in violator households, 63 percent are undergraduate students, 8 percent are
graduate students,and 29 percent are non-students.
8. Seventy percent of the tenants in violator households are males and 82 percent of the
tenants are under the age of 25.
Regardless of their student status,tenants in violator households are young. Only five percent of
these tenants are over the age of 27, and 82 percent are between the ages of 19 and 24, inclusive.
Tenants in violating households are also disproportionately male, with more than twice as many
males as females in this population. This skewing is not true for other renters, who are evenly
divided between males and females.
Corona developed an extensive impact analysis to identify the impacts of ordinance
enforcement,including impacts on rental vacancy rates,rental prices,and home values. The analysis
was conducted via seven distinct steps.
1. Corona developed a profile of the rental market,as it existed during the 2000 Census.
2. Corona developed an updated estimate of the rental market, as it exists today,using a variety
of sources and techniques.
3. Corona used the profiles of violator households to identify the market presence of violator
households within the rental market.
4. Corona developed estimates for how violator households will reform if broken up by the
ordinance, and what the housing preferences will be for the newly formed (and smaller)
households that will result.
5. Corona altered the existing profile of the rental market to reflect the loss of violator
households and the addition of newly formed non-violator households.
6. Corona assessed the rental market's reaction to these shifts in demand.
7. Corona examined the impacts of these shifts on rental vacancy rates, pricing, and property
values.
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 4
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
• A SUMMARY OF RENTAL MARKET IMPACTS
After taking into account the number of violator households, their demographics, the supply of
rental housing, and the rental preferences of households at various income levels, the research team
determined that a strong enforcement of the "three unrelated people" ordinance will have the
following impact on the rental market.
• A total of 1,070 rental units are in violation of the ordinance and would be forced to
downsize or dissolve.
■ These households contain a total of 4,773 renters. In addition, another 230 tenants
would be forced to vacate owner-occupied housing so that those homes would
satisfy the ordinance. A total of 5,003 renters would need to change their living
arrangements.
■ These 5,003 renters would reform into 1, 2, or 3-person households. The research
team estimates that the ratio will be as follows:
260 of these people will form new one-person households, for a total of 260
new one-person households.
2,518 of these people will form new two-person households, for a total of 1,259
new two-person households
2,225 of these people will form new three-person households, for a total of 742
new households.
• In essence, 1,070 large households will disappear from the Fort Collins housing
market, and 2,261 new smaller households will appear, for a net gain of 1,191
households (with no change in total population).
■ When examined by income, strong ordinance enforcement will result in the net loss
of nearly 250 households with incomes over approximately $60,000 per year, and
the net creation of approximately 190 new households with incomes from $30,000
to $60,000 per year. The number of households with incomes below $30,000 will
increase by over 1,250.
As a means of comparison, the total city's number of households with incomes
below approximately $22,000 per year will increase by approximately 10 percent.
The city's total number of households with incomes between $22,00 and $33,000
will increase by approximately 5 percent The change in the number of households
with incomes over$33,000 will decrease by approximately 1 percent However, the
change on the rental market will be much larger.
■ When translated to rental demand, these changes in households will produce a
significant increase in demand for units in the $550 to $775 price range, and a
decrease in demand among units priced above$1,100.
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 5
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
Exhibit ES-1
Change in Rental Demand by Price Level
Rental Unit Lost Rental Unit
Demand of New Demand of V oletor Not Change in
Rental Prim Household Households Demand
Under$222 68 0 68
$222 to$332 103 101 2
03 to$387 115 54 61
$388 to$442 130 136 -6
$443 to$498 117 0 117
$499 to$553 120 16 104
$554 to$609 252 31 221
$610 to$664 187 0 187
$665 to$720 270 19 251
$721 to$775 202 35 167
$776 to$831 165 23 142
$832 to$886 103 74 29
$887 to$997 135 25 110
$998 to$1.108 105 35 70
$1,109 to$1,385 124 299 -175
$1,386 to$1,662 19 140 -121
$1,663 to$2,217 36 82 -46
$2,218 and Up 10 0 10
2,261 1,070 1,191
When these changes in rental demand are entered into the current Fort Collins rental market, the
impacts will be quite significant The overall rental vacancy rate will drop by five percentage points,
and the initial impact will produce negative vacancy rates in several market segments,which of course
are not possible. The various market scenarios to deal with this situation are discussed later in the
analysis of affected parties.
Exhibit ES-2
Impact of Ordinance on Rental Market
Baseline Sumado Samado with Owdinam;*
2004 Baseline ChmW in Change In 2004 Doulpl d 2004 Ra dw
2W4 Ol pled Danumd Demand Unit With PMerted Vacancy
Rental Rats Vacamw Rate; floppy Units (Unha) (Pvcenq Ordinance Rob wkh Ordinance
Unde $$222 11.0% 636 566 68 12 634 03%
$222 to$332 10.2% 794 713 2 0% 715 9 9%
$333 to$387 6.9% 1061 988 61 6% 1049 1.1%
$388 to$442 6.4% 814 762 -6 -1% 756 71%
$443 to$498 9.6% 959 867 117 13% 954 -2 6%
$499 to$553 4.3% 1.270 1,216 104 9% 1,320 -39%
$554 to$609 4.5% 1,840 1,756 221 13% 1,977 -7 4%
$610 to$664 9.2% 1,943 1.764 187 11% 1,951 -0 4%
$665 to$720 10.3% 2,499 2,242 251 11% 2,493 02%
$721 to$775 4.8% 2,630 2.504 167 7% 2,671 -1.6%
$776 to$831 5.3% 1,452 1,375 142 10% 1.517 4 5%
$832 to$886 12.0% 1,244 1,095 29 3% 1,124 9.6%
$887 to$997 17.3% 1,613 1,333 110 8% 1,443 10.5%
$998 to$1.108 13.4% 1,456 1,261 70 6% 1,331 8.6%
31,109to$1,385 11.7% 1.966 7735 -175 -10% 1560 207%
$1,386 to$1,662 7.0% 377 351 -121 .34% 230 39.0%
$1,683 to$2,217 7.6% 401 370 -36 -10% 334 16.7%
$2.218 and U 0.0% 66 86 0 0% 66 0.0%
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 6
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
IMPACTS ON AFFECTED POPULATIONS
The impacts of this market shift will now be discussed for each of nine affected parties.
KEY MARKET 1: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE LOW-RANGE MARKET(UNDER$440)
Default Market Size: 3,300 housing units,3,150 rental households(before market shifting)
Landlords in the low-rent market will gain immensely in the short-term from ordinance
enforcement On the other hand,renters in this price range will suffer from extreme competition for
housing and higher prices even to stay in their current units.
These units typically have a high vacancy rate as they are generally less desirable units, and most
rental households can afford to pay a higher price for a nicer or larger unit.
In a post-ordinance environment,three strong factors will change this market
■ First, the large increase in demand will create a net increase in demand at this price
level,reducing natural vacancy rates for the group from over 8 percent to the 4 to 5
percent range even before a secondary market reaction(below).
■ Second,the price levels above this market range will face huge supply shortages. As
a result, the best units in this price range will be able to increase into the price range
above $440, with a subsequent shift upward in price through the entire supply of
low-market rentals. The research team predicts that approximately 15 percent of
this low-cost housing supply will move up to the medium-range market and the
supply will be lost to low-range renters, and pricing levels for these units will
increase by a minimum of 5 to 20 percent
■ Thud, the pricing movement of housing supply out of this market will cause even
greater shortages at the lowest end of the low-range market This change in supply
will essentially lower the vacancy rate to zero,with more demand than supply. It is
likely that approximately 150 to 250 households at this extreme low end of the
market will be unable to compete for housing, requiring either public assistance or
creating a market for "non-standard" housing or illegal overcrowding. Another
option, albeit unlikely for this income group, is that the lowest-income households
will simply leave the city.
In the long run, increased construction in the mid-range market will almost certainly push back
the units that priced themselves out of this market However, with the increased demand and the
likelihood that few new units will be built in this price range, the long-term return of these units will
merely return vacancy rates to a healthy level in the 4 to 5 percent range. This segment will most
likely not be directly served by new market-level construction, but will benefit only indirectly by
increases in supply in the mid-market range.
KEY MARKET 2: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE MID-RANGE MARKET($440 TO$830)
Default Market Site: 12,600 housing units, 12,900 rental households(before market shifting)
• ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 7
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
Landlords in the mid-range rental market will gain somewhat in the short-term from ordinance
enforcement, though to a lesser extent than landlords of low-rent properties. Once again, the
situation will be detrimental to renters, due to extreme competition for housing. However, pricing
for these units may not increase dramatically due to downward price pressure from upper-end
rentals.
In this price range, pre-ordinance vacancy levels were somewhat high in some price segments
and were moderately healthy in others. However, the addition of over 1,100 new households into
this market range alone will completely swamp the housing supply, with demand for units
outstripping supply throughout the range.
Aside from competing fiercely to find units,renters in this price range will have four options:
■ Pay more money to rent larger units,an option that is only available to those at the top end of
this price range. This will happen to some extent, since the vacancy rate for units in the$830
to $1,100 range will be higher than a healthy rate. However, vacancy rates at those levels are
not high enough to provoke a full-scale downsizing, so price cutting of upper-middle units into
the mid-range market will be limited. Similarly, relatively few renters will venture out of the
competitive mid-range market into the somewhat stagnant upper-middle market.
■ Another option is to move down and rent cheaper units that are less desirable, and which
typically have high vacancy rates for that reason. However, the competition for those units
will be even more fierce, and a significant part of that supply will have already risen to mid-
range prices. As a result,this will not happen.
■ Move out of the area, either permanently or on a commuting basis. This may actually be an
attractive option for some of these households, particularly if there is an oversupply of mid-
range rentals in other nearby communities. Depending on other factors such as the availability
of rental housing in the unincorporated county and/or nearby communities, one to two
percent of the market could relocate out of the city, equating to 100 to 300 mid-range renters.
We caution that this is merely a rough estimate.
■ One- and two-person households can double up and obtain roommates, while staying under
the limit set by the ordinance. This is a probable scenario as well, and has the potential to
create overcrowding to some extent in one- and two-bedroom rental units where two or three
renters share a unit
On the positive side,price pressure from upper mid-range units may dampen the price increases
that will be prevalent in the low-range market. Units in the $800 range cannot significantly increase
prices without running into competition from the upper mid-range market, which will still have a
relatively high vacancy rate. Therefore, landlords will benefit from extremely low vacancy rates (on
the order of 0 to I percent),but will not be able to use that to price units up significantly. Even so,
some price increases are likely, perhaps in the five to ten percent range, as the entire market shifts
upward in response to competition.
In the long term, the housing construction market will almost certainly correct for this intense
shortage of housing by increasing new construction. In the short term, some additional low-end
owner-occupied units could be converted to rentals as well.
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 8
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
• KEY MARKET 3: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE UPPER MIDDLE MARKET($830 TO
$1,100)
Default Market SiZe: 4,300 houung units,3,900 rental bourebolds(before market sbifting)
Landlords and tenants in this price range will exist somewhat on the tipping point of the market,
between the high vacancies and lost demand at the upper end of the market and the saturated market
and increased demand in the mid-range market. As a result, the impact on this market segment will
be relatively small.
Vacancy rates at this price range are currently high, estimated in the 14 to 15 percent range.
With the breakup of larger households formerly renting upper-end housing, this market segment will
benefit as some of those households downsize and move down into the upper middle market. Even
so, most of the demand will bypass them and move further down the price scale, so rental rates will
remain somewhat high,in the 8 to 10 percent range.
This market will be impacted by two key factors that cannot be predicted with great confidence:
1. Landlords'willingness to discount pricing at the lower end of the scale will be an important
factor. A move down into the $800 price range will produce large demand and low
vacancies. However,history shows that landlords in this price range are hesitant to discount
prices, while renters in the $800 range are hesitant to move up. The research team predicts
some crossover, but history indicates that landlords in this price range are willing to tolerate
vacancies in the ten percent range in exchange for keeping their rental rates high.
2. A threat to this market exists from above. Upper-end rentals will be facing extraordinarily
• high vacancy rates, and landlords will be facing decisions about whether to sell their units,
wait until demand increases again,or lower their prices. If they lower their prices, they then
transfer that market stress to the upper middle market. However, the upper middle market
is approximately 50 percent larger than the upper end market (4,300 units versus 2,800
units), and the upper end landlords may have little interest in dropping their prices to
compete in a market that already has high vacancy rates.
3. A third potential factor is that the research team assumed that roughly 5 percent of the
tenants in the dissolved households will reform as one-person households, 50 percent as
two-person households, and 45 percent as three-person households, based on existing
patterns among other renters (with adjustments to denote this population's propensity for
having roommates). It is possible that some of those one- and two-person households will
merge to escape the competition at the mid-market and low-rent levels, and will, in
combination, have enough household income to afford upper middle range housing. This
would be a positive in many respects,as it would ease the demand pressures at the lower and
middle price levels. However, it may lead to overcrowding to some degree as three renters
move into two-bedroom units.
Overall, this market will probably not be impacted significantly by the ordinance. Demand will
increase, which will aid landlords, but vacancy rates will remain high enough that renters who can
afford this price range will have an ample opportunity to rent at stable prices.
• ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 9
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
KEY MARKET 4: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE UPPER-END MARKET($1,100 AND UP)
Default Market Side: 2,800 housing units,2,200 rental households(before market shifting)
This market will essentially see exactly the opposite effect of the low-end market. The breakup
of violator households will disproportionately impact the upper end rental market, and most of the
reformed smaller households will not be able to afford these larger, more expensive properties.
Enforcement of the ordinance would be expected to more than double vacancy rates in this market
segment,from a current level in the 10 percent range to an expected 22 percent level. Housing in the
$1,400 to$1,700 range would be particularly hard-hit,with vacancies approaching 40 percent.
Landlords in this market segment will have three primary choices:
1. Tbey can bold on to their properties and attempt to "wait out"the housing glut aeated by the ordinance
enfotrement. In order to consider this option,it is important to estimate how long it will take
for the vacancy rate in that sector to fall back to a reasonable level. For this analysis, a
reasonable level is assumed to be 10 percent Assuming constant growth in the city that is
proportionate by owner/renter households and price demand, and assuming that the
number of rental units in the higher end of the market remains the same (Le., no new
construction or conversion takes place), it will take approximately 7.4 years to reach a 10
percent vacancy rate.
2. Tbg can lower their rental price. This may not be an option to some landlords who have to
cover mortgage costs. However,for others who have held their properties for some time,it
may be feasible. In considering the mechanics of price dynamics at this end of the market,
one can consider the various property levels and their"natural'vacancy rate if the ordinance
is passed.
For landlords at the low end of the upper end market, there is significant potential for
lowering their rental prices,because that would move them into the$998 to$1,108 category,
which has an acceptable (if slightly high) vacancy rate. Since their unit was previously priced
higher,it is presumably a larger or higher quality unit and could compete well in that range.
On median,though,this would represent a 16 percent price discount.
At higher rent levels, the same mechanism holds true: a discounted unit of higher quality
should be more desirable than a non-discounted unit of lower quality. However, the
dynamics are made difficult by the high vacancy rates at higher levels. For example,
discounting a $1,900 per month rental down to$1,525 will certainly make it desirable,but at
the same time it is difficult even to lease desirable units in an atmosphere with a 39 percent
vacancy rate. In summary, lowering prices is an option, particularly to landlords on the
lower end of the market,but it may not be feasible from a business perspective.
3. They can sell their property. Obviously, this is not a preferred approach for a person who has
invested in a rental property, but it remains a feasible option. As a rental property, these
large units will lose value as a result of the ordinance, because their market size will drop
significantly. Decreases of 15 to 25 percent may be necessary to lease an upper-end unit,
with a proportional decrease in property value.
However, this does not reflect the true picture. Most rental units at this price range are
single-family homes, and were originally built to be owner-occupied units. In most cases, a
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 10
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
conversion back from rental to single-family home would be painless, and the ownership
market is much larger than the rental market for houses in this value range. Additionally,the
impacts of ordinance enforcement on the owner-occupied housing market will be negligible,
so it is likely that the home could be sold for its pre-ordinance value as an owner-occupied
home. (Of course, this depends on some property-specific attributes such as location,
condition,and home layout.)
Another bonus for sellers would be the potential impact of the sale of multiple single-family
rentals in a neighborhood. According to the research team's analysis (described later in this
section), it appears that a neighborhood's median home value declines by $391 for every
percent of the single-family home inventory that is a rental property. In other words, a
house in a neighborhood where all single-family homes are rentals can be estimated to be
valued at $39,100 less than a house in a neighborhood where no single-family homes are
rentals.' If multiple landlords opt to sell their properties, those who sell later may reap the
benefits of the neighborhood's return to single-family occupant status.
The above impacts all relate to landlords. As a closing note,it should be observed that renters in
this price category would benefit from ordinance enforcement, as they will have many more homes
to choose from,and potentially lower pricing.
KEY MARKET 5: DISPLACED TENANTS FROM VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS
Market SiZe: 5,003 individuals
This market consists of the 5,003 individuals who will have to change their housing situations as
a result of the ordinance. While they are included in the rental markets that have already been
• discussed in Key Markets 1 through 4, they warrant additional analysis because of their nature as the
focal point of the ordinance.
From a game theory perspective, these individuals are by definition losers in the ordinance
enforcement, because they will be banned from pursuing a housing arrangement that they have
already decided to be in their best interest. They have already decided that living in a household with
three or more other people is their best housing option, and will be forced to abandon that option if
the ordinance is enforced.
Not only is this true in theory, but it is also true in practice. The tenants in violator households
currently average approximately $211 per person in rental costs. In their new living situations after
ordinance enforcement, it is estimates that their rental costs will increase by over$100 per month as
they relocate to smaller households. These figures do not include any"new market"rent changes as
described in Key Markets 1 through 4,which could further increase rents and will affect low-income
individuals more than high-income individuals. Keeping in mind that a significant portion of current
tenants in violator households has incomes that would place them below the poverty line, the
ordinance will have a strong negative impact on housing for some portions of this population.
Note that the model used to develop the figure of$391 explains only 58 percent of the variation in median home values
across neighborhoods. This figure should be considered a"ballpark estimate"rather than a firm figure.
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 11
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
In addition to ongoing rental costs, these households will face increased costs in other ways as
well. For example, some fixed household expenses such as cable television, Internet access, and
telephone service will be split among a smaller number of people. Further,the individual will have to
absorb the cost of moving their household.
In summary, enforcement of the ordinance would produce strong negative outcomes for the
tenants currently residing in violator households.
KEY MARKET 6: OWNERS IN OWNER-OCCUPIED VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS
Market Size: 168 individuals
Less than 200 housing units are owner-occupied, but take on renters in a number that is in
violation of the ordinance. It is unlikely that these households would dissolve, but they would have
to shed one or more tenants to satisfy the ordinance.
Because this is such a small population,little data is available through which to draw conclusions
about the impact of the ordinance. Certainly, the ejection of one or more renters will reduce cash
flow to the owner, but it is not clear whether that loss of income will also result in the owner not
being able to maintain the mortgage. The impact of the ordinance on this population is therefore
limited to stating that the owner will generally lose at a minimum 25 percent of his or her rental
income.
In the limited data that is available, it should be pointed out that the stated owners of these
properties might be predominantly college students themselves. In the few data records that are
available,the majority of property owners were undergraduate college students.
KEY MARKET 7: NON-VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS
Market Size: City households
This market consists of all city households other than violator households.
Aside from the impacts on rental markets discussed earlier, this group will receive two primary
benefits from ordinance enforcement,at the cost of one potential risk.
The first benefit is that there may be an increase in "peace and quiet" in neighborhoods that
currently host violator households, and a decrease in negative activities that cause problems for
neighbors, such as inappropriate parking, loud noise, disruptive parties, and poor lawn and home
maintenance. While the data from the public survey in Section 1 of this report cannot definitively
identify violator households as the cause of neighborhood problems, there is a strong correlation
between neighborhood problems and proximity to violator households.
The second benefit is in property values. As noted earlier, the research team has identified a
potential relationship between median home values in a neighborhood and the presence of single-
family rental units. For each percentage point of single-family housing that is rented out, the median
value of homes in the neighborhood drops by$391. If the number of single-family rentals declines,
the value of homes in the neighborhood will increase by a like amount Citywide,it is estimated that
about two-thuds of violator households live in single-family homes, which means that about 800
such homes exist. This represents less than three percent of all single-family homes. While impacts
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 12
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
awould vary greatly by neighborhood, the model suggests that,on a citywide average,home values are
diminished by about$1,200 per home due to the presence of single-family rental units.
The potential risk involves the transition of violator households to new households. The
individuals in violator households will reform new households of three people or less,and will move
to different housing units in many cases. With the expected increase in their costs,they may be more
likely to overcrowd small housing units as long as the overcrowding involves only two or three
people. With the increase in demand for those smaller units, a neighborhood could conceivably end
up with more overcrowded units than were present before the ordinance enforcement took place.
Those units will merely be smaller and hold fewer people.
KEY MARKET 8: LOCAL COMPANIES
The local economy will be impacted by the ordinance as well. While a quantification of the
impact is beyond the scope of this study, it can easily be noted that companies that sell household
products will benefit from the spontaneous creation of over 1,100 new households. Companies that
provide services such as Internet connections, telephone service, and television services will benefit
as more households come into being to purchase their services.
On the other hand,many tenants from violator households will face increasing demands for their
limited funds. This will cut their discretionary spending, which will impact firms that provide
discretionary goods and services.
KEY MARKET 9: HOUSING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
The enforcement of this ordinance will be a boon to the local housing construction industry.
The creation of nearly 1,200 new households in a short period of time will have profound
implications on vacancy rates, as noted earlier, with strong housing shortages in all price ranges
below $830 where no such shortage existed before. In order to bring the housing supply in those
price ranges back up to a healthy level, new construction of over 970 rental units would be needed.
This equates to nearly two years of multi-family unit construction above and beyond the normal
construction growth. If the multi-family construction industry ramps up 50 percent above current
capacity, it would then take four years to bring vacancy rates in the low-end and mid-range price
levels back to healthy levels.
Of course, this new construction would generate significant additional economic benefits to the
community in terms of jobs,spending,and taxes.
As seen above, a strong enforcement of the ordinance would have a significant and immediate
impact on the housing market. The next key question was whether this change would permanently
alter the housing market in the city. The study examined case studies of other communities that have
experienced similar types of household change, and described changes in those markets' rental
vacancy rates,rental costs,and home values.
Fort Collins'population growth was calculated using census data for 1990 and 2000 and county
population projections. Two special issues were also addressed:
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 13
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
■ The growth in households due to the implementation of the ordinance (without a
corresponding increase in population);and
• An estimated growth of the Colorado State University population by 4,000 students
between 2005 and 2015.
The goal of this analysis is to find cities that experienced a growth profile from 1990 to 2000 that
was similar to the projected future growth profile for Fort Collins, and then examine changes in
vacancy rates,housing costs,and housing stock in those cities during that time period.
CASE STUDIES—COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR PAST GROWTH
The growth pattern predicted for Fort Collins is not unique. Sixteen cities of similar size
experienced similar growth patterns between 1990 and 2000, and can be studied to learn best
practices. (One of these sixteen cities was Fort Collins itself.)
A total of 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
Interestingly,one of these similar cities was Fort Collins itself.
Exhibit ES-3
Cities with Similar Past Growth Patterns
Rath of
Annual Household Annual Hasall0ld YounwTow
Growth Growth,Apse 16-24 Household Growth
Fort Collins,2005-2015 2.43% 3.32% 1.38
Communmies with Slmllar Growth,1990-2000
Greensboro,North Carolina 2.12% 3.34% 1.58
Prow,(Utah 2.13% 3.06% 1.44
Sioux Falls,South Dakota 2.22% 2.93% 1.32
Salem,Oregon 2.09% 3.39% 1.63
Winston-Salem,North Carolina 2.49% 2.94% 1.18
Eugene,Oregon 2.26% 368% 163
Durham,North Carolina 2,95% 3.33% 1.13
Fort Wayne,Indiana 1.86% 3 20% 1.72
Fort Collins,Colorado 3.07% 3.34% 1.08
Joliet,Illinois 3,06% 3.10% 1.01
Lincoln,Nebraska 1.83% 2.73% 1.49
Raleigh,North Carolina 2.77% 2 69% 0.97
Lexington-Fayette,Kentucky 1.93% 3 73% 1.93
Mesquite,Texas 2.03% 2 52% 1.24
Columbia,South Carolina 2.19% 4.14% 1.89
Lakewood,Colorado 1.59% 2.74% 1.73
Housing attributes of these cities were compared to those of 141 other cities to examine
differences and similarities in their housing markets.
CHANGES IN VACANCY RATES
In cities that have experienced similar growth patterns in the past, new housing
construction has risen to meet demand. In fact,cities with this growth pattern are almost as
likely to see increases in vacancy rates over the long term as decreases.
ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 14
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.
• When changes in rental vacancy rates were compared over the 10-year time period from 1990 to
2000, a majority of cities in both groups saw declines in vacancies. However, the median change in
the cities with similar growth patterns was-0.5 percent(a 0.5 percentage point decrease in vacancies),
while the decrease in other cities was -2.9 percent. More than 75 percent of dissimilar cities saw
declines,and the median decline was higher in those cities.
CHANGES IN RENTAL PRICES
Rental prices in cities with similar past growth patterns have risen at a rate about one-
third faster than in cities with different growth patterns.
While cities with differing growth patterns saw rental increases of 33 percent over their ten-year
period of growth, cities with growth patterns similar to those predicted for Fort Collins saw higher
increases on average. Half of the cities with similar growth patterns saw rental increases of 42
percent or more,and half of the cities saw increases within a narrow band of 37 to 49 percent.
CHANGES IN HOUSING STOCK
Over a ten-year period of experiencing the growth pattern predicted for the city, one
would expect to see an increase in the housing inventory of 20 to 28 percent.
Cities that have experienced growth patterns similar to the pattern forecast for Fort Collins have
seen significant housing growth. On average, these cities saw increases in their entire housing
inventory of 25 percent or more, on average, over the course of the ten-year growth period. This is
more than three times higher than the typical growth(8 percent)of other cities.
• ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 15
CORONA RESEARCH, INC.