HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/11/2010 - THE CITY'S 2010-2014 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC DATE: May 11, 2010
STAFF: Joe Frank, Ken Waido WORK SESSION ITEM
Megan Bolin FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The City's 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan)establishes new goals,policies,
objectives, and implementation strategies for the City's affordable housing programs for the next
five years. The Plan identifies the most critical affordable housing needs and establishes funding
priorities to help guide decisions regarding the allocation of City financial resources through the
competitive process.
The Strategic Plan identifies four primary affordable housing goals which are, in order of
importance:
1. Increase the inventory of affordable rental units.
2. Preserve existing affordable housing units.
3. Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs.
4. Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers.
At its February 23, 2010 Work Session, Council reviewed and indicated general support for the
above goals. Based on that support, the Strategic Plan has been developed to establish policies,
objectives, and implementation actions designed to address the community's most pressing
affordable housing needs and supply problems. The priority listing of goals is important because
the City will use the priorities in judging funding requests submitted during the cycles of the
competitive process for the limited amount of available financial resources.
The Strategic Plan is currently available for public review and comment. Council is scheduled to
consider official adoption of the Plan at its June 15,2010 Regular Meeting. The Affordable Housing
Board and the CDBG Commission will be holding public hearings in June to solicit citizen
comments before making their recommendations to Council regarding the Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff would like to know if Council has any questions or comments regarding the proposed
strategies and policies in the 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan), and
is particularly interested in Council's comfort level with the following key strategies and policies:
j
May 11, 2010 Page 2
1. Policy: Allocate City financial resources to programs/projects that best address the
community's affordable housing needs according to the following priorities: (1)
increase the inventory of affordable rental housing; (2) preserve existing
affordable housing units; (3) increase housing and facilities for people with
special needs; and (4)provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers.
2. Strategy: Review the City's current development incentives and add incentives to better
motivate developers to increase production of affordable housing.
3. Strategy: Investigate opportunities to establish a permanent funding source to generate
revenue for the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Options could include a
dedicated sales tax, property tax.mill levy, and/or development fees.
4. Strategy: Investigate requiring mixed-use or residential development or redevelopment
projects requesting Tax Increment Financing (TIF) from the Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to provide a
minimum of 10% of the units as affordable units.
5. Strategy: Consider increasing the required period of affordability for City-funded projects
from 20 to 40 years.
BACKGROUND
In 1999,the City of Fort Collins approved its first Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies
report that investigated and evaluated the City's affordable housing inventory; determined existing
and future housing needs for low income families; and identified populations with the most urgent
need for affordable housing. The first report was updated in 2004. The 2010-2014 Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan(Strategic Plan)is an update to the 2004 report and is based on new data and
information. The new data and information provide a clearer picture for new priorities and goals
for affordable housing development in Fort Collins. The Strategic Plan was developed by staff with
the assistance of a subcommittee composed of members from the Affordable Housing Board (Ben
Blonder and Mike Sollenberger) and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Commission (Kay Rios and Jeff Taylor).
The foundation for the Strategic Plan is the affordable housing needs and supply data contained in
the Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment(September 2009)prepared for Larimer County and
the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland by the Community Strategies Institute(CSI)consulting firm.
The CSI study was financed through a grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the
Division of Housing with matching funding provided by Fort Collins and Loveland. The CSI data
and information was used to formulate a more current context of the local housing market and
demographics of Fort Collins. The CSI study is included as an appendix in the Strategic Plan.
Also critical for the development of the Strategic Plan was the extensive involvement of key
stakeholders,including public and non-profit affordable housing agencies and public/human service
agencies and organizations. The impetus for their involvement is the fact that many of them
administer programs that are funded by the federal Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
and/or Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs whose funds are allocated by the City
through the competitive process. In order to receive funding from the CDBG and/or HOME
Programs,each program/project must be listed and discussed in the 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic
Plan(Consolidated Plan). Over 65 agencies and organizations were consulted for the development
May 11, 2010 Page 3
of both the Strategic Plan and Consolidated Plan. The general public has also had the opportunity
to review and comment on the plans.
2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan(Strategic Plan)
The Strategic Plan prioritizes the affordable housing needs of the city and establishes goals for the
next five years. The four goals, in order of importance, are:
1. Increase the inventory of affordable rental units through the production of new rental units,
or the acquisition and rehabilitation of former market-rate units converting them to
affordable housing.
2. Preserve existing affordable housing units by monitoring the status of existing affordable
units to maintain the inventory.
3. Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs.
4. Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers.
The Strategic Plan includes a justification for each goal,lists an objective to be accomplished during
the next five years, and presents a listing of strategies that can be used to help achieve each goal.
The Strategic Plan discusses the role of the City of Fort Collins in the provision of affordable
housing in the community, but also recognizes that the City, while an important player, must have
help from other partners in the community. These other partners include private for-profit
developers, private non-profit developers, private non-profit service providers, the Fort Collins
Housing Authority, and financial institutions.
Some key strategies and policies included in the Strategic Plan need to be highlighted. These
strategies and policies are as follows:
1. Policy: Allocate City financial resources to programs/projects that best address the
community's affordable housing needs according to the following priorities:
(1)increase the inventory of affordable rental housing; (2)preserve existing
affordable housing units; (3)increase housing and facilities for people with
special needs;and(4)provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers.
The Strategic Plan is not meant to predetermine dollar allocations or commit the City to certain
projects;rather,it provides a flexible framework of prioritized needs so that issues may be addressed
as they arise. The Strategic Plan indicates the City may have approximately $7.7 million of
financial assistance to allocate to affordable housing programs/projects through the competitive
process over the next five years. It is critical that the available resources be used to deal with the
most pressing affordable housing needs,with the top priority being rental units for families earning
less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Because the City uses a competitive process to
allocate available funding,the types of projects requesting funding are not exactly known from one
funding cycle to the next. Establishing the above priorities will assist decision-makers in the
allocation of funds. The priorities may mean that if there are enough good applicants seeking
funding for rental projects for families below 50%of AMI,they may consume the available funding,
Thus, there may not be any funds remaining to subsidize applicants whose projects are aimed at
lower priority needs (e.g., homeownership programs).
May 11, 2010 Page 4
In evaluating proposals submitted through the competitive process, the CDBG Commission
considers the following aspects of each proposal:
1. Is the project a Strategic Plan/Consolidated Plan priority?
2. The number of units serving specific levels of the Area Median Income
(AMI).
3. The number/percentage of affordable units compared to the total number
of units in the project.
4. The number of years of guaranteed affordability.
5. Does the project serve a special population (e.g., homeless, seniors,
disabled, etc.)?
6. What is the location of the project with respect to:transit,an employment
district, a community commercial district, the Downtown, and/or a
targeted redevelopment area?
7. What is the distance to the nearest affordable housing project(scattered
distribution policy)?
8. Is the project's budget justified (i.e., documentation of expected costs)?
9. Has the applicant demonstrated attempts to secure other funding?
10. Is the request for a grant, an amortized loan, a due on sale loan, etc.?
11. What is the leveraging ratio of City funds to the total project cost?
12. Is the application for a"conceptual"project,or is the funding request for
"final" gap financing?
13. What is the capacity and track record of the applicant to successfully
complete the project?
Funding proposals that do the best job of addressing the priority affordable housing goals and
answering the above "criteria" are the ones that will receive funding recommendations from the
CDBG Commission.
2. Strategy: Review the City's current development incentives and add incentives to
better motivate developers to increase production of affordable housing.
The City has established several development incentives designed to encourage developers to
include affordable housing units in their projects. The current incentives include such items as a
density bonus in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zoning District, a reduction
(based on the percentage of affordable units) of development review fees, priority processing of
development applications, and a development impact fee delay program. Staff and the Affordable
Housing Board have heard comments that the City's development incentives,by themselves,are not
sufficient to make developers want to include affordable housing in their projects. The City's
development incentives need to be reviewed and new incentives devised to strongly encourage
developers to consider including affordable units in their projects.
3. Strategy: Investigate establishment of a permanent funding source to generate
revenue for the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Options could include a
dedicated sales tax, property tax mill levy, and/or development fees.
The City's Affordable Housing Fund, which comes from an allocation of General Fund dollars,
helps supplement the federal CDBG and HOME Programs in providing financial assistance and
May 11, 2010 Page 5
subsidies for the production, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing in the city. The
community's need for affordable housing is outstripping the capacity of the federal and City funds
to address the problems. One of the benefits of having a local, non-federal source of money is the
flexibility options available for the use of the funds. Affordable Housing Fund dollars are not
constrained by the federal rules and regulations that apply to CDBG and HOME funding. The
amount of funding from the Affordable Housing Fund has been inconsistent over the past decade
from a high of about$900,000 to a low of below$200,000. A permanent funding source could lead
to a more stable amount of available annual funds for the Affordable Housing Fund.
4. Strategy: Investigate requiring mixed-use or residential development or
redevelopment projects requesting Tax Increment Financing(TIF)from the
Urban Renewal Authority (URA) or Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) to provide a minimum of 10% of the units as affordable units.
Developers seeking financial assistance from the City should be required to help address the City's
most pressing affordable housing needs. This strategy proposes requiring applicants for TIF funding
from the DDA or URA for residential or mixed-use (residential and non-residential uses) projects
to provide at least 10% of the units as affordable units.
5. Strategy: Consider increasing the required period of affordability for City-funded
projects from 20 to 40 years.
l
Current City Code requires affordable housing projects receiving City financial assistance to
maintain the affordability of their units for a minimum of 20 years. With such a high demand for
additional rental units serving families below 50% of AMI, the community can not afford to lose
any of its existing affordable housing inventory. Increasing the minimum affordability requirement
beyond 20 years would be one solution to minimize the potential loss of affordable units. In some
cases, many existing affordable housing projects already have affordability requirements beyond
the City's required 20-year minimum. For example,projects that have received financial assistance
through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program have a minimum 30-year affordability
requirement.
If adopted as part of the Strategic Plan, strategies#2 through#5 above will be incorporated into the
Advance Planning Department's work program during the next five years. The timing of staff work
on the strategies will depend upon staffing,prioritization of projects, and resources available to the
department.
NEXT STEPS
Staff, the subcommittee members, the Affordable Housing Board, and CDBG Commission expect
to complete the Strategic Plan and Consolidated Plan according to the following schedule:
May 11, 2010 Page 6
DATE PROCESS STEP
Mid-April Public review and comment period on the 2010-2014 Affordable
To Housing Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) and the HUD required
mid-Ma 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan Consolidated Plan).
May 11 Council work session on the 2010-2014 Affordable Housing
Strategic Plans goals, policies, objectives, and implementation
actions and the 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan (Consolidated
Plan).
June 3 Public hearings by the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG
Commission on the 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
and the 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan (Consolidated Plan)
and the formulation of recommendations to the City Council.
June 15 Council considers adoption of the 2010-2014 Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan and the 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan
Consolidated Plan).
ATTACHMENTS
1. The 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
2. Powerpoint presentation
f
ATTACHMENT 1
2010 = 2014
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
April 20, 2010
Table of Contents
1 . Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 . Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 . 1 . Federal Grants and City General Fund Budget Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 . 2 . Allocation of City Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 . 3 . Private Activity Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 . 4 . Development Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 . 1 . Goal : Increase the inventory of affordable housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. 1 . 1 . Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. 1 . 2 . Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. 1 . 3 . Five -Year Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 . 2 . Goal : Preserve existing affordable housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. 2 . 1 . Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. 2 . 2 . Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. 2 . 3 . Five-Year Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 . 3 . Goal : Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 3 . 1 . Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 3 . 2 . Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. 3 . 3 . Five -Year Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 . 4 . Goal : Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. 4. 1 . Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. 4. 2 . Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. 4. 3 . Five -Year Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5 . Partners in Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 . 1 . Private For- Profit Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 . 2 . Private Non - Profit Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 . 3 . Private Non - Profit Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 . 4 . Fort Collins Housing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 . 5 . Financial Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6 . Recommended Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7 . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A — Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B — 2009 Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines
Appendix C — Citizen Comments on the 2010 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Appendix D — Definitions
2
1 . Executive Summary
The purpose of this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is to establish goals and strategies for the
City of Fort Collins' affordable housing programs for the five-year period of 2010-2014 . Based
on the most significant affordable housing needs, four goals have been identified and
prioritized as follows :
1 ) Increase the inventory of affordable rental units
2 ) Preserve existing affordable housing units
3 ) Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
4) Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers
1) Increase the inventory of affordable rental units
The Fort Collins community' s highest priority should be to increase the inventory of rental units
affordable to households earning 50% and below of the Area Median Income (AMI ) . Within this
rental housing category, the first priority is for units for households earning less than 30% of
AMI , with a second priority to households earning between 31% and 50% of AMI . According to
the Lorimer County Housing Needs Assessment completed by Community Strategies, Inc . ( CSI ,
2009 ), a deficit of 5, 009 affordable rentals units was found for the 0- 30% AMI level , and an
additional deficit of 1, 187 affordable rental units was identified for the 31-50% AMI level .
2) Preserve affordable housing units
City policy mandates that affordable housing units built with public assistance remain
affordable for a minimum period of 20 years . As the housing stock continues to age, the City
should be vigilant about those projects approaching that 20-year mark . The current number of
affordable housing units must remain in the affordable inventory rather than converting to
market rate units . Periodic rehabilitation of these units will be necessary so they can compete
with other newer units . CSI reports that of Fort Collins' total housing units, 6, 262, or 11 . 8%,
were built before 1960 . With the number of new building permits showing a sharp decline, and
considering the cost of building new affordable units, attention should be given to the
rehabilitation of existing units and preserving their affordability for the long-term .
3) Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
This broad category of "special needs" includes homeless people, victims of domestic violence,
people with substance abuse issues, persons with physical and mental disabilities, and seniors .
These groups often require housing units tailored to their specific needs that are not typically
provided by market- driven development . Many times a network of support services is needed
to keep these populations stable and independent . A point- in -time study conducted in 2007 by
Metro Denver Homeless Initiative and United Way found 556 homeless people in Larimer
County ( as reported by CSI ) . The County is expected to gain over 35, 000 residents between age
62- 75 by the year 2025, and over 16, 000 age 75 +. Many people in these age groups will begin
to have limitations in mobility and self-care as they age . In Fort Collins, there are 6, 675
individuals with a sensory disability, 7, 128 with a physical disability, and 6, 424 with a mental
disability.
3
4) Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers
Fort Collins should continue to help first-time homebuyers earning 80% and below of AMI
achieve affordable homeownership . Good homebuyer counseling, fixed - rate mortgage
products and down payment assistance can assure that households can become homeowners
for the long term . Renters who enter homeownership open up rental units and thereby
increase the supply of such units . There are 4, 550 renter households in Fort Collins with
incomes between 51-80% of AMI that could benefit from such assistance .
This document takes these four goals and layers them on recent data and findings reported in
the Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment (September 2009 ) . Strategies and objectives are
identified as they relate to the above goals, concluding with recommendations for policies
necessary to achieve the goals .
4
2 . Introduction
The City of Fort Collins has made a commitment to affordable housing through its ongoing
effort to encourage construction of new affordable rental units, preserve existing affordable
units, and educate the public about the need for affordable housing . With this philosophy as
the foundation, the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan was created to establish goals and
strategies to direct valuable resources over the coming years . The purpose of this document is
to guide future decisions regarding funding and policy for the development of affordable
housing . It is not meant to predetermine dollar allocations or commit the City to certain
projects; rather, it provides a flexible framework of prioritized needs so that issues may be
addressed as they arise .
Affordable housing is a critical asset that contributes to the social , economic, and
environmental sustainability of a community. The amount of household income required to pay
for housing costs dictates the remaining budget. Paying too much for housing necessitates
difficult trade-offs between other critical expenses like transportation, food, or medial care . The
overall wellbeing of an individual can be significantly improved with stable housing conditions,
which leads to more stable families and stable neighborhoods . When a community lacks in
affordable housing units, those who work lower-wage jobs are forced to live farther away from
their place of employment, known as the "drive until you qualify" phenomenon . That situation
leads to increased traffic congestion and associated air pollution for a community, not to
mention the economic impact if potential employers who are unable to find workers in a
community decide to locate elsewhere .
The City of Fort Collins' role in the provision of affordable housing can be summarized in four
essential components : policy, regulation , education, and funding.
Through its policies, the City creates an atmosphere that encourages a balance of housing types
and costs, so all of its citizens can have the opportunity to live in safe and affordable housing.
Its policies should encourage both the construction of new and preservation of existing
affordable housing .
In regulation, the City' s role is to expedite the process for developing affordable housing. It
should review all new and existing regulations that could discourage production of affordable
housing, whether they are land use, building code, engineering, tax code, or other regulations .
Whenever possible, those regulations should be revised so that they do not discourage
affordable housing . Revisions might be generally applicable to all residential development or
specifically targeted to affordable housing projects only .
In education, the City' s role is to expand awareness and understanding to the general public, as
well as to developers and those who access services, of the benefits of affordable housing to
the community. To do that, it needs to thoroughly understand the community' s need for
5
affordable housing and must put a face to the people that need affordable housing. The City
should also market the development incentives and financial assistance programs it operates to
encourage affordable housing.
Through the City' s funding and other incentive programs, its role is to be an early piece of the
funding puzzle, to help affordable housing providers leverage the balance of financing needed
to complete their projects from private, foundation, state, federal , or other sources .
In 1999, the City of Fort Collins approved its first Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies report . Updated in 2004, the report investigated and evaluated the City' s affordable
housing inventory, determined existing and future housing needs for low income households,
and identified populations with the most urgent need for affordable housing . Based on new
data and information , this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan updates the 2004 report and
provides a more current framework for new priorities and goals for affordable housing
development in Fort Collins .
This Plan ' s foundation is based on the Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment ( September
2009 ) prepared by Community Strategies Institute ( CSI ) . See Appendix A to view the report in
its entirety . The CSI data and information provides a more current context of the local housing
market and demographics of Fort Collins . Using that information, this Strategic Plan establishes
goals, objectives, strategies, policies, and funding priorities to address the community' s
affordable housing supply deficiency.
6
I Financial Resources
3 . 1 . Federal Grants and City General Fund Budget Allocations
The City of Fort Collins has three sources of funds available to provide financial assistance to
affordable housing programs and projects : the federal Community Development Block Grant
( CDBG ) Program Entitlement Grant, the federal Home Investment Partnership ( HOME ) Program
Participating Jurisdiction Grant, and the City' s own General Fund budget Affordable Housing
Fund (AHF) . Assuming that the FY 2009 CDBG and HOME grant amounts and the 2010 City
budget allocation to the AHF remain the same for the next five years, and assuming the current
policy for allocation of these funding sources for affordable housing remain the same (that is,
65 % of CDBG funds, 90% of HOME funds, and 100% of the AHF) , then a total of approximately
$ 1, 540, 000 should be available annually for affordable housing programs and projects, or a
total of $ 7, 700, 000 for the 2010-2014 period covered by this Strategic Plan . The following table
summarizes the available funding .
Table 1 : Estimated Available Funding for Affordable Housing
Funding Source Annual Allocation 2010-2014 Total
Federal CDBG Program $ 650, 000 $3, 250, 000
CDBG Program Income $ 39, 000 $ 195, 000
Federal HOME Program $ 617, 110 $3, 085, 550
HOME Program Income $45, 000 $ 225, 000
City Affordable Housing Fund $ 188, 890 $944, 450
Annual Total $ 1, 540,000 $7, 700, 000
Source : U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the City of Fort Collins
These funds should only be used in projects able to leverage money from private, foundation ,
state and/or other federal sources in order to support the complex systems of housing,
public/human services, and community infrastructure .
3 . 2 . Allocation of City Financial Resources
The City currently allocates its financial resources through a competitive process with two
funding cycles each year, one in the spring and one in the fall . The competitive process
evaluates applications for funding based on the City' s priority affordable housing needs and on
priorities established in this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. Proposals which receive funding
are determined to be the best of those in competition for the available funds during any
particular cycle . Too often, the amount of requested funding exceeds the level of funding
available during a cycle . Thus, not every application can receive funding, and some applications
won' t receive the full amount requested .
7
The spring cycle typically allocates affordable housing funding available from the federal CDBG
Entitlement Grant . Human/public service programs also receive allocations in the spring cycle
from the CDBG Grant and the City' s Human Services Program . The fall cycle of the competitive
process typically allocates affordable housing funding from the federal HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant and the City' s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF ) . The AHF gives the City
tremendous flexibility because it does not come with federal guidelines, regulations, and
reporting requirements . It also shows a local commitment to financially support affordable
housing programs .
3 . 3 . Private Activity Bonds
Private Activity Bond ( PAB ) financing is another potential funding source for the development
of affordable housing . The City' s current PAB allocation is a little over $ 6 . 1 million . Larimer
County and the State of Colorado have additional PAB allocations available from which Fort
Collins projects could also apply. Although every project is different, the City could provide PAB
assistance to help fund about 50% of a project' s cost . There are other potential uses for PAB
financing, especially for economic development purposes, but the City could give preference to
affordable rental housing projects when allocating its PABs . The expense of PABs makes them
very difficult to use to build housing for very low income renters ( less than 50% of AMI ) . They
do, however, work for projects affordable to households earning between 50% and 60% of AMI ,
an income range where there is currently not a high priority need for additional units .
However, affordable units at the 50% - 60% AMI level are often needed in the mix of income
level units to help assure an affordable project will cash flow and entice both non - profit and
for- profit developers to build such projects .
3 .4 . Development Incentives
In addition to financial assistance through the competitive process, the City offers a variety of
development incentives to those building qualified affordable housing projects . To be
considered "qualified" a project must offer at least 10% of the total units to households earning
80% or less of AMI . If it meets that definition, the project is eligible to receive the following :
■ Impact Fee Delay. Impact fees are typically paid at the time that building permits are
issued . This incentive allows the developer to delay the payment of those impact fees
until a certificate of occupancy is issued, or December 1 of that year, whichever happens
first.
■ Development Review Fee Waiver. All projects are required to pay fees related to the
review of the project . This incentive waives those fees based upon the percentage of
affordable units being offered in a project . For example, if a developer plans to make
40% of the dwelling units affordable, 40% of that project ' s development review fees are
completely waived .
■ Administrative Construction Fee Waiver. Certain construction fees are exempt for
affordable housing projects, including construction inspection fees, development
8
construction permit fees, right-of-way construction license fees, and street cut fees . The
formula for this fee waiver is the same as the Development Review Fee Waiver; fees are
waived based upon the percentage of affordable units being offered in a project.
■ Priority Processing. Affordable housing projects are eligible to receive an expedited
development review and permitting process .
■ Density Bonus. Affordable housing projects proposed in the Low Density Mixed- Use
Neighborhood ( LMN ) zone are eligible to increase the maximum allowed density from 8
to 12 dwelling units/acre .
These development incentives were intended to reduce regulatory barriers and financial costs
to developers of affordable housing . Established over ten years ago, these should be compared
to best practices of other communities, and reevaluated to assess their effectiveness . A recent
analysis of a residential development in Fort Collins indicates that the City's incentives by
themselves are not sufficient to entice developers to include affordable housing in their
development proposal .
9
4 . Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Based upon the demand for affordable housing, four primary goals have been identified and
prioritized to guide future funding and policy decisions :
1 . Increase the inventory of affordable rental units
2 . Preserve existing affordable housing units
3 . Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
4 . Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers
The City defines what is considered "affordable" based upon income . Each year, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) provides annual income limits for the
Fort Collins/Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area . Table 2 provides information on the
equivalency of Area Median Income (AMI ) levels to HUD classifications and the maximum
affordable monthly rent . Another common measure is the Department of Health and Human
Services poverty guidelines . Appendix B provides more detail about how the poverty guidelines
are established , and how they relate to HUD' s income classifications .
Table 2 : AMI Equivalency
Percent 2009 HUD Maximum
of AMI AMI1 Classification Affordable Monthly Rent
100% $75, 200 Moderate Income $ 1, 752
80% $60, 150 Low Income $ 1, 376
60% $45, 120 Low Income $ 1, 000
50% $37, 600 Very Low Income $ 812
30% 1 $ 22, 550 1 Extremely Low Income $436
Source : U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The upcoming sections provide justifications for each goal based upon the data provided by the
Lorimer County Housing Needs Assessment. Objectives are provided for each goal based upon
the anticipated amount of funding over the next five years . Finally, strategies are identified to
provide specific actions needed to accomplish each goal .
i Annual income for a household of four.
10
4. 1 . Goal : Increase the inventory of affordable housing units
The first priority should be to increase the inventory of affordable rental units, which can be
accomplished through two different methods . New affordable rentals could be constructed by
non- profit agencies or for- profit developers and added to the inventory. Additions to the
inventory of affordable rental units could also be accomplished through the acquisition of
former market rate or mixed rental rate units usually located in apartment complexes . Such
purchases will typically entail some level of rehabilitation . Acquisition and rehabilitation
projects, especially by non- profit agencies, provide the opportunity to restrict the rent levels for
longer periods of time than can be achieved with new construction projects by for- profit
developers .
4. 1 . 1 . Justification
The need for additional rental units for most income levels is identified in the Larimer County
Housing Needs Assessment completed by CSI ; however, the greatest deficit of 5, 009 affordable
rental units was found for the 0-30% AMI level ( CSI , 2009, p . 48) . Z A significant deficit of 1, 187
affordable units was also identified for the 31- 50% AMI income level . Creating new units that
households earning below 50% of AMI can afford is very difficult under current market
conditions for Fort Collins without substantial public subsidy.
4. 1 . 2. Objective
➢ Produce as many new rental units affordable to households earning 50% and less of AMI
as possible, given available funding.
As mentioned , units may be added to the inventory through the acquisition and rehabilitation
of formerly market- rate units . Table 3 shows the number of very low income units that could be
added to the inventory by this method given available funding. Note that the number of units is
calculated as if all of the funding was given for rehabilitation ; it does not take into consideration
funding for the other priority goals . Actual allocations will depend upon the applications
received during the cycles of the competitive process and their ability to leverage other
financial resources to support the project .
Table 3 : Acquisition and Rehabilitation Potential
Public Subsidy/Unit Anticipated 5-Year Total Funding Number of Units
$ 19, 000 $ 7,700, 000 405
Source : City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department
z The study did not articulate the types of units that are needed, e .g. studios, one- bedroom, etc.
11
New construction is the other way to add units to the inventory. The subsidy needed to build
very low income rental units could range from about $ 15, 000 to $30, 000 per unit . The lower
the income category, generally the greater the subsidy required to make it affordable under
current market conditions . Table 4 illustrates the number of units that could be built depending
on the level of public subsidy contributed . Like the previous table, the number of units is
calculated as if a// of the funding was put towards a particular subsidy group .
Table 4 : Production Potential for Various Subsidy Levels
Public Subsidy/Unit Anticipated 5-Year Total Funding Number of Units
$30, 000 $ 7,700, 000 257
$ 15, 000 $71700, 000 513
Source : City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department
Even at $ 15, 000 of subsidy per unit, there are insufficient financial resources likely to be
available to make a significant impact on closing the 6, 200 affordable housing rental unit deficit
for households with incomes below 50% of AMI discussed above . Either additional financial
resources need to be developed or secured, or the City needs to develop additional non -
financial incentives to increase the inventory of affordable rentals for very low income
households . City funding helps leverage other funds from private, foundation, and/or other
governmental sources . The availability of those additional funds may be difficult to secure in
the near future, which would impact the utilization of City financial resources .
4. 1 . 3 . Five -Year Strategies
Over the next five years, the City should :
■ Contribute a significant amount of its financial resources to increase the affordable
rental housing inventory for very low income renters, especially units for households at
50% of AMI and below .
■ Motivate developers to increase production of affordable housing, both for rent and for
sale .
■ Continue to require publically-assisted affordable housing carry a minimum 20-year
commitment to affordability. Priority should be given to units intended to be affordable
for periods in excess of 20 years .
■ Consider requiring a permanent affordability commitment, or at least increasing the
minimum from 20 years to 40 years, if the City is contributing financial resources to the
project .
■ Fund housing projects in the competitive process in the form of loans . These loans,
when repaid, will provide sources of revenue for affordable housing in the future .
■ Consider committing its financial assistance early in the project planning process . This
will help developers to leverage the balance of their project financing .
■ Give preference to projects that set aside some of their units for very low income
tenants under 50% of AMI in any competitive allocation of Private Activity Bonds .
12
■ Consider subsidizing projects containing higher ( greater than 50% of AMI ) affordable
units only if they also produce a significant number of lower ( less than 30% of AMI )
units .
■ Use some CDBG, HOME, or Affordable Housing Fund dollars to partially finance the
acquisition and conversion of existing, market- rate rental units to affordable housing .
■ Starting in 2010, regularly ( at least every three years ) review and update all existing City
incentive programs, which include the current Priority Processing, Development Review
Fee Waiver, Impact Fee Delay, Density Bonus, and other programs which are yet to be
established .
■ Require any mixed- use or residential redevelopment or development project requesting
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance from either the Downtown Development
Authority ( DDA) or the Urban Renewal Authority ( URA) to provide a minimum of 10% of
the units as affordable housing units that address the high priority needs contained in
this Strategic Plan .
■ Consider requiring commercial redevelopment or development projects that request TIF
assistance from either the DDA or URA to provide a financial contribution to the
Affordable Housing Fund (AHF ) .
■ Whenever a redevelopment project requesting TIF assistance from either the DDA or
URA plans to remove units which are affordable to households at the 50% AMI level or
below, such units should be replaced either as part of the redevelopment project or at
another location .
■ Annually review City Land Bank Program properties and determine if the timing is right
for those properties to be offered for sale to provide additional affordable housing units
in the city.
■ Consider selling some of the existing Land Bank Program properties in order to facilitate
the construction of new affordable housing units .
■ Continue to examine and reform regulatory concerns that could be barriers to the
production of affordable housing .
■ Allocate funding for additional Land Bank acquisitions .
■ Create a focus group of developers, including both non- profit and for- profit, to
determine effective incentives the City could implement to encourage low income
housing development .
13
4. 2 . Goal : Preserve existing affordable housing units
Second priority should be to preserve the existing supply of affordable housing units . City policy
mandates that units built with public assistance remain affordable for a period of 20 years . As
the housing stock continues to age, the City should be vigilant about those projects
approaching that 20-year mark . The current number of affordable housing units must remain in
the affordable inventory rather than converting to market rate units .
4. 2 . 1 . Justification
Attention should be given to housing projects that address the need for rehabilitation of
existing housing stock and overcoming deficiencies regarding safety and sanitary conditions of
existing units . CSI reports that 6, 262, or 11 . 8%, of Fort Collins' housing units were built before
1960; often times, these units are in need of health and safety repairs . With the number of
new building permits showing a sharp decline in recent years and considering the cost of
building new affordable units, attention should be given to the rehabilitation of existing units
and preserving their affordability for the long-term .
4. 2 . 2. Objective
➢ Monitor the status of existing affordable housing units and provide assistance as
necessary in order to maintain them as part of the existing inventory.
Table 5 reports the current number of affordable housing units located within the City that
have received some form of public assistance .
Table 5 : City of Fort Collins' Publically Assisted Affordable Housing Inventory
Affordable Unit Type Number located in Fort Collins
Rental 21186
Owner-Occupied 248
Assisted Living 68
Total 21502
Source : City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department.
4. 2 . 3 . Five-Year Strategies
■ Continue to require that City-assisted affordable housing carry a minimum 20-year
commitment to affordability. Priority should be given to units intended to be affordable
for periods in excess of 20 years .
■ Consider requiring a permanent affordability commitment, or at least increasing the
minimum from 20 years to 40 years, if the City is contributing financial resources to the
project .
14
■ Continue to use CDBG , HOME, or Affordable Housing Fund dollars to buy and
rehabilitate existing privately-owned affordable housing units so they do not convert to
market rate units . Such proposals should be given as high a priority as projects that
would produce new units .
■ Investigate a rental - rehabilitation program for private owners of rental properties that
would require an affordability commitment .
■ Investigate a Limited Partnership/Shared Equity ownership structure to maintain the
affordability of for-sale units .
■ Actively encourage the for- profit owners of affordable complexes to sell them to not-
for- profit housing organizations .
■ Continue to make financial resources available for rehabilitation purposes of both
owner-occupied and rental units .
■ Explore the requirement of a "first- right-of- refusal" option for non - profit housing
organizations when a for- profit developer receives financial assistance from the City in
order to rehabilitate/maintain their affordable housing complex.
15
4. 3 . Goal : Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
The third priority should be to increase housing and facilities for people with special needs . This
broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, and victims
of domestic violence . These groups typically require housing units tailored to specific needs not
typically addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is
needed to keep these populations stable and independent.
4. 3 . 1 . Justification
The following illustrates some of the special needs, but does not indicate priority.
Homeless. The CSI report cited a point- in -time study conducted in 2007 which found 556
homeless people in Larimer County ( p . 44 ) . Research has shown that the sooner people can
enter a stabilized shelter situation , the sooner they can start dealing with other problems that
accompany homelessness, which also decreases costs to providing community services for this
population ( CSI , 2009, p . 59 ) . The report further recommends a county-wide plan to produce at
least 12 transitional units per year, and suggests Single Room Occupancy (SRO ) housing as a
more effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters .
Persons with Disabilities. This population includes persons with various physical and mental
challenges who more often suffer the negative effects of high housing costs . That problem can
be even more acute for households needing accessible features in their dwelling . In Fort Collins,
there are 6, 675 individuals with a sensory disability, 7, 128 with a physical disability, and 6, 424
with a mental disability ( CSI , 2009, p . 41 ) . Informant interviews indicated that organizations
which provide supportive services or housing for disabled customers do not have enough low-
rent options for the number of people who need them . Therefore, it is important to expand the
supply of housing that is both accessible and affordable .
Seniors. CSI identified that 1, 942 seniors earning less than 50% of AMI are paying more than
30% of their gross monthly income on housing, which is also known as being "cost burdened"
( p . 43 ) . An additional 1, 061 seniors in that same income category were identified who pay more
than 50% of their income on housing . For those who are retired and live on fixed incomes,
being cost burdened can significantly impact the ability to pay for health care, food, and other
necessary household costs . Furthermore, the study estimates that Larimer County can expect
to gain over 35,000 residents between age 62 - 75 between 2005 and 2025, and over 16, 000
residents age 75+; many people in these age groups will begin to have limitations in mobility
and self-care as they age . Because the largest number of seniors live in Fort Collins, there will
be an impact on the housing market and senior housing choices ( CSI , 2009 ) .
16
Victims of Domestic Violence. In addition to providing shelter and/or transitional housing for
victims of domestic violence, support services are typically required for this population ,
including crisis intervention and counseling . Interviews with providers of shelter and services
for this particular group indicate that there are not enough affordable housing options to meet
the demand of their clients .
4. 3 . 2. Objective
➢ Continue to encourage the development of projects that meet the housing and facility
needs of populations within the identified special needs categories.
4. 3 . 3 . Five -Year Strategies
Over the next five years, the City should :
■ Support community initiatives that identify homeless needs and develop action plans to
reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins and participate in partnerships that
explore solutions for homelessness .
■ Support projects that will produce affordable units to serve persons with disabilities,
and "cost- burdened" senior citizens .
■ Support projects that provide help, counseling, crisis intervention services, facilities,
and transitional housing to victims of domestic violence .
17
4.4 . Goal : Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers
The fourth priority should be to continue to provide financial assistance for first-time
homebuyers. Fort Collins must continue to support homebuyers earning less than 80% of AMI
achieve affordable ownership . Good homebuyer counseling, fixed- rate mortgage products, and
down payment assistance can assure that individuals and families can become homeowners for
the long term . Renters who enter homeownership, in effect, move up the housing chain and
open up rental units, thereby increasing the supply of such units .
4.4. 1 . Justification
CSI ' s needs study affirmed that households earning 51-80% of AMI are excellent candidates for
homebuyer assistance programs . There are 4, 550 renter households in Fort Collins with
incomes between 51-80% of AMI that could benefit from such assistance ( CSI , 2009, p . 36 ) .
4.4. 2. Objective
➢ Encourage and support assistance to first-time homebuyers.
The City' s Homebuyer Assistance Program currently provides between $ 6, 500 and $9, 000 in
down payment and closing cost assistance per household to become first-time homeowners .
To provide assistance to rental families to purchase the 490 available affordable units would
cost between $3, 185, 000 and $4, 410, 000, or between 40% and 60%, of the potentially available
funding over the next five years . The average loan amount in 2009 was $8, 093 .
Table 6 illustrates the number of first-time homebuyers that could be assisted depending on
the level of public subsidy contributed . Note that the number of units is calculated as if a// of
the expected available $ 7, 700, 000 of funding for the 2010-2014 period was put towards a
particular subsidy group for homeownership . The table' s data does not take into consideration
funding for the other three higher priority goals identified in this Strategic Plan . Actual
allocations for the first-time homebuyer program will depend upon the other higher priority
applications received during the cycles of the competitive process .
Table 6: First-time Homebuyer Assistance at Various Subsidy Levels
Public Subsidy/unit Anticipated 5-Year Total Funding Number of Households Assisted
$9,000 $ 7,700, 000 856
$8, 100 $ 7,700, 000 951
$6, 500 $7,700, 000 11184
Source : City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department
As a point of reference, since the inception of the City' s Homebuyer Assistance Program in
1995, an average of 70 families per year have received assistance .
18
4.4. 3 . Five -Year Strategies
Over the next five years, the City should :
■ Continue to provide loans to eligible households to cover down payment and closing
costs up to a maximum of 6% of the sales price ( 5% for down payment and 1% for
closing costs if there are no seller concessions ) offered under the City's existing
Homebuyer Assistance Program . Buyers must make an earnest money deposit of $ 1, 000
or 1% of purchase price (whichever is greater) with their own funds . This means the
overall average subsidy is about $ 7, 000 per household .
■ Assistance should be in the form of a loan which is paid back in full when the house is
either sold, transferred out of the buyer' s name, rented, or if buyer seeks another
second lien ( like a home equity loan ) on the property . Added to the payment (which is
also due at sale, rental or transfer) is 5% interest on the principal .
■ Investigate a Limited Partnership/Shared Equity ownership structure to maintain the
affordability of for-sale units . Explore the possibility of making this a component of the
City' s Homebuyer Assistance Program .
19
5 . Partners in Affordable Housing
While the City of Fort Collins is an important player in addressing the affordable housing needs
of its citizens, there are other partners that also contribute important roles . This section briefly
discusses the other partners and their roles, because the City cannot possibly solve all of the
community' s affordable housing needs by itself.
5 . 1 . Private For- Profit Developers
Generally speaking, for- profit developers build affordable rental housing for the purpose of
owning and operating it . They will maintain ownership of it for at least as long as their funding
sources require it to remain affordable . Some profit is made from the development and
construction of the buildings, but the asset, and the earnings that come from managing that
asset, are the ultimate goal . Once the funding sources remove affordability restrictions from a
project, its for- profit owner may or may not choose to sell it.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit ( LIHTC) program and the available bond financing have
been instrumental in getting for- profits to build affordable rental housing . This program has
also involved private investors in affordable housing production to a greater extent than ever
before . Most of the projects built by for- profits with this financing mechanism provide housing
at the top end of the "affordable" scale — to households earning 60% of AMI . Where
competition for tax credits dictates, they may attempt to reach lower income households .
Because of the expense and complexity of bond financing and tax credits, developers tend to
do rental projects of at least 100 units or more . There are currently no local developers
constructing this kind of project, but regional and national development companies are doing
them .
5 . 2 . Private Non - Profit Developers
There are two fundamental differences between for- profit and non - profit developers . The first,
most obvious difference is that non- profits have a charitable purpose . The other is that non -
profits do not distribute corporate profits to shareholders . However, that is not to say that they
do not earn profits on their projects . Indeed, not-for- profits must earn money from projects in
order to survive and grow. So long as their profits are reinvested in their charitable purpose,
their 501 (c ) ( 3) tax-exempt status is protected . In addition, most non - profits are able to raise
funding from outside sources to cover administrative and operating costs, in case cash flows
from projects do not .
Non - profit organizations are able to access some financing sources that for- profits cannot use .
Other funding sources may be available to both, but give preference to non- profits . Non - profits
tend to be more willing to mix and match different financing sources to make a project as
affordable as possible . Therefore, their projects generally serve lower income households than
20
for- profits . Unfortunately, non- profits generally do not have the capacity to develop as many
affordable housing projects as for- profits do . "Capacity" refers to the number of staff, the
experience of staff, and to the availability of start- up or predevelopment capital . As a result,
their projects also tend to be smaller in size . Because the competition for 9% tax credits favors
the not-for- profit, they do use that program . In Fort Collins, however, they generally do not use
bond financing .
5 . 3 . Private Non - Profit Service Providers
Providing affordable, stable housing for low and very- low income households often involves
more than just putting a roof over people' s heads . Additionally, some of the services needed
may include : credit and budget counseling, foreclosure intervention, life skills training,
parenting skills, job training, high school or college level education, English as a second
language, health care, child care, substance abuse counseling, family counseling, etc . All of
these services contribute to a stable and healthy home . This is especially true for households or
individuals who are trying to escape homelessness . HUD's Continuum of Care programs are
intended to fund such services . The City of Fort Collins allocates 15% of CDBG program funds
and the City' s own Human Services Program funds to service providers . In Fort Collins, there are
a few non- profits that try to coordinate these kinds of services, and others that directly provide
these specific services .
5 .4 . Fort Collins Housing Authority
The Fort Collins Housing Authority ( FCHA) is a quasi-governmental agency created by the City of
Fort Collins . The City Council appoints its Board of Commissioners, but has no involvement in its
day-to-day activities. Its basic mission is to own and operate public housing units and to
operate the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which subsidizes rents in privately
owned rental properties . These programs are generally the only affordable housing option that
households earning less than 30% of AMI have . HUD pays the FCHA an operating subsidy for its
public housing units, so it can charge only 30% of a household' s income, and HUD provides the
difference up to Fair Market Rent (which is determined by HUD ) . The FCHA inspects the units
and administers payments to the landlords . The FCHA has a development subsidiary known as
the Fort Collins Housing Corporation ( FCHC) which allows it to own its own inventory of
affordable housing units .
5 . 5 . Financial Institutions
Since the late 1970s, all federally insured financial institutions ( commercial banks, savings
banks, and savings and loan associations ) have been subject to the Community Reinvestment
Act ( CRA) . Under this law, such institutions have a continuing and affirmative obligation to help
meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate- income
21
neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operation . The federal agencies that regulate
these institutions are responsible for evaluating how well each one meets this obligation, and
are required to take that record into account when the institution applies for expansion or
restructuring, such as through a merger or acquisition . The evaluation takes into account the
institution' s financial capacity and size, legal impediments and local economic conditions and
demographics, including the competitive environment. The assessment does not rely on
absolute standards . Institutions are not required to adopt specific activities or offer specific
types or amounts of credit. Each institution has considerable flexibility in determining how it
can best help meet the credit needs of its entire community .
Many lenders got into the business of mortgage lending to lower income first time homebuyers
because of CRA requirements, but they now see targeted affordable and minority loans as good
business . Most major banks now offer targeted loan products through more flexible loan terms
or underwriting standards and subsidized interest rates or closing costs . Outreach, education
and credit counseling are usually major components of these efforts . Many also offer lower
down payment requirements or higher maximum debt-to-income ratios to low income
borrowers .
Construction and permanent loan financing for affordable rental developments is also covered
in CRA reviews . Most of the large, for- profit, national developers do not get their loan financing
from local banks. CARE Housing, Inc . and the Fort Collins Housing Authority both have good
relationships with area banks that allow them to access relatively low- interest loans . However,
these loans need to be as small a part of project financing as possible to keep rents as low as
possible . Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Inc ., has a special niche in the local financial
community. It provides loans, grants, and assistance in accessing other sources of funding to
affordable housing projects . Since it has a fairly small pool of funds to work with, it has
primarily served smaller projects and/or provided bridge financing to projects .
22
6 . Recommended Policies
These policies are designed to aid City decision- making regarding affordable housing
development in the community, and related directly to the affordable housing goals presented
in this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP) .
AHSP- 1
The City will allocate available financial assistance from its federal CDBG and HOME entitlement
grant programs and the City' s own Affordable Housing Fund through a competitive process to
the proposals that best address the priority needs identified in this Affordable Housing Strategic
Plan, according to the following priorities : ( 1 ) increase the inventory of rental housing for
households earning below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI ); ( 2 ) preserve existing
affordable housing; ( 3 ) provide housing and facilities for people with special needs; and (4)
provide assistance to first-time homebuyers .
AHSP- 1 . 1
Of the total available funding, 65 % of CDBG, 90% of HOME and 100% of the Affordable
Housing Fund will be available to affordable housing developments .
AHSP- 1 . 2
The City shall establish objective criteria to aid in the analysis and comparison of the
merits of the applications requesting City financial assistance through the competitive
process . The objective criteria may include, but not be limited to : number/percentage
of affordable units included in the project' s total housing mix; number/percentage of
households served at various income levels; length of affordability commitment;
whether or not a special population is served ; leveraging ratio of City funds to other
financial resources; etc . The criteria shall be periodically reviewed to determine if it
contributes effectively to the analysis of the submitted proposals .
AHSP-2
The City will maintain a package of non -financial incentives ( density bonuses, priority
processing, etc . ) designed to motivate developers to increase production of affordable housing,
both for rent and for sale . The City' s package of non -financial incentives shall be periodically
reviewed and adjusted so that it maintains its effectiveness .
AHSP-3
The City will require City-assisted affordable housing to carry a minimum 20-year commitment
to affordability. A higher priority for financial assistance shall be given to projects committing to
be affordable for periods in excess of 40 years .
23
AHSP-4
Funding of affordable housing projects through the competitive process shall be in the form of
loans so that, when the loans are repaid, they will provide sources of revenue for allocation to
affordable housing projects in the future .
AHSP-5
The City shall commit its financial assistance early in a project' s planning process in order to
help the developer leverage additional resources to cover the balance of their project' s
financing needs . However, this early commitment shall be reviewed every six months to assure
a project is making significant progress in securing additional funding, or the early commitment
can be withdrawn .
AHSP-6
In the allocation of Private Activity Bonds ( PABs) for affordable housing, preference will be
given to projects that set aside some of their units for very low income households under 50%
of AMI .
AHSP-7
The City will only consider subsidizing projects containing units with rents affordable to
households earning more than 50% of AMI if they also contain a significant number of lower
income ( less than 30% of AMI ) units .
AHSP-8
The City will require any mixed- use or residential redevelopment or development project
requesting Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance from either the Downtown Development
Authority ( DDA) or the Urban Renewal Authority ( URA) to provide a minimum of 10% of the
units as affordable housing units that address the high priority needs contained in this Strategic
Plan .
AHSP-9
Whenever a redevelopment project requesting TIF assistance from either the DDA or URA plans
to remove units which are affordable to households at the 50% AMI level or below, such units
shall be replaced either as part of the redevelopment project or at another location .
AHSP- 10
The City will annually review its City Land Bank Program properties and determine if the timing
is right for some of those properties to be offered for sale to provide additional affordable
housing units in the city to address the higher priority needs identified in this Strategic Plan .
The proceeds from land sales shall be returned to the Affordable Housing Fund and made
available for additional Land Bank property acquisitions .
AHSP- 11
The City will continue to examine and reform regulatory concerns that could be barriers to the
production of affordable housing .
24
AHSP- 12
The City will support community initiatives that identify homeless needs and develop action
plans to reduce the homeless population in Fort Collins . The City will also participate in
partnerships that explore solutions for homelessness .
AHSP- 13
The City will support projects that will produce affordable units to serve persons with
disabilities, and "cost- burdened" senior citizens .
AHSP- 14
The City will continue to provide a loan to eligible households to cover down payment and
closing costs up to the amount reasonably needed to make the units affordable based on the
household' s income level .
Note : In 2010, a maximum of 6% of the sales price ( 5 % for down payment and 1% for closing
costs if there are no Seller concessions ) is offered under the City' s existing Homebuyer
Assistance Program . Buyers must make an earnest money deposit of $ 1, 000 or 1 % of purchase
price (whichever is greater) with their own funds . This means the average subsidy is about
$7, 000 per household . The existing program percentages shall be periodically evaluated based
on changing market conditions, interest rates, or other governmental rules and regulations .
AHSP- 14. 1
The City' s subsidy should be in the form of a loan which is paid back in full when the
house is either sold, transferred out of the buyer' s name, rented, or if the buyer seeks
another second lien ( like a home equity loan ) on the property. Added to the payment
(which is also due at sale, rental or transfer) is 5% interest on the principal .
AHSP- 15
The City should strongly consider regular increases in the Affordable Housing Fund with every
City budget cycle in order to provide additional financial resources to address the affordable
housing goals identified in this Strategic Plan .
AHSP- 16
The City shall explore options for creating a more permanent source of revenue for the
Affordable Housing Fund, including the options of a possible dedicated sales tax, a mill levy
property tax increase, or special affordable housing fee .
AHSP- 17
The City should encourage affordable housing developers, when feasible, to use "Green
Building" techniques that will help make the units more energy-efficient and sustainable .
25
7 . Conclusion
This Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is the product of a year- long process that analyzed the
housing needs of the community and developed prioritized goals to address the greatest
identified needs . The purpose of this document is to guide future decision- making with regard
to policy and funding . A wide variety of strategies have been identified to achieve the priority
goals' objectives and ensure that affordable housing continues to be a priority of the Fort
Collins community.
A lack of affordable housing affects everyone . Police, health care workers, teachers, retail and
food industry workers all need it, and the community needs them and the high quality services
they provide . Affordable housing is greater than a social issue; it is also about economic
development and environmental protection . If people working in service area jobs cannot find
housing, those jobs are not filled . If they are forced to live in outlying areas and surrounding
towns because of housing costs, they have longer drive times to work, which creates more
traffic congestion, adds to air pollution, and diminishes the overall quality of the environment.
The Fort Collins City Council has made a commitment to affordable housing through the
adoption of many programs and the allocation of General Fund revenue into the Affordable
Housing Fund . The creation of this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is another example of that
commitment; however, to make this commitment truly effective, affordable housing must be
elevated so that it is discussed on a level equal to such topics as economic development and
environmental protection . While it is understood that affordable housing does not have the
same expansive scope as the other two, every discussion regarding a sustainable community
must include the social consideration of affordable housing, as well as economic development
and environmental protection .
26
APPENDIX A - LARIMER COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Larimer County Housing
Needs Assessment
1
27
The Community Strategies Institute was formed in 2003 to provide fiscal and economic
analysis, education and training to individuals and groups wishing to better understand and
improve the economic and social factors influencing affordable housing development,
housing conditions and community infrastructure as those elements influence the economic
mobility of low-income populations. The Institute Directors and Members have diverse
backgrounds in housing development, finance, management, policy and research. The
Institute can be your partner in designing research, programs, and investments for expanding
opportunities for individuals to become economically stable members of caring
communities.
For more information cont
Tom Hart
303 .902.902
tomhartgc sic olorado.org
Jennie Rodgers
303 . 668.2�i34
iennie e csicol-orado . org
Visit our website:
www.csicolorado. or
Table of Contents
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Household Trends and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
LOCAL ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LaborForce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Employmentand Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Number and Type of Housing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
HousingProduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
LandInventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
HousingSales Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Foreclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Rental Housing Cost and Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Affordable Rental Properties in Larimer County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Householdsby Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
ExistingHousing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Ownership Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Housing Needs from Job Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
HousingChoices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Housing Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
CommunitySupport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ACTIONSTEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Cost Estimate and Priority Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Guideto Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Housing Goal 1 : Action Steps for Housing Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Housing Goal 2 : Action Steps for Housing Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Housing Goal 3 : Action Steps for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Housing Goal 4 : Action Steps for Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FORECASTS
This section of the report will analyze population, households and key demographic characteristics
of Larimer County, Colorado. The information will provide a framework for understanding current
and future housing conditions and needs .
Larimer County is located in north central Colorado. It is the seventh largest county in Colorado
based on population. The county extends to the Continental Divideoincludes several mountain
communities and Rocky Mountain National Park, and encompasses 2,640 square miles including
farmland, ranch lands, forests and high mountain peaks. Over 50% of Larimer County is publicly
owned, most of which is land within Roosevelt NationlForest and Rocky Mountain National Park.
The largest City in Larimer County is Fort Collins, h^e to Colorado State University and many
other large employers. The City of Loveland is Larimer County's second largest City, followed in
size by Berthoud, Estes Park, Wellington, and Timnath.
Population **+ * I
The Colorado Department of Local Iffairs (DOLA) Demographics Section estimated the 2007
population in Larimer County, while Claritas Dat&provides es tes of population for 2009.
Growth rates have been highest in the smallcr c76munities sin 00, as much new development
occurred in the outlaying areas 1f the coun c veland grew 24. s decade, while Fort Collins
grew 17.7%. CSI has used Claritas as the baTo make 2009 populate estimates, a different source
than the Colorado D��a.>•tnient of Local Affairs Demography section.
Table 1: Population Estimates, Larimer County, 2009
Demography Office Claritas/CSI
2000 2001 2002 2003 ; 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
Larimer County 251 ,494 261 ,208 66 ,789 2691061 273,883 276,755 282 ,052 288,244 2911754
Bertho 47823 5110�,076 42099 45999 45988 5,085 51186 51039
Estes Par 5 ,413 51599 5,632 5 ,651 51808 51821 61021 6 , 165 51917
Fort Collins 118 , 652 1227986 125 , 793 127 , 155 129, 151 129,951 131 ,711 134, 186 139 ,694
Johnstown (MC 0 64 64 65 65 65 81 89 107
Loveland 50 , 608 541242 561159 571355 597198 601407 625114 641166 661808
Timnath 223 231 232 229 229 227 228 231 421
Wellington 23672 21906 3 ,243 3 ,365 31784 41478 51126 57445 35462
Windsor (MCP) 2841SE0965 1 ,056 1 , 183 13446 17968 25360 21373 25399
Unincor . Area 681819 g69,415 69,534 69,059 69,203 689850 69, 326 709420 782414
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demographics Section, Claritas Data, CSI
MCP - Multi-County Places, and population estimates are provided for only the Larimer County portion of the jurisdiction
Table 2: Percent Change in Population, Larimer County, 2000 — 2009
% Change
'00 - '09
Larimer County 16 .0%
Berthoud 4 .5%
Estes Park 9 .3%
Fort Collins 17 .7%
Loveland 24 .4%
Timnath 88 .8%
Wellington 29 .6%
Unincor . Area 13 .9%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demographics Section, Claritas Data, CS
Larimer County is expected to grow steadily during the next five years and beyond. CSI anticipates
growth in Larimer County will occur throughout the county, though Fort Collins and Loveland will
see a higher percentage gain in population than most other areas. While the Colorado Department
of Local Affairs Demography Section projects growth between 2007 and 2010 of 4,410 and between
2010 and 2015 of 7,932, these projections may need to be adjusted down as current U.S . economic
conditions affect the migration of population from r areas e country rimer County.
Table 3: Population Forecast, Larimer County, 200 - 2025
% Chg '09-
2009 2010 201 2020 2025 '25
Larimer County 3001113 3061182 338154 ,472 410 , 994 36. 9%
Berthoud 57400 5, 509 61432 71096 77809 44.6%
Estes Park 6141 5549 7, 109 7 ,84 863, 1 34. 5%
Fort Collins 1391694 519 159 , 116 1751532 7 38. 3%
Loveland 665808 68, 159 77 , 8654V85,899 9 29 41 . 5%
Timnath 241 245 339 373 411 70.9%
Wellington 5 , 669 5178r 5, 078 51602 65165 8. 7%
Remainder of County' 75, 883 777418 811251 892633 981639 30.0%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section and_CSI
Figure 1: Total Population Forecast, 2000 - 2025
2007000
1807000
1607000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins Loveland Timnath Wellington Remainder
of County'
■ 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2015 in 2020 ■ 2025
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section and CSI
Between 2000 and 2005, Larunty grew at the same pace as ate overall, and less than
.ALoneighboring Weld County. La r ounty grew more than other nearby Front Range counties like
Boulder, Jefferson, and Morgan, according to Colorael Department of Local Affairs Demography
Section population estimates . Weld and Douglas Co nties are expected to be the fastest growing
counties on a
nt Range from 2010 35 .
Table rcent Ch a in Population for Larimer nd Front Range Counties, 2000 - 2035
Average Annual Percent Change
County 00.05 05-1 10-15 1 k2O 20-25 25-30 30-35
Adams 2 . 7% 2.5% .3% /0 1 .8% 1 .5% 1 . 3%
Arapahoe 1 . 7°/9 1 .8% % 1 .6% 1 .5% 1 .2% 1 . 1 %
Boulder 0 .90/6116, 1 .0% 1 . 1 % 1 .2% 1 . 1 % 0.8% 0 .6%
Broomfield 4 .2% 3 . 7% 2 . 1 % 1 .8% 1 .7% 1 .4% 1 . 1 %
Denver 0 . 7% 1 . 5% 0 .8% 0 . 7% 0.6% 0.6% 0. 6%
Douglas 6_6% 4. 1 % 3 .4%_ 3. 1 °/ 2 .2% 1 .5% 1 .2%
El Paso 1 .8% 1 .8V 2 .3% 1 .6% 1 .5% 1 .4% 1 .6%
Jefferson 0.2% 0. 7% 0 .8% 1 .0% 1 . 1 % 0.8% 0 . 6%
Larimer 1 .8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1 .9% 1 .7% 1 .5%
Morgan 0 . 9% 0.4% 1 .7% 2 .4% 2.3% 2. 1 % 1 . 9%
Weld 4 . 4% 3.3% 3 .0% V7. 1 % 3. 1 % 2.9%
COLORADO 1 .9% 1 .9% 1 .8% 1 .7% 1 .5% 1 .3% 1 .2%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section
From 2000 to 2007, population change was due, in most part, to people moving into Larimer
County. Natural increases-- the difference between births and deaths-- have accounted for 35% of
population growth during this time.
Table 5: Components of Population Change, 2000-2007 Estimates
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total Population 253, 137 261 ,208 266,789 269,061 2739883 276, 755 282,052 2889244
Births 31228 33311 35289 37358 33500 31318 37511 33516
Deaths 11431 13523 11516 17531 13551 11530 17540 13532
Net Migration 51184 61283 3,808 445 21873 1 ,084 37326 41208
Population Change 69981 81071 51581 2,272 41 21872 5,297 61192
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section Wr
The trend of in-migration as the largest source of population growth is expected to continue in the
county, as natural increases as a total percentage of*pulation growth will decline until 2025 . Net
migration of new residents will most likely slow given the current economy and the housing market
nation-wide. Migration into Larimer County is forecast to grow during the next decade.
Table 6: Components of Population Change, 20 -2024 F cast 114
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-
Births 19,989 21 ,239 22156
Deaths 8 ,686 91980 11 ,548
Net Migration 203549 237167 ` 261065
Population Change 31 ,850 34424 371079
Source: Colorado Department of Lo Affairs Demography Section
Figure 2: Components of Population Change, 0 cast
40 ,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Births Deaths Net Migration Population Change
■ 2010-2014 ■ 2015-2019 ■ 2020-2024
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section
The largest number of seniors lives in Fort Collins, according to the U.S. Census Bureau American
Community Survey for 2007. Wellington, Timnath, and areas of the county with newer
developments have higher concentrations of youth.
Table 7 : Larimer County Population By Age, 2007
Larimer Estes Fort
County Berthoud Park Collins Loveland Timnath Wellington Remainder
Under 5 years 179398 353 263 71784 41686 14 536 31823
5 to 9 years 169207 347 273 71278 4 ,410 14 473 31453
10 to 14 years 181194 351 284 71471 41150 17 436 55580
15 to 17 years 117206 258 193 47206 21859 18 300 31448
18 to 20 years 171106 204 127 12 ,040 21442 5 132 1 , 874
21 to 24 years 229653 294 232 15 , 727 31089 14 282 21689
25 to 34 years 447064 714 693 247928 10 , 143 14 911 65393
35 to 44 years 397134 754 707 161781 9,2 36 992 10 ,798
45 to 49 years 227366 448 406 9,060 430 381 71427
50 to 54 years 21 ,313 415 537 81224 6 20 291 71407
55 to 59 years 17 ,696 325 571 61175 90 16 223 61703
60 to 64 years 11 ,511 235 495 3,881 ' 2,520 12 178 4,274
65 to 74 years 15 ,298 268 750 4 ,872 41181 13 187 51115
75 to 84 years 101101 158 469 (,735 21639 91 31024
85 years and
over 31998 62 165 23007 832 4 31 873
Total : 2889244 51186 61165 134 , 169 649 231 45 729882
Source: Colorado Demography Section, America ommumty Survey,
Estes Park has a much older populatio than other areas o ounty. As a percent of total
population, Loveland also has a higher p centage' eniors ort Collins, which is home to
over 25,000 college students.
Table 8: Distribution of Population by Age Group an 007
Larimer Estes Fort
County Berthoud Park Collins Loveland Timnath Wellington Remainder
20 and Under 28% 29% 18% 290X 29% 30% 34% 25%
21 - 24 23% 19% 15% 30° 21 % 12% 22% 12%
35 - 54 29% 31 % 27% ° 0 29% 37% 31 % 35%
55 - 7 15% 16% 29% 16% 17% 11 % 22%
75 + 5% 4%�10% 4% 5% 4% 2% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Colora ography Section , American Community Survey, CSI
k
The following tab shows the Larimer County population forecast through 2025 by age group. The
increase in younger residents®reresents both natural increases, or births, in Larimer County, and in-
migration of young peoplelies into the county. Persons age 30 — 49 and those ages 0 — 19
are the largest population gand will remain so through 2025.
Table 9: Larimer County Population Projections by Age, 2005 - 2025
Age Group 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
0 to 19 741315 781399 857344 931978 102 ,385
20 to 29 451434 481607 527316 531353 575000
30 to 49 821617 861749 927570 1037784 111 ,783
50 to 64 471278 591181 641836 657590 69)091
65 to 74 14 ,420 17 ,780 25,413 35 ,262 41 ,683
75 and over 12 ,693 15,460 1 187069 1 21 ,504 29,048
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, CSI
Figure 3 : Larimer County Population Projections by Age, 2005 - 2025
1207000
1007000 - '
80,000
607000 — — _
40,000
20,000 -
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
— - - 0 to 19 — - - 20 to 29 - - - • 30 to 49 — — 50 to 64 65 to 74 — — 75 and over
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demo phy Section, CSI
Larimer County's elderly popula1on has been growing and is expected to continue to grow between
2010 and 2025. The county i�projected to g ver 35,^ residents4ge 62 — 75 between 2005 and
2025, and over 16,000 residents age 75 + . Wlu e t?fal gain in senior population is not as great as
in some other age groups during this time perio , it will greatly affect the housing market and senior
housing choices. Larimer County has become a d Vnation for seniors, due to the lower cost of
living compared to other areas of the country, end tenities available to seniors.
Table 10: Larimer County Elderly Population Pr 'ections, 2000 - 2025
2005 2010 2015
62 to 74 and over 62 to 74 75 and over 62 to 74 75 and over
LarimeNCoun 20, 513 12,693 6 ,721 15,460 37 , 013 18,069
Bertho524 274 578 303 801 354
Estes 611 320 687 360 952 420
Fort Ck677 59561 77323 69099 10 , 143 79128
Loveland 1 ' 3 ,268 67004 3 ,687 87317 4,310
Timnath 24 12 26 13 36 16
Wellington 4717P' 246 607 318 841 371
Remainder of County 69886 39012 119495 49680 15 ,923 59470
2020 2025
62 to 74 75 and over 62 to 74 75 and over
Larimer County 483766 213504 551124 293048
Berthoud 17055 421 11193 569
Estes Park 17255 500 11418 676
Fort Collins 13, 364 8 ,483 15 , 107 11 ,459
Loveland 102958 5 , 129 121386 6 ,928
Timnath 47 19 53 25
Wellington 11108 442 11253 597
Figure 4: Larimer County Senior Population Growth, 2005 - 2025
60,000
50 ,000
40 ,000
30 ,000
/
I
20 ,000
10 ,000
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
62 - 74 . — 75 +
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs DemNgrqu
ection , CSI
Claritas data provides an est 4L(of tharters pop anon arimer County. In 2009, an
average of 7,224 persons lives in some roup quarters. Group uarters include nursing
homes, group homes, prison, jail, or college dormi.Wost of Larjkor County's group home
population is students living in on-campus housin t Colorado State University in Fort Collins .
Table 11: Group Quarters Population, Larimer County, 2009
Larimer County 7,224
Berthoud 6
Estes P 44
Fort Collins 6 , 138
Loveland 403
Timnath 0
Wellington 6
Remainder of County 627
Source: Claritas Data
Household Trends d Characteristics
In 2007, CSI estimates a total of 111 .617 households in Larimer County. Tenure -- whether a
household rents or owns their home -- is an important factor to identify when creating an analysis of
future housing demand and needs. While many households prefer to own their home, others may
never be able to afford to purchase a home or may prefer to continue renting.
In Larimer County, the majority of households are owners. The homeownership rate varies greatly
by community, from 57.6% in the City of Fort Collins to 85. 9% in the unincorporated areas of the
county. Renters comprise 28 percent of households -- this is a decrease of 4% since 2000. Not
surprisingly, the percentage of renters is higher in the City of Fort Collins than in the
unincorporated areas or in any other incorporated jurisdiction, due to a high student renter
population from CSU. Estes Park also has a low homeowership rate, while Berthoud and
Wellington have the highest homeownership rates of all incorporated areas.
Table 12: Households by Tenure, Larimer County, 2007
Total Owner Renter Homeownership
Households Households Households Rate
Larimer County 1117617 761497 351120 68 .5%
Berthoud 13950 13566 384 80 .3%
Estes Park 2 ,898 1 , 763 15135 60 .8%
Fort Collins 527192 301072 227120 57 .6%
Loveland 2511075 171776 71299 70 .9%
Timnath 91 73 18 79 .8%
Wellington 13900 1 ,602 298 84 .3%
Remainder of Count 277511 23,645 3,866 5 .9%
Source: U .S. Census Bureau American Community Survey,
The majority of households in Larimer County ar y households, mostly married couples, who
are also more likely to be owners than�on-family ho Ids . In Fort Collins, the distribution of
households looks different than in the res�coun as nonfarrI student renters make up a
large number of households in the City
Table 13: Households by Tenure by amily Type, 2007
Larimer County Berthoud I Estes Park Fort Collins
ner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied
Family households 551910 141030 11246 194 1 ,293 480 217342 71266
Married-couple family 481845 7312 11107 110 11231 300 189387 39598
Other family 71065 61910 138 84 62 180 21954 31668
Male householder, n e 15975 34 20 21 76 884 1 ,206
Female householderhusband 5,090 4, 104 64 41 104 2 ,070 27462
Nonfamily households 20 , 587 219091 320 190 471 655 83730 14,854
Total Households 761497 3511120 11566 384 11763 19135 302072 22, 120
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied
Family households 121843 31975 52 7 11214 198 1711920 19910
Married-couple family 111022 11847 51 6 11007 114 16 ,039 111146
Other family 13821 23128 1 2 207 84 13881 764
Male householder, no wife 562 651 1 2 76 20 396 215
Female householder, no husband 1 ,259 11478 0 0 131 65 1 ,485 549
Nonfamily households 41933 31324 21 11 388 100 51725 11957
Total Households 1 17, 776 7,299 73 18 11602 298 237645 31866
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, CSI
The number of households in Larimer County has been growing during the past decade, and will
continue to grow as new households move to the area. The average household size is not expected
to change significantly during this time period. The average household size in Larimer County in
2007 was 2.47. Owner households are slightly larger at 2.56 persons than renter households with
2.25 persons.
Most Larimer County homeowners moved to their current housing unit since 1990, reflecting both
new residents moving into the county and long term resident turnover in the for-sale market to
newer or higher priced housing units. Renters have moved at a higher rate than owners . Just over
90% of renters moved between 2000 and 2008.
Table 14: Year Household Moved into Unit by Tenure, Larimer County, 2007
Larimer County Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins
Owner Renter Owner Renter OwnJ Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied : occupied:
Moved in 2005 or later 109544 18,568 187 211 136 47636 12, 150
Moved in 2000 to 2004 271882 137347 500 3 362 111615 8,857
Moved in 1990 to 1999 231993 27430 t5464 396 8, 852 970
Moved in 1980 to 1989 7 , 709 465 44 2 130 2, 938 69
Moved in 1970 to 1979 4, 545 18130 136 87 1 , 380 11
Moved in 1969 or
earlier 1 ,824 1298 37 24 650 64
Total : 76,497 35, 120 1384 763 11135 307072 227120
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner Ren r Rente Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occu ie o occu ied: ied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
Moved in 2005 or later 27467 3 ,806 2 1 104 21843 21325
Moved in 2000 to 2004 27544 23 95 77589 1 ,360
Moved in 1990 to 1999 804 25 5 34 81217 86
Moved in 1980 to 1989 1 ,503 145 2 83 36 21696 39
Moved in 1970 to 1979 973 0 1 124 23 11806 29
Moved in 1969 or
earlier 576 0 2 0 33 6 493 27
Total : 177776 7299 73 18 11602 298 23,645 3,866
Source: U s b titan Comm nity Su we7q,%VF
LOCAL ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
This section of the report will examine employment trends and wage data for Larimer County. This
information is used to estimate the number and type of new housing units needed as well as price
ranges necessary to meet the housing needs of the area workforce.
Labor Force
The following tables and charts provide an employment overview for Larimer County. Between
1970 and 2006, job growth in Larimer County has risen at a pace higher than the state and higher
than the nation. During this 36-year period, the number of jobs increased five fold in Larimer
County. The following graphic shows the number of jobs each year in comparison to the number of
jobs in 1970. In Larimer County, there were 528 jobs in 2006 for every 100 jobs in 1970, much
higher than the state or nation. As Larimer County has grown, so has its labor market.
Figure 5: Larimer County Jobs Compared to the State and&k Nation
600
500 528
-
o � '
0
400
o `
o
x 300 308
W
� r '
c
200 195
V V
Q 000
� � V V
100 '
0
&b .��o ,�� h ( �
`L � �N �tx �A �O O OHO
NCb N� NCb N� NC N� �� N� NC
- Larimer County , Colorado Colorado - - United States
Source: BEA REIS 2006, Sonoran Insti ute
The May 2009, Department of Labor and Employment non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate
for Larimer County was 6. 1 %. Reflecting the state and national economic downturn, Larimer
County has had a large jump in the unemployment rate in 2009 . Unemployment in Larimer County
is still lower than Colorado at 7.3% statewide or the nation where unemployment is over 8%. The
labor force in Larimer County continues to increase, though employment has taken a dip in 2009 to
the 2007 employment level. Economists both in the state and nationally hold up the Larimer
County economy as one of the strongest for job growth and employment in 2009/2010.
Table 15: Larimer County Annual Average Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment
Larimer
County Colorado
Civilian Unemployment Unemployment
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Rate (%) Rate (%)
2005 167,010 159,546 79464 4. 5% 5 . 1 %
2006 170,658 163,814 6 ,844 4.0% 4 .4%
2007 1731400 1677341 61059 3.5% 3 .9%
2008 176,537 1687995 77542 4.3% 4 .9%
April, 2009 178,097 1671223 10,874 6. 1 % 7 .3%
Source: Labor Market Information, LAUS Unit & US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure 6 : Larimer County Unemployment Rates Over Time
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1 .0%
0.0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 May, 2009
—� Larimer County Colorado --At—:Nation
Source: arket Informs 'on, LAUS Unit & U Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure 7: Labor Force and Unemployment Rate , 2005-2009
180 ,000 7.0%
1789000
6.0%
176 ,000
174 ,000 5.0%
172 ,000
4.0%
170 ,000
168 ,000 3.0%
166 ,000 2 0%
164 ,000
162 ,000
160 ,000 0 .0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 May, 2009
Civilian Labor Force � Larimer County Unemployment Rate (%)
Source: Labor Market Information, Colorado Dep r & Employ
Employment and Wages
Larnner County's employment base is a mix of p and private sector jobs. CSU is the largest
employer in the county. Other largest employers in e Hewlett-Packard, the Poudre R- 1 School
District, the Poudre ApIley Health System, and Agile chnolog* es. Most of the largest employers
had stable employment between 2007 and 2008. The ity of Fort Collins expects job growth to
happen at the Poudre Valley Hospital Harmony Opus, and the Harmony Technology Plaza, as
well as at CSU. Loveland job growth is especially concentrated in the health industry, with the
opening of the new Medical Ce r of the Rockies hospital at Centerra, expansion of the McKee
Medical Center, and the Heska rp (manufacturer of pharmaceuticals for companion animals)
locating in Centerra. Commercial, retail and residential growth in Centerra is also bringing new
retail and service jobs to Love
l
Table 16: Major Employers in Larimer County, 2002 - 2008
Number of Employees
2002 2003 2004 2006* 2007 2008
LSI Logic 283 341 290 341 n/a 341
First National Bank 356 367 355 367 487 367
US Postal Service n/a 412 438 412 412 412
Waterpik Technologies 550 585 460 585 n/a 585
Front Range Community College 595 481 480 481 481 481
Celestica 500 650 650 n/a n/a n/a
Center Partners n/a n/a n/a n/a 700 700
City of Loveland n/a 890 678 90 643 890
Anheuser-Busch 740 760 743 760 760 760
Hach Chemical Company n/a 550 793 550 900 550
Advanced Energy 775 825 800 825 594 825
Woodward Governor 575 650 800 650 13200 650
Wal-Mart Super Center 600 909/ 900 909 n/a 909
McKee Medical Center n/a 950 950 950 950 950
Larimer County 11700 1 ,467 ` 1 , 394 11467 00 17467
City of Fort Collins 1 , 400 1 ,864 � 1 ,400 1 ,864 1 , 1 .864
Thompson School District n/a 11888 �7 0 1888 118 12888
Agilent Technologies 1 2 ,800 2,800 2 , 800 2,800
Poudre Valley Health System 2, t21454
61 2 , 800 3,020 3 ,488 3,020
Hewlett-Packard 3,00 3 , 000 3, 182 3 ,250 3, 182
Poudre R-1 School District 3,0143,0 3 , 732 14 3,325 3,014
Colorado State University 6,950 ,945 6 ,948 71945 61948
Source: Larimer County
County-level employment data is available from e Teau of Economic Analysis through 2007.
Industries with the highest employment 2007 were government, retail trade, professional,
scientific and technical services, utilities, and informa These industries and most others have
stayed stable irremployment levels from 2003 to 200 'he most recent data on employment by
industry from the Colorado Department of Labor CO2 indicates that the total number of jobs has
not declined in Larimer County, though industries such as construction, finance and insurance, and
professional and technical services showed declines in the number of employed persons. There
were 600 new jobs created in Larimer Cou?* between August of 2007 and August of 2008.
Table 17: Five Year Trend in Employment by Industry, Larimer County
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total employment 172,851 179,052 1839459 186,976 191 ,396
Forestry, fishing , related activities , and other "" 535 608 583 601 609
Mining 717 717 793 870 888
Utilities 230 235 242 258 266
Construction 14, 303 14,758 15,706 16,023 16 ,267
Manufacturing 13, 723 13 ,530 13 ,525 13,060 13 , 180
Wholesale trade 3 ,496 31782 31810 3,917 37931
Retail trade 201916 217222 21 ,992 221527 22 ,917
Transportation and warehousing 31065 3284 37392 31232 37186
Information 39096 3 , 133� 37241 39322 3 ,341
Finance and insurance 6 ,459 6, 741 67744 7 ,018 67942
Real estate and rental and leasing 8 ,335 91302 91800 103171 115001
Professional , scientific, and technical services 141599 15 ,806� 16 ,471 16,793 171019
Management of companies and enterprises 193- 318 588 610 583
Administrative and waste services 97751 109322 903 10,377 10,713
Private educational services 21175 21319 2 ,494 2 ,542 21689
Health care and social assistance 151042 15,649 15,850 � 16,398 17,671
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4 , 124 4 ,356 47468 4 ,625 47870
Accommodation and food services 13, 98 14XA 14,617 151115 15,304
Other services, except public administ ation 9 ,604 10 , 140 101217 10134 10 ,377
Government and government enterpris 263349 261456 26 ,971 273108 271654
Federal , civilian 478 2 ,485 21467 21452 27439
Military 73 671 697 728
State and local 23, 239232 1833 23,959 24 ,487
State government 113135 70 85 113259 111624
Local government 1 ,9 1 ,548 121700 12 ,863
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis
Average earnings per job and per capit ncome, a ted for inflation, have risen since 1970 in
Larimer County, fro $30,666 to $37,9 in 006, ost recent year with available data. Average
wages adjusted for in Lion have also risen sin�2'the s. While wages have been on the rise in
Larimer County, in 2006, average earnings per job ZoLarimer County ($37,929) were lower than the
State of CoN
7,882) an the natio ($47,286) .
Figure 8 : Larimer County Earnings Per Job
45 .0
40 .0 37 , 929
m 35 .0
o -
N 30 .0 357397
0 25 .0
v 20 .0
c
T,, 15 .0
0 10 .0
5 .0
0 .0
O� OA 00 O� OHO
Nq Nq N6 NO ^O '4 'O �O �0 'C �O 'O "O
- Per Capita Income Real Earnings Per Job
Source: BEA REIS Data, 2006, Sonoran Institute `
Wages in Larimer County rose steadily between 2Nonomic
007 for almost all industries, according to
the US Bureau of Economic Analy ' . Burea Analysis data fkustries,
008 from the
Colorado Department of Labor sho wagedrop in 2008 for most i and any
drops were minor.
Table 18: Five Year Trend in Average Wa es Industry, Larimer County, 2003 - 2007
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Farm employment 97361 105403 41521 11 ,462 12 ,842
Forestry, fishing , related activities , and other
57075 47980 6,995 8,012 91039
Mining 21 , 785 26,944 25,636 261410 26 , 154
Utilities 62 , 674 L 87,434 68, 335 68,097 70,752
Construction 307855 P301396 31 ,899 32,708 33,328
Manufacturing 69 , 153 683646 731546 773228 791417
Wholesale trade 423072 423600 431393 453536 491056
Retail trade 207440 20,636 21 ,057 211195 21 ,656
Transportation and warehousing 29,531 30,630 28,828 29,237 30 ,292
Information 39, 160 39, 717 41 ,087 44,331 47 , 164
Finance and insurance 273227 263549 261641 273707 291232
Real estate and rental and leasing 71989 77540 7,850 8,244 71781
Professional , scientific, and technical services 431163 41 ,697 431270 465506 48 ,861
Management of companies and enterprises 49,964 56 ,069 59,832 69, 139 71 ,202
Administrative and waste services 213527 232740 231414 233873 231567
Private educational services 143167 133577 121389 123188 121464
Health care and social assistance 327994 341195 36, 375 371439 40 ,211
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 7 ,334 7 ,073 71116 81160 81380
Accommodation and food services 13,975 14$ 37 14, 782 15,084 16 ,063
Other services, except public administration 175638 171996 181378 193380 20 ,505
Government and government enterprises 441906 47, 160 48,962 501279 51 , 183
Federal , civilian 777999 861271 94,494 995796 1031476
Military 34,310 36, 517 42,835 40,753 40 ,960
State and local 413710 433315 445422 453488 461279
State government 403558 423778 435475 443619 441511
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis
While dated, a 2006 study by the Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MOP) Economic and Demo Forecast for the North Front Range Modeling Area and Its Su Re
estimated that employment would grow by 32,600 in the Fort Collins area, 38,800 in the
Loveland area, 57,700 in the Greeley area, and 58,000 in surrounding areas between 2005 and
2035. The October 2008 Primary Employers Research Project conducted by the Northern Colorado
Economic Development Corporation indicates a continuation in job growth in Larimer County,
even during the national economic downturn. Of the 50 primary employers surveyed, 74% plan
to expand over the next three years. Of the 74% of the businesses planning expansion, 62% are in
manufacturing, 11 % in information and 11% in professional, scienti and technical services. The next
largest industry sector predicting growth is wholesale trade.
Larimer County's adult population has a higher percentage of people with an associates, bachelor's
or post-graduate degree compared to the state. The is true for the City of Fort Collins, the
only jurisdiction in Larimer County with available NO ACS data. Forty-eight percent (47. 8%) of
Larimer County's adult population has a bachelor degree or higher. Another 30. 8% have some
college education, compared to 30.0% for the state as a whole. Larimer County has a high
percentage of jobs requiring advanced education, especially in Fort Collins, home to CSU.
Employers surveyed for the 2008 Primary Employers Survg, stated that, though Larimer County has a
highly educated workforce, of the 68°/0 of espondents that were having trouble recruiting
employees, 44% indicated having trouble Ming for white collar jobs, while 41 % were having
trouble recruiting for blue collar jobs .
Table 19: Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Over, 2007
Larimer County Fort Collins Colorado
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Owners 78 , 737 32 ,405 1 ,280,207
Less than high school graduate 2 , 722 3 .5% 723 2 .2% 877050 6.8%
High school graduate (including equivalency) 141126 17. 9% 4 ,362 13 .5% 2641640 20.7%
Some college or associate's degree 247268 30 .8% 81675 26 .8% 3841625 30.0%
Bachelor's degree or higher 37 ,621 47 .8% 18,645 57 .5% 543,892 42 .5%
Renters 34 , 111 20,848 579, 758
Less than high school gradua 21294 6 .7% 728 3 .5% 851003 14.7%
High school graduate (including valency 61828 20. 0% 2557 12 .3% 162781 28. 1 %
Some college or associate's degr 14 ,318 42 .0% 9,659 46 .3% 18706 32 .4%
Bachelor's degree or higher 10,671 31 .3% 7 ,904 37 .9% 144 , 308 24 .9%
Total 1125848 533253 118595965
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
Commuting patterns have clWged in Larimer County during the past eight years as economic
opportunities in other counties have increased commuting from Larimer County to other
surrounding areas. In 2000, the census reported that 84% of residents also worked in Larimer
County. In 2006, this percentage had dropped to 67.6%. Thirty-two percent of those who work in
Larimer County commute in from other places, including Weld, Boulder, and Jefferson Counties.
LED On the Map data also shows that Larimer County residents commute to jobs around the
county, and choose to live in their local community often for reasons other than job location.
Table 20: Place of Residence for Larimer County Employees , 2006
Larimer County 68.0%
Weld County 11 . 1 %
Boulder County 3.4%
Jefferson County 3.3%
Arapahoe County 2.8%
Denver County 2 .5%
Adams County 2 .3%
El Paso County 1 .8%
Douglas County 1 . 1 %
Laramie County, WY 0.6%
All Other Locations 2.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau LED On the Map
Table 21: Place of Work for Larimer County Resi 00
Larimer County 67.6%
Weld County 6.8%
Boulder County 6.4%
Denver County 4.6%
Arapahoe County 3.2%
Adams County 2.9%
Jefferson County 2.8%
Douglas County 1 . 1 %
El Paso County 0.9%
Broomfield County 0 .6%
All Other Locations 3.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau LED On the
Figure 9 : Regional Commuting Patterns , 2008
.s.
`'� 110 is Commuting? rRc�,r�. �
p � fPm7RLaip' : uarf-
� - -1 M�IY gttlY K6
Iwo
17a/0 leave Fort Collin; ` 7 k
4
•I i
r.....�_�..�.. IW-I
{ w
i - ` A
'A _ 1
45% leai-e Loveland
W1 Lip
` I
S-o Commute to Greater Deaver
Source: City of Loveland Advanced Planning Annual Data Report, North Front Range MPO, 2008
Having housing with a range of prices and Nes for the local work Alk is important for all
communities . With 67. 6% of Larimer County residents workin n their own county, it appears
that a live/work balance is possible, yet commuting between communities has risen this decade.
The increase in earnings from jobs in Larimer County, flowing to other counties indicates that some
workers are choosing to live in other co`ml riunities an commuting to Larimer County, perhaps
because housing prices have risen higher in the county4an in some surrounding communities such
as Weld County. The 2006 Northern Front Rangetropolitan Planning Organization (MOP)
Economic and DemographicNtdhia
he North Front Range Modeling Area and It'sSub-Regions estimates
that 12,000 people in thet Range area worked at home in 2006. A continued trend
towards working at homck on commuting. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
information, MOP estimmany as 27,000 people will work at home at least part time by
2035 on the north Fro Range.
HOUSING PRODUCTION
This section of the report will focus on the current housing stock as well as recent housing
construction by unit type and price range for the county, for-sale and for-rent units, housing
conditions, housing types and other characteristics. This data will be used to estimate new housing
production needs in Larimer County.
Number and Type of Housing Units
The following table shows the estimated number of housing units in each community in Larimer
County, as well as those in the non-municipal areas of the county. New development in the
unincorporated areas of the county during the past dejjde has increased the number of housing
units outside any incorporated town or city. In Larimer County, cities annex land into incorporated
municipalities in the Growth Management Areas (GMA) s of the county, and includes agriculture as
the highest and best use of land in the unincorporated areas of the county. Residential development
is allowed, but lots must be 35 acres in size unless part of a subdivision. Despite a policy of
encouraging development around incorporated areas, thoqlumber of housing units in the
unincorporated areas of the county now number more than the number of units within City of
Loveland municipal boundaries. a
Table 22: Total Number of Housing Units, 2007
Housing Units
Larimer 1282404
Berthoud 2 , 143
Estes Park 49029
Fort Collins 68
Johnstown (part)
Lovelan 27,
Timna 101
Wellin 5
Windsor ( 1 ,037
Unincor orat 33, 791
Source: State of Colorado Demography Section
The majority of occ d housing units in Larimer County are single-family, stick-built, detached
homes. Another 7. 1 ° f units in Larimer County are attached townhomes or duplexes, and 4.7%
are manufactured housing units or mobile homes. The remainder is in multi-unit properties .
Seventy percent of all multi-wit properties are located in Fort Collins . Denser housing is usually
located in the largest community in a county, and this is especially true in Larimer County and the
concentration of college students in Fort Collins.
Table 23: Units in Structure, Larimer County, 2007
Larimer County Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins
Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter-
occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied
1 , detached 641547 11 ,383 11283 167 11303 326 241475 61112
1 , attached 4,807 37169 70 16 317 92 21781 1 ,789
2 units 503 21371 4 49 17 115 171 1 ,341
3 to 19 2,271 12 ,818 13 137 111 525 11547 99151
20 to 49 124 11965 0 5 6 51 118 11590
50 or more 123 2 ,263 0 0 0 0 104 1 ,765
Mobile home 4,056 1 , 152 171 30 11 21 876 372
Boat, RV, van , etc. 65 0 6 0 3 l 0 0 0
Total : 761497 35120 11546 404 1768 1 , 130 301072 22, 120
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter- Irowner- Renter- Owner- Renter-
occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied
1 , detached 15,476 21301 70 17 17513 122 20 ,427 2 ,340
1 , attached 19078 13000 01
0 31 51 529 220
2 units 287 689 0 4 0 67 24 105
3 to 19 379 21569 0 0 0 21 0 414
20 to 49 0 231 0 0 0 0 88
50 or more 17 46 0 0 0 4 28
Mobile home 538 44 . 0 1 29 2,400 656
Boat, RV, van , etc. 0 0 0 0 56 0
Total : 17, 776 71299 0 21 1 ,6 295 23 ,659 3 ,852
Source: Colorado Demography Section, Census 2000, ican Community Survey, Data, CSI
IT
Most of the housing stock in Larimer County has been built sincee 1960s. Twenty percent of all
housing units in Larimer County were built in A9 or earlier. Though construction of new housing
has been concentrated in Fort Collins and Loveland s" ce 1999, the smaller communities of
Berthoud, Estes Park, Timnath and Wellington have wn substantially during this decade when
total new units developed are compared to the total h ing stock. Each is poised for more growth
when e housing market recovers .
Rental units range in age. The Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland have seen in increase in rental
housing production since 2000 in r sponse to population growth, and the need for more affordable
and senior housing units .
Table 24: Tenure by Year S e Built, Larimer County, 2007
Larimer C my Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied : occupied: occupied : occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
Built 2005 or later 2, 128 321 124 8 58 8 740 97
Built 2000 to 2004 131264 4, 136 401 16 341 143 57477 21431
Built 1990 to 1999 181468 5,054 211 11 228 46 77987 31573
Built 1980 to 1989 11 , 954 5,585 254 145 310 210 57597 31849
Built 1970 to 1979 153904 103793 210 72 281 167 53063 61672
Built 1960 to 1969 59629 39952 48 61 148 137 22033 21410
Built 1950 to 1959 31204 1 , 724 7 9 147 132 11106 922
Built 1940 to 1949 1 ,392 574 24 6 153 71 511 322
Built 1939 or earlier 4,554 29979 287 56 98 221 1 , 558 1 ,843
Total 76,497 35, 120 12566 384 11763 11135 309072 222120
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occupied: occupied : occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
Built 2005 or later 785 166 2 0 257 0 162 42
Built 2000 to 2004 39936 15171 2 0 403 12 21704 364
Built 1990 to 1999 31598 640 5 0 92 0 61347 784
Built 1980 to 1989 2,026 894 8 6 158 41 3 , 601 440
Built 1970 to 1979 31569 2,462 7 2 374 125 6 ,402 17292
Built 1960 to 1969 1 , 197 901 4 2 29 67 21169 374
Built 1950 to 1959 932 475 4 3 35 4 972 181
Built 1940 to 1949 521 157 0 2 A 6 16 178 0
Built 1939 or earlier 1 ,211 433 40 4 249 33 1 , 111 388
Total 173776 7,299 73 18 11602 298 231645 3 ,866
Source: U .S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Claritas, CSI
Housing Production
Applications for building permits in Larimer Co ave declined dramatically since their peak in
2005 and 2006. The downturn in the national real market has affected Larimer County
communities, most of which have be growing at a ace, and development of new units has
slowed county wide, as it has across e naN&n. Much of this slowdown is due to consumer
confidence, new lending requirements, and the residual effects of.,severe declines in property values
in other areas of the country. As is true across the na*jLn, much of tLe existing housing inventory
currently on the market must be absorbed before many new homes &be built in Larimer County.
When this happens and credit be s to flow, development activitiesW pick up again.
Table 25: Residential Building Permits and Unit Counts
2005 2006 2007 2008
Units Units Units Units
Berthoud
Single Family 52 30 23 9
Two Family 0 0 0 0
Three and Four Family 0 0 0 0
Five or More Family 0 0 0 0
Total 52 30 23 9
Estes Park
Single Family 73 73 52 80
Two Family 0 0 2 0
Three and Four Family 3 2 0
Five or More Family 8 0 0
Total 84 75 57 80
Fort Collins
Single Family 732 46 408 267
Two Family 6 3 4 `
Three and Four Family 19 4 9
Five or More Family 18 23
Total 775 491 303
Loveland
Single Family 730 397 42080 139
Two Family 12 0 0
Three and Four Family 0 0 4
Five or More Family 16 12 0 1
Total ` 758 4 280 144
Wellington
Single Family 275 124 66 35
Two Family 0 0 0 0
Three and Four Family 0 17 1 0
Five or More Family 0 4 0 0
Total 75 145 67 35
Unincorporated
Single Family 409 344 287 119
Two Family 3 1 0 0
Three and Four Family 2 0 0 0
Five or More Family 0 0 0 0
Total 414 345 287 119
Source: US Census Bureau
Figure 10: Declining Building Permits and Units in Larimer County, 2005 — 2008
Unincorporated
Wellington
Loveland
Fort Collins
Estes Park
Berthod
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
m 2008 v 2007 ® 2006 2005
Source: US Census Bureau
Land Invento
In some communities, a lack of developable land lead to housing shortages or sharp increases in
housing costs as development costs rise with hind c sts. This is not the case in Larimer County,
though land availability zoned appropriately for variou*4esidential uses varies by community. Both
the City of Fort Collins a, the CiNPlanrmu'
nd h4* conducted vacant land inventories in the past
few years .
The City of Fort Collins Advancedepartment 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory Report has
determined that most vacant land that can be developed for housing and commercial uses is located
in the northeastern portion of the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) . Smaller residential and
commercial parcels are scattered throughout the GMA. Taking both vacant undeveloped land and
redevelop able parcels into con eration, Fort Collins estimates that there is total build out capacity
for 95,000 new residential uAIrs and 143,000 new jobs. These figures represent approximately 40%
growth in population and 47% increase in jobs . Available buildable parcels will accommodate new
development until 2030 for housing and 2026 for jobs, or 17 — 21 years of growth.
The City of Loveland is growing, and has planned for growth in the eastern part of the City, where a
large Centerra annexation along I-25 will accommodate growth in commercial and residential
building for years to come. Loveland is also concentrating efforts in their downtown, to bring new
housing units within walking distance of downtown jobs and amenities. City planners are working
to attract dense, multi-unit projects in the downtown area, as well as redevelopment of existing
buildings into mixed use commercial and residential properties. Lincoln Place, a new mixed use
development downtown with 200 housing unit, retail space and a parking garage, is an example of
they type of project being encouraged by the City of Loveland. The City estimates that there are 956
building sites ready for single family residential development, and total of 1 ,895 additional vacant
lots that are not ready for building permits . City staff say that for the short term, there is plenty of
developable land for both single family and multi-family housing in Loveland.
Other smaller communities in Larimer County have annexed land for large new commercial and
residential developments. Timnath, for example, located directly east of Fort Collins, grew 2,200
acres through five large annexations, with a golf course and residential area already under
construction.
There are currently 599 residential lots or vacant properties zoned for residences with 5 acres or less
for sale through the Multi-List Service (MLS) in Larimer County. This number does not include any
farm land with residences, or land that could be used for residential and commercial use. Lot sales
have dropped in the past four years and continue to do so, according to local Realtors and MLS
data. Many developed lots in subdivisions are being sold without use of the MLS banks to
developers. Other bank-owned lots show up or�the foreclosure lists provided by services such as
Realtytrac.com. In July of 2009, Realtytrac liste 60 bank owned lots for auction, located in
Loveland, Windsor, Timnath, Wellington and Berth A
Lot prices are dropping, as shown in ableW . The medtan price for a lot with five acres or less in
Fort Collins is $ 159,000, $87,000 in Loveland and $8,900 in Wellington. There are many lots on the
market in Berthoud, Estes Park, Timnath, and Fort Collins that have up to five acres, have access to
open space, boat ramps, private recreation facilities, etc. These lots �w the median price of lots
upwards. Average city lots are currently listed between $55 �0,000 in Fort Collins, and
$555000 - $89,000 pe lot in Loveland. AN
Table 26: Lot Listings, July 2009
Mkt Median Price
Berthoud 50 $ 1899900
Estes Park 85 $ 1829500
Fort Collins 2 $ 159 , 000
Loveland 198 $87, 000
Timnath 23 217 , 500
Wellington 26 $8 , 900
Source: Larimer County MLS, CSI
In the past three years, ales with five or less acres have steadily declined in all Larimer
County communities. Sold4risve also declined, though price fluctuations in many of the
smaller communities are due in part to the type of lots offered during each 12 month time period.
For instance, many luxury developments came on the market and sold out during one year, while a
development of smaller lots might sell out the next year.
Table 27: Sold Lots, Three Year Sales Data
2005 2006 2007 2008
Number Med Price Number Med Price Number Med Price Number Med Price
Berthoud 36 $ 187,500 67 $ 185 ,000 20 $ 140,000 14 $ 1397000
Estes Park 41 $ 163,000 36 $ 1609000 23 $ 170,950 26 $165,000
Fort Collins 161 $ 119,900 132 $ 140 ,000 72 $ 107,000 39 $897500
Loveland 102 $ 131 ,500 45 $ 1419150 36 $ 1602000 19 $142, 500
Timhath NA NA 3 $320 ,000 46 $ 1097900 20 $95 ,900
Wellington 38 $515596 22 $53 ,500 12 $507000 3 $50 , 000
Source: Larimer County MLS, CSI
Housing Sales Data
The number of single family home sales decreased between 2007 and 2008, and continues to decline
as borrowers remain skeptical of the local and nation housing markets and credit markets remain
tight.
Price Trends
Currently, there are 2,533 single fainitpand 634 attach housing units on the market in Larimer
County. The following table shows tXe prc'ifxle of the current listings that are included in the local
MLS. Complete information about listings not in .tthe MLS i not available. Only units listed in the
MLS were used to estimate the average s are footage, average7ye built, and average days on the
market. Housing units located outside Fort Collins or Loveland, 0 rage, are priced higher than
in either city, and are on ave_ er. More larger new l*h end h s are located in new growth
areas of smaller communities, w any older, more modest h r0s are located in the two largest
cities. On average, units in Fort Collins and Loveland are similar in size, age, and price, with Fort
Collins homes demanding slightly highe.L2rices than lose in Loveland. Single family homes in
Loveland have been on the market a bit longer than *tiler areas of the county. The average
number of days that homes currently listed f ar the market is between three to five
monthN
Table 28: ANnt Listings, Larimer County
Avg Avg Avg
Lrice
Avg Avg Avg Avg Year Days Price
Garage on
Bdrms Baths s .f. Spaces Built Market Persf
Fort Collins
Single Family $391 ,285 3 3 37010 2 .2 1985 118 $ 130
Condos/Attached $ 192 ,832 2 2 17611 1 .2 1994 138 $ 120
Loveland
Single Family $380,560 3 3 27984 2 .3 1987 150 $ 128
Condos/Attached $ 178,824 3 2 17745 1 .3 1998 109 $ 102
Larimer County all
Single Family $410,684 4 3 21997 2 .3 1987 141 $ 137
Condos/Attached $211 ,543 2 2 13580 1 .0 1995 154 $ 134
Source: MLS Data, CSI analysis
The bulk of current listings are in the $ 150,000 - $300,000 price range in Larimer County, and in
both Fort Collins and Loveland. Over 20% of listings in the county are priced at $450,000 and
above. Condos have lower prices, with the majority priced from $ 100,000 - $250,000.
Table 29: Current Listings by Price Range, Larimer County
Condos/
Fort Collins Single Family Attached % of Total
<$74999 1 7 0.5%
$751000 - $ 100,000 5 32 2.3%
$ 1005001 - $ 150,000 52 100 9.3%
$ 150,001 - $200,000 164 130 18. 1 %
$200 ,001 $250,000 257 75 20.4%
$2503001 $300,000 162 33 12.0%
$300,001 $3505000 124 7 8.0%
$350,001 $4003000 103 2 6.4%
$4007001 $450,000 52 2 3.3%
>$450,000 303 17 19.7%
Total Listings 19223 405 A& 1 ,628
Condos
Loveland Single Family Attached 1MML of Total
<$74999 3 0 0.3%
$751000 - $ 100,000 9 2 .2%
$ 1003001 - $ 1503000 4 47 9.8%
$ 150,001 - $200,000 165 24 .2%
$200 ,001 $2505000 142 17 .9%
$250,001 $300,000 92 3 10.7%
$300,001 $350,000 54 2 .3%
$350,001 $400,000 50 0
$400 ,001 $450500 1442 0 4.8
>$450 ,000 165 1 18.8%
Total Listings 762 122 884
Condos/
Larimer County Single Family Attached % otal
<$74999 6 8 0.4%
$75 , 000 - $ 100,000 16 34 , 1 .6%
$ 100,001 - $ 150,000 161 121 8.9%
$ 150,001 - $200,000 378 211 18.6%
$200 ,001 $250,000 456 �115 18.0%
$250,001 $3003000 321 54 11 .8%
$300,001 $350 ,000 223 28 7.9%
$350,001 $400500 194 22 6.8%
$400,001 $450,000 120 12 4.2%
>$450,000 658 29 21 .7%
2 ,533 634 31167
Source: MILS Data, CSI analysis
Newer units built in the past few years are higher priced than those that were built pre-2006. This is
true for both single family units and condos and townhomes. New condos are listed for the highest
price per square foot in areas other than Fort Collins or Loveland. New single family homes have
higher prices per square foot than existing units in Fort Collins, though the opposite is true in
Loveland and the rest of the county.
Table 30: Price Comparison of New vs . Older units, Current Listings
Fort Collins Price Per Square Foot Average Price
Pre- 2006 - Pre- 2006 -
2006 2008 2006 2008
Single Family $129 $ 136 $375,621 $493, 152
Condos/Attached $ 114 $ 135 $ 171 ,413 $275,928
Loveland Price Per Square Foot Average Price
Pre- 2006 - Pre- 2006 -
2006 2008 2006 2008
Single Family $130 $ 119 $374,410 $405,732
Condos/Attached $100 $ 125 $ 1745224 $214,915
Larimer County Price Per Square Foot Average Price
Pre- 2006 - Pre- 2006 -
2006 2008 2006 2008
Single Family $137 $ 136 $396 ,475 $482 ,044
Condos/Attached 1 $ 128 $ 153 $ 192,346 $291 , 114
Source: MLS Data, CSI analysis
The following chart shows that single family ho old in 2008 have low r prices than units
currently on the market. It appears that some ave sking prices in Larimer County have not
dropped, though owners may not be tting offers at rices asked, and lower pri d units are
selling better than higher priced unitMovement in the igher priced home range PP�s slowed
tremendously during 2009 across the state and nation. Prides in the Cities of Fort Collins and
Loveland declined between 2007 and 2008, while the average family home price in Estes Park
rose.
Table 31: Units Sold 2008
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
# Median # Median # Median # Median # Median
Sold Price Sold Price Sold Price Sold Price Sold Price
Fort Collins f
Single Family 3 , 103 $220 ,5 3 , 102 29,865 27 $2303000 25807 $235,000 23359 $2332000
Condos/Attached 999 $ 158 ,000 12 $ 157 ,50 785 $ 156,000 725 $ 1559000 682 $ 151 ,000
Loveland /
Berthoud
Single Family 22054 $2201 2 ,08 332000 11795 $239,000 1 ,595 $228,000 15428 $219,000
Condos/Attached 266 $ 161 , 278 $ 164 ,000 233 $ 157,900 194 $ 153,000 162 $ 146,000
Estes Park Ali
Single Family $2810 ,0010 228 $281 , 500 235 $320,000 264 $312 ,000 190 $339,000
Condos/Attached 2341000 120 $247 , 000 99 $245,000 125 $265,000 99 $264,500
Source: Larimer County MLS, CIWW
Foreclosures
Colorado's foreclosure woes are part of a national surge in foreclosures during the past few years .
Much of Colorado's foreclosure problem is centered along the Front Range and in the Denver
metro suburbs. However, as the national and metro sales markets cool, the effect is found across
the state. A slow market and the impact of variable rate and subprime mortgages can be seen in
Larimer County. The Colorado Division of Housing I'Quarter 2009 Foreclosure Deport shows that
auctions of foreclosed homes are down 8% in Colorado from the 4t' quarter of 2008. However,
filings of new foreclosures are up 13%. The 12 most populous counties in Colorado account for
95% of foreclosure filings, according to the Division of Housing report. Counties with the highest
foreclosure rates tend to be concentrated on the Front Range. Larimer County had a 24% drop in
foreclosure sales between the 1 " Quarter of 2008 and the 15` Quarter of 2009, which, while good
news, was not as large as the drop in many other Front Range counties in the state. The overall
number of foreclosures in Larimer County is much smaller than most counties with larger declines.
Table 32: Year-Over-Year Changes in 1st Q Foreclosure Sales in Metropolitan Counties
County 2008 2009 Year-over-year %
change
Adams 935 628 -33%
Arapahoe 970 -37%
Boulder 134 00 -25%
Broomfield 35 22 -37%
Denver 1399 -48%
Douglas 320 2 -31 %
El Paso 5 522 +3%
Jefferson 391 - 14%
Larimer 228 174 -24%
Mesa 24 44 +83%
Pueblo 206 151 -27%
Weld 349 -21
Source: Colorado Division of Housing
While foreclosure sales declined, Larimer C my had an increase o o in foreclosure filings
between the first quarters of 2008 and 2009 . djacent Weld County had a 5% decrease in filings .
Many large Front Range counties saw drops in ber of foosure filings during this time
period.
Table 33: Year-Over-Year Changes in 1st Q Foreclosure Filings in Metropolitan Counties
Coun 2008 , 2009 Year-over-year %
change
Adams 1704 1327 -22%
Arapahoe 1851 1334 -28%
Boulder 278 291 +5%
Broomfield 79 70 - 11 %
Denver 2042 1524 -25%
Douglas 665 575 - 14%
El Paso 1216 1292 +6%
Jefferson 1010 926 -8%
Larimer 487 536 + 10%
Mesa 119 175 +47%
Pueblo 383 421 + 10%
Weld 813 770 -5%
Source: Colorado Division of Housing
Foreclosure filings in Larimer County are at their highest level since the beginning of 2007, while
sales are down from their highest level the second quarter of 2007.
Figure 11: Foreclosure Filings and Sales Over Time in Larimer County
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q 1 Q 2009
2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008
■ Filings ■ Sales
Source: Colorado Division of Housing
The communities of Loveland, Timnath, nd WellingtonNaccording
r percentage of housing
units in Foreclosure tha mmunities in Larimer e of Colorado, and the US.
Fort Collins, Berthou rk all have lower rat , RealtryTrac.
Figure 12: Larimer For ures as a Percent of Total Housing Units, 2009
1 .2
1 . 1
1 .05
1
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4 0.35
0 .26 0 .27
0 .2 0.2
0 .2
0 .13
0 .01
0
United Colorado Larimer Berthod Estes Fort Loveland Timnath Wellington
States County Park Collins
Source: RealtyTrac
Rental Housing Cost and Condition
Fort Collins and Loveland are part of the Colorado Division of Housing (DOH) bi-annual survey of
rents and vacancy rates. The rents in Fort Collins and Loveland have increased slightly in the past 4
years, according to the Colorado Division of Housing Rent and Vacancy Survey, for the second
quarter of 2009. The survey captures multi-unit properties in both Fort Collins and Loveland. The
survey does not capture single family homes and duplexes. The following charts show rent trends
by unit type for multi-family units captured in the Division of Housing survey in the study areas
during the past five years . Steady rent rates have given renters more choice and a chance to stabilize
housing payments compared to the decade before, when rent rase much higher than incomes.
Figure 13. Median Rent, Fort Collins/Loveland, 2003 - 200911k
$ 1 , 300
$ 1 , 200
$ 1 , 100
$ 1 , 000
$ 900
$ 800
$ 700
$ 600
$ 500
$ 400
$ 300
$ 200
Q3-03 Q1 -04 Q3-04 Q1 -05 Q3-05 Q1 -06 Q3-06 Q1 -07 Q3-07 Q1 -08 Q3-08 Q1 -09 Q2-09
Efficiency fOne Bedroom fTwo Bed, one bath
Two bed, two bath * Three bedroom —e-- AII
Source: Colorado Division of Housing Ran Vacancy Survey, 2nd Quarter 2009
Table 34: Median Rents over Time, Fort Collins /Loveland
One Two Bed, Two bed, Three
Efficiency Bedroom one bath two bath bedroom All
Q3-03 $646 $697 $699 $781 $810 $710
Q1 -04 $270 $692 $705 $ 1 ,226 $780 $757
Q3-04 $537 $660 $669 $707 $794 $692
Q1 -05 $436 $647 $672 $790 $819 $721
Q3-05 $469 $650 $669 $773 $787 $696
Q1 -06 $490 $639 $688 $765 $882 $693
Q3-06 $486 $677 $687 $831 $856 $733
Q1 -07 $512 $646 $735 $806 $844 $744
Q3-07 $502 $697 $728 $858 $865 $727
Q1 -08 $450 $699 $730 $869 $857 $737
Q3-08 $634 $728 $787 $940 $ 1 ,260 $801
Q1 -09 $660 $699 $785 $91 $ 1 ,013 $797
Q2-09 $587 $717 $765 $895 mW $ 1 ,074 825
Source: Colorado Division of Housing Rent and Vacancy Survey, 2" Quarter 2009
Table 35 below shows the number of units reported during the 1st Quart 2009 survey by bedroom
size, the range of rents reported for each type of uni nd the median rent by type. Some data in the
survey is reported separately for Fort Collins and nd, while some data is combined for the
two cities. In both cities, the major is surveye ad one or two bedrooms
Table 35: Survey Results, Fort Colli ove and, 2"a Qu 2009
Appr
# Range f Med Net
Fort Collins Reporte Net Rents Rent `
Efficiency 134 3.2% $351 -$775 $522
1 BR 17095 6.2% $451 -$ 11000 $722
2 BR, 1 B 1 ,480 5.4% $526-$ 11200 780
2 BR, 2 B 924 22 . 1 % $526-$ 11125 91
3 BR 2 96 7 . 1 % $751 -$ 1137 4
51
4 BR+ 251 116, 6.00/64 $700-$ 11800 $798
Total 4 , 180 100 .0%
Approx.
# % o Range of Med Net
Loveland Reported Total Net Rents Rent
Efficiency Q� 0.00 A $522
1 BR 235 ' 37.60 476-$850 $722
2 BR, 1 B 39 6. 576-$ 11100 $780
2 BR, 2 B 256 $676-$ 11200 $891
3 BR 66 /0 $672-$ 13650 $974
4 BR+ 29 4.6% $776-$950 $798
Total 625 100 .0%
Source: Colorado Division of Housing Rent and Vacancy Survey, 2" Quarter 2009
Vacancy rates for multi-family units have stayed stable over the past quarters . The overall vacancy
rate was 4.4% in the first quarter of 2009. This rate is low compared to the metro Denver area,
where vacancy rates have risen to 8.4% for the Is` quarter of 2009. A rate of 5% represents market
equilibrium, or the point at which a unit that is vacated is re-leased within a month. A rate higher
than 5% indicates that there are empty rental units sitting on the market, and a rate below 5%
indicates that units may already be leased upon vacancy.
Figure 14: Vacancy Rate Trends, 2000 - 2009
All
3-BR
2-BR, 2-B
2-BR, 1 -B
1 -BR
Efficiencies
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
■ 1 St Q 2009 134th Q 2008 03rd C 2003 02nd Q 2008 ■ 1 st Q 2008
04th Q 2007 o 3rd Q 2C07 ■2nd Q 2007 ■ 1st0 2007
Source: Colorado Division of Housing, 2nd Quart 20
Vacancy rates for three bedroom units in the survey area were hest at 5 .9%, while rates for one
bedroom and two bedroom one bath units were 3 .4% and 3 . 2% respectively.
Table 36: Vacancy Rates Ove ime, Fort Collins /Lovel
1st Q 'N 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q 1st Q 2nd CT 3rd Q 4th Q 1st Q 2nd Q
2007 2007 2007 2007 008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009
Efficiencies % 6% 2%_ 4% 0 10% 9% 2 .5% 4.0% 9 .7%
1 -BR 7 . 0% 2 .4% 3. ° o 5 .6% 2. 3% 3 .9% 3.4% 7 .7%
2-BR, 9.4 io .6% 2 . 7% 3 . 2 . /0 8.2% 3. 7% 3 .6% 3 .2% 10 .0%
2-BR, 7. 5% 6 .9% 5. 5% 4 .70
6 0 6.6% 4.0% 4 .8% 4 .7% 8.0%
3-BR 12.9% 31 .6% 18. 3% 5.9% 15 .4% 20 .6% 4. 3% 2 .4% 5.9% 17.4%
All 8.8% 9 . 1 % jL 5.0% 4.4% 5 .2% 8.9% 4. 1 % 4 .3% 4.4% 9.9%
Source: Colorado Div 'on of Housing , 2 rter 2009qw
Affordable Rental Properties in Larimer County
Table 37 shows the inventory of affordable rental properties in Larimer County, as well as the total
number of units in the property, the type of households served, the number of units with rental
assistance, income restrictions by Area Median Income (AMI) levels, and the number of households
on the waiting list. There are currently 3,799 affordable rental units in Larimer County. There is a
mix of units targeting families and those serving seniors and persons with disabilities. CSI has
identified properties with rental assistance and income restrictions at each when information was
available.
Table 37: Affordable Properties
# of Households Rental Income
Property Name Units Served Assist. Restrictions
Accessible Spaces 22 Disabled 22 All at 50% AMI
Bethaphage 5 Disabled 5 5 @ 30% or below
Big Thompson Manor I 58 Seniors 30% AMI
Big Thompson Manor II 60 Seniors 30% AMI
Brookstone Apartments 72 Families 40-50% AMI
13 73 @ 50%; 58 @
Buffalo Run 144 Families mkt
Bull Run 176 Families 35 50%; 141 @ 60%
Caribou Apartments 19� es 162 below 60%
Cherry Street Lofts 1 Familie 1 @ 80%
1 @ 30% AMI , 3 @ 50% AMI , 6
Cleve Street 10 Families @ 60% AMI
Cornerstone Apartments 16 Families '<_50% - <_80% of AMI
Country Ranch 117 Families 117 @ 60%
Creekside Gardens 50 Families 530% of AMI
DMA Plaza 26 Seniors, HC/Disabled 126 126 @ 30%
14 @ 40%, 5 @ 45%9 17 @
Eagle Tree ilies 50%
Fairbrooke 36 amilies , 21 @ 40%1 14 @ 50%
FCHA - South Bryan Ave. Un Families MOW, 27 27 @ 30%
FCHA - Vista Montana Families/Disabled 15 15 @ 30%
FCHABryan Street 1 Families 1 1 @ 30%
FCHA Jamith Units 14 amilies 14 14 @ 30%
FCHA Scattered Site 200 Families/Disabled 200 118(Z7 30%
FCHC - Villages on Plu 95 Families 95 10@ 50%1 85 @ 90%
FCHC 1st St. Units 13 Singles 13 13 @ 0-30%
FCHC Cowan St. Units 20 Families 20 20 @ 30%
FCHC Hill Crest Units 3 Families 3 3 @ 30%
FCHC Leisure Dr. Units 26 Seniors 26 26 @ 30%
FCHC Linden St. Units 16 Families/Seniors 16 16 @ 0-30%
FCHC Mountain Ave. Units 6 Families 6 6 @ 30%
FCHC Myrtle Court Units 16 Singles 16 16 @ 0-30%
FCHC Second St. Units 3 Families 3 3 @ 30%
FCHC Swallows Nest 44 Families/Disabled 44 44 @ 30%
Fox Meadows 62 Families 50 to 60%
Funding Partners - Northern Hotel 47 Seniors, HC/Disabled 47 47 below 50%
Greenbriar 40 Families 31 @ 50%1 9 @ 60%
Hamilton Part Apartments 48 Seniors 48 48 @ 30%
Harvest Pointe 80 Seniors 80 80 at 50% AMI
Hickory Hill 91 Families 91 @ 60%
13 @ 40%1 32 @ 50%, 12 @
Lone Tree Village 57 Families 60%
Maple Terrace 130 Families 52 <_80% of AMI
Mirasol Senior Living 56 Seniors 560% of AMI
Mosaic Housing III 18 Disabled 18 18 @ 50% AMI
NTN Azalea Drive 8 Families 50% or below
NTN Aztec Drive 4 Families 30 or below
NTN Clearview Dr. 8 Families 4 @ below 50%, 4 @ 30%
NTN Coachlight Plaza 68 Families 8 68 @ 30% or below
NTN Conifer St. 4 Special Needs 4 @ below 50%
NTN Crabtree Dr. , 8 Families 8 30% or below
NTN Eastbrook Community 11 Singles, Families :530 - <_50% of AMI
NTN Fifth Street Apartments 4 Families 530 - <_50% of AMI
NTN Palm St. 4 Families 4 @ 30% or below
NTN Ponderosa 8 Famili 1 @ 30%1 3 @ 50%3 4 @ 60%
NTN Sixth Street Condominiums 4 Fa ' :510%, <_40%, <_50% of AMI
NTN The Willows Senior Community 11 Se d Disabled :540 - <_50% of AMI
NTN Triplex Condominiums 3 Families :550% of AMI
Oakbrook 1 1 Seniors 50% or below
Oakbrook 11 Seniors N000:0 AMI or below
Park Ridge Apartments 32 ies 11 32 @ 30% AMI
Penny Flats 7 7 @ 80%
Reflections 72 eniors 50% to 60%
Reserve at Centerra 152 Families 560% of AMI
Residence of Oakridge --Rqqq 22 Assisted Living 22 @ 30-50%
Rock Crest Apartments 56 Families 30-50% AMI
Rose Tree Village 120 Families 120 @ 60% or below
Silver Leaf 1 50 Seniors 30% AMI
Silver Leaf II 72 . Seniors 30% AMI
South St. Vrain 12 Families 11 11 @ 30% AMI
Spring f Id Court Families l Below 50%
13 @ 40%1 20 @ 50%1 7 @
Swallow Families 60%
Talons Pointe ents 44 amilies 40 - 60% AMI
The Meadows 60 amilies 35-55% AMI
Trail Ridge Apartmen 24 Seniors 23 11 @ 30%
6@30%123@40%113@
Villages on Elizabeth 48 Families 50%1 6 @ 60%
Volunteers of America, Kunz C 60 Seniors 60 @ 50% or below
Waterford Place Apartments 77 Families 1<_40 - <_50% of AMI
Willow Grove Village 54 Families 54 @ 60%
Willow Place 20 Families 20 '5185% of Poverty Level
5@30%125@40%116@
Windtrail 50 Families/Seniors 50%1 4 @ 60%
Woodbridge Apartments 50 Seniors 50 @ 40% or below
Total Units 31799 913
Source: Community Strategies Institute
Affordable rental construction continues in Larimer County. The Loveland Housing Authority is
building a senior housing campus in Loveland that includes affordable rentals and units for sale.
There are a number of new affordable single family homes being built in Loveland as well.
CARE Housing has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits for a new development
Provincetown, which will have 85 units in Phase I and a total of 168 units when built out. Care is
also looking at building new units in Windsor, on a site that has the potential for up to 68 units.
Care has a 0% vacancy rate for existing units, and feels that that need for more affordable rental
units is strong.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority also administers the Section 8 Voucher program in Fort
Collins, Wellington, and in unincorporated Larimer County, while the Loveland Housing Authority
serves Loveland, Berthoud, and Estes Park. Section 8 Vouchers are rental vouchers that tenants can
take to landlords, in which a portion of their rent is paid for by the Federal Government. There are
currently 844 Section 8 Vouchers administered by the F rt Collins Housing Authority and 470
administered by the Loveland Housing Authority to serve households at 50 percent or less of the
area median income. Most of these vouchers a4 used by households earning 30 percent AMI or
less, and many are elderly or disabled.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority currently has aVaiting list of over 600 households for vouchers
and public housing, while Loveland 1 ,900 households on their waiting list for all housing
programs. Some households are tur g in their vouchers J�ecause they are having a hard time
finding properties that will take a vouch or tha ve rents be the HUD rent limits for voucher
use.
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In this section of the report, an analysis of the need for more housing development will be
presented. Household income, what households can afford for housing, and how the existing and
planned housing stock meets the needs of current residents will be discussed. Gaps in the housing
stock will be identified based upon current household structure and income, housing prices,
locations and conditions .
Households by Income
The following table breaks Larimer County householdseeseimncomr
partment of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) income ranges by tenuree ranges are used by affordable
housing providers to target affordable rental properties and homeownership programs to different
income ranges. CSI has taken census and other data to estimate the number of households that are
renters and owners by HUD Area Median Income (AMI) ranges
Subsidized rental housing is targeted households at 60�Se�r less of AMI. ebuyer
programs usually target households xth incomes higher than 60 percent AMI, usually up to a
maximum of 100 percent AMI. There are a total of 26,243 re n households in Larimer County in
2009 with incomes at 60 percent AMI or below. CSI estimates ,180 of these households are
student households living in pri ate apartments . There are a total 14 renter households in
Larimer County with incomes be en 60 and 80 percent of w are good candidates for
homebuyer assistance programs .
Table 38: Household Incomes, Larimer Coun 009
Larimer County Fort Collins Loveland
% of A ncome owner renter owner renter owner renter
0-29% 0-$22 ,559 8, 118 132918 31065 91568 11892 21413
30-49% $221560-37,599 8,332 81651 3, 187 53539 25100 15685
50-59% $37,600 - $45 , 119 61286 3 ,674 2,095 21082 11720 1 , 067
60-79% $45 , 120-$60 , 159 982 41114 3,687 21468 21720 1 , 002
80-99% $60 , 160-$75 , 199 ,931 3,018 3,839 15871 21723 639
100% and
up $75,200 and 37,034 3,208 155556 15590 71318 779
Total Households 79,684 367583 311429 231118 181472 7, 585
Source: US Census American Community Survey, CHAS, CSI
Existing Housing Needs
Some households in Colorado have been able to stabilize housing payments during the recent real
estate downturn by taking advantage of low interest rates to buy homes . Others, however, have lost
jobs, and seen a reduction in hours or have wages so low that prevailing market rate rents are still
unaffordable. Many low income households are forced to pay much more than they can afford for
housing. The following section identifies the existing housing needs in Larimer County.
Rental Housing Needs
An important indicator of affordable housing need is the number of rent burdened households in
the study area. The 2000 census provides information regarding the percent of household income
used to pay for housing expenses . Those that pay morel than 30 percent of their income for housing
expenses (rent/mortgage payment and utilities) arcconsidered "cost burdened." Table 39 and
Figure 15 show the estimated number of renter households by income range that were cost
burdened in 2009 in Larimer County. Because rent burden data is only available at the county level
for 2000, CSI has estimated cost burdened households living in the municipal areas of Larimer
County using the same ratios as for the county. is usually the case, the majority of renters
earning 30 percent of AMI ($22,559) cost burde Over half of owner households and 70%
of renter households earning betwee 50 percent of the AMI are also cost burdened.
Table 39: Cost Burdened Househol s, arimer County, 2009
Larimer County Fort 6kilins Loveland
Cost Cost Cost V Cost Cost Cost
Burden > Burden > Burden > Burden > Burden > Burden >
Owner Occupied Households 30% 50% 30% 50% 30% 50%
Household Income <=30% AMI 6 ,024 41619 27491 21004 11264 978
Household Inc. >30% to <=50% AMI 441241 1266 11673 918 11010 611
Household Income >50 to <=80 % AMI 5001 21555 636 2 , 167 462
Household Income >80% AMI 51 547 27133 116 994 50
Total Owner Households 79,684 31 ,429 18,472
arimer County Fort Collins Loveland
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Bur Burden > Burden > Burden > Burden > Burden >
Renter Occupied Households 30 0 50% 30% 50% 30% 50%
Household Income <=30% AMI 113065 97047 81076 63851 13481 1 ,016
Household Inc. >30% to <=50% AMI 67229 21007 47076 11379 17203 352
Household Income >50 to <=80% AMI 2 ,336 312 11524 227 573 81
Household Income >80% AMI 205 31 125 17 60 17
Total Renter Households A 97444 592205 191447
Source: HUD CHAS Databook, CSI
Figure 15: Cost Burdened Renter Households, 2009
12,000
10, 000
8, 000 - :I
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Household Income Household Income Household Income Household Income
<=30% AMI >30% to <=50% AMI >50 to < = 80% AN >80% AMI
■ Larimer County Cost Burdened >30% ■ Larimer County Cost Burdened >50%
Source : HUD CHAS Databook, American Com CSI
There are also many owner households who are cost burdenem 1kinmer County -- including 7,581
low income households earning between 51 and 80 percent of A edian Income (AMI) . High
cost burden can lead some owners to foreclosure. These househ s can also have a hard time
paying for upkeep a abilitation on their ho*
Figure 16: Cost Burdened Owner Households, 2009
81000
7, 000
6, 000
5, 000
4, 000
3, 000
2, 000
11000 --r AO .
0
Household Income Household Income Household Income Household Income
< =30% AMI >30% to <=50% AMI >50 to <=80% AMI >80% AMI
■ Larimer County Cost Burdened >30% ■ Larimer County Cost Burdened >50%
Source: HUD CHAS Databook, American Community Survey, CSI
Housing Problems
Housing needs go beyond just the measure of cost burden. Housing needs can include the need for
rehabilitation of the existing housing stock, overcoming a lack of basic safety and sanitation
conditions in existing housing units, and minimizing overcrowding in the case of large families or
those doubled up trying to save money.
The census provides information about the condition of the existing housing stock and
overcrowded households. In Larimer County, there are many housing units built before 1960.
Often these units need health and safety repairs. Older units ma so be smaller than newer
housing units, leading residents to build additions for extra spac
Table 40: Proportion of Older Pre-1960 Units by Community
Occupied Units
Built Before 1960
Larimer County 147428 12 .9%
Berthoud 389 21 .0%
Estes Park 821 32 .8%
Fort Collins 6 ,262 11 .8%
Loveland 3 , 729 14 .9%
Timnath 53 60 .6%
Wellington 343 36 .8%
Remainder of County 25831 10 . 1 %
Source: US Census Bureau, CSI
Households earning 80 percent (* less of the median income in Lari County can qualify for low-
interest housing rehabilitation loans offered through the Loveland Housing Authority, which can be
used to make upgrades, fix health and safety coAcerns, and make�ditional repairs.
Low income owners and *1anords can also access erization services through the program
operated by Longs Peak Energy Conservation (LPEC t of Boulder The program can provide
free energy saving repairs and upgrades to decrease ident utility bills . The new economic stimulus
plan has added much needed funding to this program Colorado to weatherize more homes
throughout the state.
The Census Bureau asks a series uestions about housing conditions to help communities gauge
the condition of units. The following chart regarding the lack of indoor plumbing and kitchen
facilities shows that in 24& few respondents in the county had a lack of complete plumbing or
kitchen facilities .
MW
Table 41: Select Housing Conditions, 2007
Larimer County Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
Lacking plumbing facilities 229 68 0 0 0 0 46 20
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities 143 310 0 0 0 0 14 198
Total 76,497 35 , 120 15566 384 11763 11135 305072 225120
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: ied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
Lacking plumbing facilities 0 48 0 0 0 0 183 0
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities 0 108 0 0 0 4 129 0
Total 1 17,776 71299 1 73 1 ,602 298 1 237645 3,866
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2007 Ah'�
Another measure of housing problems used by HUD is overcrowding. Households with over 1 .0
persons per room are considered overcrowded by HUD. Areas of the county with smaller, older,
housing units or higher numbers of poor household how a higker proportion of households that
are overcrowded. In some cases, households no
ve in smaller quarters for cultural reasons
as well. Renters across Larimer County tend to be mo vercrowded than owners, following
national trends. Many renters are lower income households who choose housing units for price
above size. In the smaller towns in Larimer CounjL there are Ve nited affordable housing
options, and some households must live in smalle housts.
AddmbkhL Table 42: Overcrowded Households, Larimer Co , IL
Larimer County Berthou Estes Park Fort Collins
Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied: occupied : upied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
1 .00 or fewer occupants/room 761073N095 43 368 1 ,763 1 ,027 30,015 21 , 634
1 .01 or more occupantS 423 2 16 0 108 57 486
Total : 76,4971 , 66 384 11763 12135 303072 221120
Is
Remainder of
Loveland Timnath Wellington County
Owner k%Cer Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
occupied : occupied : occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied: occupied:
1 .00 or fewer occupants/room 17,575 61868 73 18 11547 264 23, 557 31915
1 .01 or more occupants/room 201 431 0 0 55 33 88 12
Total : 1 17, 776 71299 73 18 11602 298 23,645 31866
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2007
Special Populations Housing Needs
In 2009, there were 61 ,480 people with a disability in Larimer County. The most common disability
is a physical disability. There are many services for people with disabilities in Larimer County.
Table 43: Disability Status, 2009
Larimer Fort
County Collins Loveland
With a sensory disability 8 ,795 31675 21220
With a physical disability 173284 72128 45591
With a mental disability 123649 62424 21743
With a go-outside-home disability 8 ,036 31862 11975
With an employment disability 91500 45758 25352
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Claritas, CS 1*
Often persons with self-care limitations cannot participate fully in the workforce, have low incomes
and need housing assistance. CSI estimates that there are almost 14,000 households with a
household member with a self care limitation in Larimer County.
Table 44: Self Care Limitations, La ' er County,
Larimer CounqWW Berthoud Estes Park Fort Collins
Renter Owner Renter Owne Renter Owner Renter Owner
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
Disabled HH Member 41165 91794 62 241 127 263 2 ,231 31111
Total Households 76 ,497 384 13566 1 , 1 1 ,763 221120 302072
Disabled o .8% 16 .3% 15 .4% 11 .2% 14.9% 10. 1 % 10 .3%
9bLoveland 17Wth Wellington Remainder of County*
Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
Disabled HH Member 12224 21816 5 6 89 229 428 37129
Total Households 73299 17 , 776 18 _, 73 298 19602 3 ,866 23,645
% Disabled 16 .8% 15 .8% 28 .6% 7.8% 29.8% 14.3% 11 . 1 % 13 .2%
Source: HUD I Census Tabulations of CHAS Data, CSI
Some populatio groups require specialized housing choices to meet specific physical and other
needs . Seniors, for example, may require more accessible housing, or need housekeeping and
personal care support. Persons with physical disabilities often need wheelchair-accessible units.
Those with developmental disabilities or with mental health concerns also require housing tailored
to their needs.
This section of the report will analyze the existing housing options for these populations and unmet
needs that exist in Larimer County.
Seniors
Larimer County will experience an increase in the number of senior residents during the next five
years . In 2005, the county was home to just under 9,900 residents over the age of 62; by 2015 this
number will increase to 21 ,393. Many will begin to have limitations in mobility and self care as they
age.
Table 45: Senior Households in Larimer County by AMI Level, 2007
% of AMI Income Range Larimer County Fort Collins Loveland
0-29% 0-$223559 55236 25041 17598
30-49% $22 ,560-371599 31472 15268 17126
50-59% $37 ,600 - $45 , 119 11532 403 421
60-79% $459120-$60, 159 11982 639 502
80-99% $601160-$755199 1 ,636 588 383
100% and u $75,200 and up 3, 155 11021 693
Total Householders 65+ 177013 55959 47723
Source: HUD, US Census Bureau 2007 American Community Survey, CA,
The definition of mobility or self-care limitations u create th*owing tables includes all
households in which one or more persons has:
(1) A long-lasting condition that subst limits one or more basic h ical activity, such
as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or ca ; and/ors
(2) A physical, mental, or emotional conditi ting more than six months that creates
difficulty with dressing, bathing, or gefFing around insi e home.
Many senior housing properties cater to seniors that are experie ing these limitations, either by
providing services on site, or by bringing in service p iders to seniors as much independence
as possible.
There are 1 , 119 affordable rental in La County that rgeted to seniors and the
disabled. Most of the properties provide rental ssistance and have waiting lists to get in. Seniors
tend to live in the projects for many yeaiL. The Loveland Housing Authority is building a senior
campus in Loveland called Mirasol, which includes independent and congregate care housing units
both for rent and for sale. Other newer senior low inc4ne housing tax credit projects have been
built in Fort Collins . Ma seniors prefer to stay i�ieir own homes as long as possible and use
home health care services tb maintain rode endence. Interviews for this study with senior service
providers in Larimer County indicate that need for senior supportive housing has increased in
the past few year
The following table shows the n er of senior households in Larimer County, Fort Collins, and
Loveland by income range that e cost burdened in 2007. The table show those senior
households paying more than /o of their income for housing, and those paying more than 50% of
their income for housing ex p ses. More than 50% of seniors with incomes of 30% AMI or less
($22,559) are cost burdened.
Table 46: Cost Burdened Senior Households, Larimer County, 2007
Larimer County Fort Collins Loveland
Cost Cost Total Cost Cost Total Cost Cost Total
Burden Burden Senior Burden Burden Senior Burden Burden Senior
> 30% > 50% HH > 30% > 50% HH > 30% > 50% HH
0 - 30% AMI 3, 126 13909 5,236 1 , 390 850 22041 857 571 1598
31 % - 50%
AMI 11299 516 31472 552 211 17268 418 186 11126
51 - 80% AMI 925 253 3,514 363 94 17042 199 50 923
>80% AMI 351 46 4,791 117 12 17609 86 16 1 ,077
Source: HUD, US Census Bureau 2007 American Community Survey, CSI
Persons with Disabilities
The Disabled Resource Services (DRS) is a consumer run nonprofit agency serving the physically
disabled population in Larimer County. The agency provides an array of independent living
services, and has offices in Fort Collins and Loveland. DRS will serve any person with a disability.
The agency's two programs--Case Management and Access to Independence--provide financial
assistance, peer counseling, independent living skills training, advocacy, employment training, vision
services, and housing. Seventy-five percent of clientadults DRS operates a Nursing Home
Transition program, which takes peok who do not n o live in nursing homes and transitions
them to subsidized units . However, lack of rental assistance and accessible units keeps many
clients in nursing homes that do not need to be ere.
DRS has 15 Section 8 Vouchers throughVtate HumanNServicartment (SHHP) , and a set
aside of vouchers through the Leland Housing Authorihousing authorities have a
preference for persons with disabilities, but DRS staff indicat ed for 200+ more vouchers to
serve their clients and persons with disabilities iit Larimer County. DRS uses local CDBG, General
Fund, and private dollars to provide emergency rent and utility assistance to keep clients in their
homes. Demand for very low income accessible housing units is going up, and agency funding for
housing has been goit down, according to DRS staf£,,Alany DRS clients do not meet the income
or work criteria established by local nonprofit housig providers to live in their units, and cannot
access some of the affordable ventory in Larimer County. DRS is seeing an increase in the
number of homeless persons* disabilities, who are sent to the Sister Alice Murphy Center for
services.
There is one new HUD 811 project located in Fort Collins for persons with disabilities with 23 units
operated by Accessible Services, Ind. out of Minneapolis. However, this property is not designed
for persons who could live independently with some support services .
The Northern Colorado AIDS Project provides medical case management, prevention programs,
and mental health services to persons with HIV/AIDS in Logan, Morgan, Weld and Larimer
Counties, and serves 140 — 160 clients at a time. The agency has an on-site food bank, as well as
insurance available for clients. Ten clients have long-term HOPWA funded tenant based rental
assistance "RA), which can be used while they are on housing authority waiting lists. The Cities
of Fort Collins and Loveland provide funding for direct services, including utility assistance and
short term housing assistance. Many clients have received Section 8 vouchers through the local
housing authorities, though they have no preference on the program waiting lists . The TBRA
waiting list is currently at 20, and agency staff indicates a need for 20 long term rental assistance
vouchers to serve clients . Housing Authority waiting lists are long, as is the waiting list for the Fort
Collins Housing Authority owned SRO. Once clients have rental assistance, they can find units in
the market.
Foothills Gateway provides and coordinates services for nearly 1 ,200 people with developmental
disabilities in Larimer County. The agency provides child development services, residential,
vocational, and day programs . Foothills Gateway helps clients live independently in apartments or
with host families, and also administers Section 8 Vouchers for clients. Other agencies that serve
persons with developmental disabilities in Larimer County include Abacus Care, Altra Services, the
Carmel Community Living Corporation, and Mosaic. These agencies provide a range of services
including independent living skills, group home living, and vocational and day programs.
Larimer Center for Mental Health provides services for persons with mental illness in Larimer
County. They have one seven unit apartment complex where clients can live independently, using
HUD supportive housing vouchers. The agency also has two residential facilities, Shelter Plus Care
rental assistance vouchers, an 8 unit treatment facility called Choice House, and an independent
transitional housing facility called Promise House.
Homeless Populations
It can be difficult to estimate the number of homeless pe\imn community. The following
chart shows an estimate of the number omeless peopleCounty from the 2007 Point
in Time survey.
Table 47: Homeless Count in Larimer County, 2007
Number Percentage
Total Homeless 556 NA
Number of Households with Children 22 58 .90%
Number of Households without Children 41 . 10%
Number of Sheltered Homeless 4 86 .90%
Number of Unsheltered Homeless 72 13 . 10%
Newly Homeless Ac
25 .90%
Have Been Homeless Before 74 . 10%
Source: MDHI& United Way. "Homelessness in Metropoli enver: Eighth Annual Point-in-Time Study, 2007
Local data, however, shows a much higher number of homeless people in the county. A new
homeless initiative has been starteAn Fort Collins by UniverCity Connections, called Homeward
2020. The goal of Homeward 2020 is to identify homeless needs in Fort Collins, and develop an
action plan to solve the homeless problem in Fort Collins. The homeless task force is made up of
community members with a broad range of backgrounds. The group published the report Building
Blocks to Ending Homelessness in Fort Collins. A Community Blueprint. The following table from the
report shows the latest count of homeless persons in Larimer County. Homeless families are the
largest percentage of homeless in Latimer County. Almost 60% of the homeless in Latimer County
are families, and almost a quarter do not have access to a shelter.
The following narrative is from this study:
[ Larimer County' s] rate of homelessness is about twice that of Metro Denver
with a population of 250,000 compared with Denver's 2.7 million, but only one
fifth the homeless population ( 10,6002 in Denver compared to approximately
2, 000 in Larimer County) . The most notable feature about Larimer County' s
homeless population is that it is an invisible population . Transitional homeless
are far more likely to find temporary shelter including living with others until
they can find more housing while the chronically homeless tend to avoid shelters
and other places where they can be accounted for and assisted because of
requirements such as breathalyzer tests. Rather, they tend to take advantage of
college centers for housing such as public libraries and student centers7. While
concerns about lack of shelter are being addressed, this lack of visibility of the
population is still a significant concern when it comes to the shape of Larimer
County's homeless problem .
The study found evidence that many homeless in Larimer County have a mental health issue, and
are impacting the criminal justice system. The task force identified a need for more deeply
subsidized affordable housing, perhaps using a Housing First model that takes homeless people off
the street, places them in housing, and surrounds in th with th rvices needed to ga
independence. A lack of shelter beds was also identi of services for the homeless.
Homeless persons in Larimer County e currently served ariety of small agencies and
churches. The Mission is a shelter run by Catholic Charities ern in Fort Collins. The shelter
has 28 beds, 6 for women, 4 family rooms, and 3 transitional roo The shelter is always full, and
Catholic Charities does not have overflow services for those turned aww. In severe weather, there
is an emergency overflow shelter, but not one to serve chronically homeless individuals in Larimer
County, according to staff from Catholic Charities . Staff stated that there is a great need for more
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in Larimer County to serve the chronically homeless and
disabled homers ersons .
The Open Doo' r Mission can house a to 65 persons r ni ht with shelter in Fort Collins and also
P P P P g
provides meals, a soup kitchen, and counseling.
The Sister Mary Alice Murphy' Center for Hoe in Fort Collins is a new facility that provides case
managers to work very closely with clients and connect them with the appropriate community
resources for their particular needs. he Center also provides a variety of complementary services
such as: employment resources, ho sing resources, financial counseling, transportation assistance,
job training and educational opportunities, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and access
to a telephone and computer for making employment contacts. These services are provided at the
Center by a variety of local human services agencies. This facility is the base where these resources
are linked together and people find the support they need to make changes in their lives . The center
also has mailboxes and voicemail for homeless people who find it hard to network for jobs or
acquire necessary documents to get their jobs, homes and public services .
The House of Neighborly Services provides homeless services in Loveland. The agency uses FEMA
and Emergency Shelter Grant funds to operate an inclement weather shelter, provide motel
vouchers, food and clothing to homeless families in Loveland. The Director stated that demand for
emergency housing is up 225% over a year ago. The Interfaith Hospitality Network in Loveland
operates the ANGLE House, a day shelter for the homeless that provides services. Interfaith also
provides shelter for up to 4 families through host churches, and owns three transitional housing
units . The agency has 12 TBRA vouchers through the Colorado Division of Housing, but the
vouchers will soon expire.
Neighbor to Neighbor provides homeless prevention services in Larimer County, including
emergency rent and utility assistance, and first month's rent assistance, using Emergency Shelter
Grant (ESG), Fort Collins CDBG and private funds.
Crossroads Safehouse is the domestic violence service provider in Fort Collins. The agency operates
a 14 bed safe house in Fort Collins, and serves a total of 325 — 375 people per year with crisis
intervention, counseling and intervention, youth groups and housing. Crossroads master leases 15
units of federally funded housing, and is in the process of trying to fund 10 additional transitional
housing units for clients. Recently, a building was donated to the safe house, and plans are in the
works to renovate the building for longer term housing than is currently provided at the safe house.
The building will be able to house 140 individuals. The biggest need for Cross Roads clients is
"confidential housing" units, that do not require, personal information from the victim. The
Director indicates a need for 40 units of "confidnti ousi41norveland.
her clientsAlternatives to Violence provides domestic violence se ce Service clude case
management, legal assistance, and therapy for children and#ults. The agency does not currently
have a safe house shelter, but is planning on building a shelter 4&will hold 20 — 24 people.
Currently, they have to send 60 — 80 women outside the comm ach year, and provide hotel
vouchers for victims in J]ao of ergency housing. Alt ern 'ves t lence also owns a house, ad
has six vouchers through the Coo do Coalition for the Home s fo clients.
There is a Continuuml6f Care collaboration in L%Cadl
ounty, the Northern Front Range
Continuum of Care, that meets once a month tohomeless needs and issues and to
coordinate services in Larimer, Weld and other Colorado counties. Members include the
Loveland and Fort Collins Housing Authorities, Charities, Interfaith Hospitality Network,
United Way, Colorado S Project, Cross RoadsAfehouse, Neighbor to Neighbor, Larimer
Center for Mental Health, of Loveland Community Partnerships Office, the City of Fort
Collins . There is also a homeless task force that meets to coordinate services between various
agencies.
The United Way of arimer Cou has begun an initiative called "Pathways Past Poverty" in
Larimer County. The initiative s with eight topic areas, including affordable housing. Pathways
working groups are identifyin stematic barriers to breaking the cycle of poverty, and plan to
develop county-wide strategies for dealing with these barriers. One barrier identified to date is the
lack of one intake system in the county for housing and homeless programs, or central references
and referrals for assistance. Predatory lending, bad credit and criminal histories are also barriers to
breaking out of poverty and accessing housing programs.
Housing Gaps Analysis and Estimated Need
When there is a smaller number of housing units available to households within a certain income
range than households within that range, a housing gap exists . The following tables provide a
supply/demand analysis of the housing stock in Larimer County.
The supply/demand analysis chart shows the number of renter households in various income ranges
in 2009, what a household can afford to pay in rent after consideration for a utility payment, the
number of rental units available in the market, the Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) of units, the number of
available units that are occupied by households from higher incom ranges, the resulting number of
affordable and available uni ef Limits, and the Surplus (+) or Dicit (-) ofVts after those occupied by
higher income households are removed from the affordable inventory. Household income is based
upon a 4 person household. The formula for calculatin the Surpl s/Deficit of
Affordable/Available Units is : ��
• Households — Units Available = Sur lus /ITe'i�fcit
P
• Surplus/Deficit — Units Occupied by Higher Income Renters = A ble and Available
Units
• Households — Affordable and ailable Units eficit of Affo e/Available
Units (a negative means that gap)
In Larimer County, the supply/demand analysis elow shows of rental housing units
affordable in most income ranges. Households at 30% AMI, wi iggest deficit, can only
afford a rent of $489 after a upayment. Not surprisingly, these seholds are the biggest
consumers of rent subsidized housing and Section 8 vouchers . T� hVe are only 1 ,214 Section 8 rental
assistance vouchers available in Larimer CountyNo serve the ver 15w income households. The
5,009 (adjusted number after reduction for student households) households in Fort Collins that need
a unit priced at 30% AMI or below includesome of the households on the waiting list for 844
Section 8 Housing 016ice Vouchers in ForsCollins. In} oveland, there is a total gap of 2,405 units
at the 30% AMI level. The Loveland Housing Aut ity has a waiting list of 1 ,900 for their 477
Section 8 Housing Choice chers and other housing units.
Most rental u within the co my are af�able to households earning between 31 and 60 percent
of AMI. However, so many higher income households occupy these units, that there is still a gap of
1 , 187 units at 31 — 50% AMI in Fort Collins, 777 in the county. Loveland does not show a gap at
this income level, but does show a gap at the 51 — 60% AMI level of 1 ,115 . The 4.4% vacancy rate
in Fort Collins and Loveland in 0 ates that more rental production is needed throughout the county.
The CSI rental gap chart sh a need for over 10,000 new rental units in the City of Fort Collins .
In Loveland, there is a gap of over 5,000 units. This supply gap indicates that, besides a need for
more affordable units, there may be a market for higher end rental units offering amenities not
currently found in the Larimer County rental market.
Table 48: Supply/Demand Analysis for Rental Housing Units, Fort Collins, 2009
Units
Occupied Adjustment Affordable
by Higher for Rent and Surplus/ Deficit of
Rent Fort Collins Units Surplus/ Income Burdened Available Affordable/Available Adjusted
AMI Level Afford. Households Available Deficit Renters Households Units Units Deficit*
0 - 30% $489 91568 566 -91002 187 0 379 -91189 -51009
31 - 50% $865 51539 131401 73862 61415 21634 41352 - 1 , 187 -17187
51 - 60% $ 1 ,053 21082 51685 31603 999 1 , 872 2 ,814 732 732
61 - 80% $ 1 ,429 21468 11970 -498 468 475 1 ,027 - 1 ,440 -11440
81 - 100% $ 1 ,805 11871 939 -932 293 722 -76 - 11948 -11948
over 100% $ 1 ,805 17590 466 -12124 0 851 -385 - 1 ,974 -11974
*student population is included in the demand calculation because they are part of the market, however,
CSI has adjusted this demand number so that planning for housing units can be done for non-student
households
Source: CSI
Table 49: Supply / Demand Analysis for Rental Housing Units , Loveland and Larimer
County, 2009
Loveland
Units
Occupied Adjustment Affordable
by Higher for Rent and Surplus/ Deficit of
Rent Loveland UnitsN Income Burdened Available Affordable/Available
AMI Level Afford. Households Available Surplus/Deficit Renters Households Units Units
0 - 30% $489 21413 12 -23401 4 0 8 -21405
31 - 50% $865 11685 61431 41746 31079 664 2 , 688 11003
51 - 60% $ 19053 14111 11067 632 35 111 569 -49 -11115
61 - 80% $ 1 ,429 11002 496 -5 118 243 135 -868
81 . 100% 639 173 -46 54 293 - 174 -814
over 100°/ 779 0 9 0 291 -291 -1 ,070
Larime ty �
Units
Occupied Adjustment Affordable
Larimer by Higher for Rent and Surplus/ Deficit of
Ren County Units Income Burdened Available Affordable/Available
AMI Level Afford. Households Available Surplus/Deficit Renters Households Units Units
0 - 30% $489 13 , 918 798 - 133120 263 0 535 -95203
31 - 50% $865 81651 227456 131805 105750 3 , 831 7 , 875 -777
51 - 60% $ 1 ,053 35674 85309 47635 17460 21924 3 , 925 251
61 - 80% $ 1 ,429 41114' 31039 -17075 721 839 1 ,479 -2 ,635
81 - 100% $ 1 ,805 32018 13413 -11605 441 17204 -232 -35250
over 100% $ 1 ,805 31208 650 -21558 0 17372 -722 -3,930
Source: CSI
The Colorado Division of Housing requires the following additional gap analysis to be conducted
for Housing Needs Assessments . This analysis shows the number of senior and other renters in
each income range, and vacancy rates by income ranges. Data was not available to estimate the
affordable vacancy rates by sub-area, so the county wide rate is shown for both Fort Collins and
Loveland. True affordable vacancy rates in each community may be lower or higher.
Table 50: Colorado Division of Housing Rental Gap Analysis, Larimer County, 2009
Fort Collins
Senior Other Rent Vacancy Vacancy
AMI Level Income Limit Renters Renters Affordable Rate - Afford Rate - Mkt
0 - 30% 0-$22 ,559 21041 77528 $489 3 .7% 3. 7%
31 - 50% $22,560-37,599 11268 4 ,271 $865 3 .7% 2.9%
51 - 60% $37,600 - $459119 403 1 ,679 $ 1 ,053 11 .8% 5.0%
61 - 80% $451120-$60, 159 639 17829 $ 1 ,429 NA 4. 3%
81 - 100% $60, 160-$75, 199 588 17284 $ 1 ,805 NA 12. 1 %
over 100% Over $75,200 15021 569 $ 15805 NA 0.0%
Loveland L
Senior Other Rent Vacancy Vacancy
AMI Level Income Limit Renters Renters Affordable Rate - Afford Rate - Mkt
0 - 30% 0-$22 ,559 17598 815 , ' $489 3 .7% 0 . 0%
31 - 50% $22 ,560-375599 1 , 126 55 $865 3 . 7% 6 .2%
51 - 60% $37,600 - $45 , 119 421 $ 1 ,053 11 . 8% 9. 8%
61 - 80% $45, 120-$60 , 159 502 50 $ 1 ,429 NA 0%
81 - 100% $602160-$75 , 199 383 256 $ 1 ,805 NA
over 100% Over $75,200 69 86 $ 17805 NA
Larimer County
Senior Other Rent Vacancy Vacancy
AMI Level Income Limit Inters Renters Affordable Rate - Afford Rate - Mkt
0 - 30% 0-$227559 57236 81682 $489 3 .7% 3.6%
31 - 50% $22 ,560-37, 37472 51179 $86 3 . 7% 3. 5%
51 - 60% $373600 - $45, 1 ,532 2114 $ 15053 11 . 8% 5.2%
61 - 80% $451120-$60 , 159 1 ,982 2 , 13 $ 1 ,429 NA 3. 7%
81 - 100% $601160-$75 , 199 11636 1 ,382 1 ,805 NA 11 .9%
over 100% Over $75,200 � 31155 54 ,805 NA 0.0%
Source: Community Strategies Institute
Ownership Housing Needs
Some renter households are paying rents equal to a mortgage payment on a modest home. The
softer sales market is an opportunity for renter households with steady income to make the leap to
homeownership. Good home buyer counseling, fixed-rate mortgage products and down payment
assistance can assure that households can become homeowners for the long term.
1W
Table 51 shows the number of renter households by income range, what these households can
afford to pay for a home, and the number of additional affordable housing units needed. Current
units on the market are based upon active listings as of June 2009 and projected for a 12-month
period using the average number of days on the market for sold properties in the past year.
This analysis reveals a lack of for-sale, affordable units in Larimer County for any renter households
earning 100 percent or less of the median income. This analysis does not take into consideration
growth in household numbers over time, nor the number of renters able and willing to take the leap
to homeownership. As new households move into the community, they will compete for the same
housing units as existing renters.
Households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the median can afford only a few homes on the
market - mostly small, older units . These households could benefit from self-help housing models
such as Habitat for Humanity and the Rural Development Self Help Program, programs that direct
funding to very low-income households that spend considerable time building their own homes .
There are two active Habitat for Humanity chapters in Larimer County, the Fort Collins Habitat,
which builds five homes a year, and the Loveland Habitat for Humanity, which builds 8 units a year.
The households at 31 to 50 percent of the median and those at 514 80 percent MFI are perfect
candidates for homebuyer assistance programs, such as LAHOP offered through the Loveland
Housing Authority, and downpayment assistance loans through the City of Fort Collins. Lenders in
Larimer County do utilize affordable mortgage products which these households are eligible for.
With prices falling or staying stable, and an $8,000 federal tax credit, there are some opportunities
for renters to buy homes at this time.
Table 51: Supply/Demand Analysis for Sale ng Unit arimer , 2009
Fort Collins
Fort Collins Units
AMI Level Income L*4& Affordahip Price Households Available Gap
0 - 30% 0-$222559 $77 ,460\� 25468
53388 13 51375
31 - 50% $227560-373599 $ 126 ,90053539 99 51440
51 - 60% $37 , 600 - $45, 119 $ 152 ,00021082 85 1 ,997
61 - 80% $457120-$605159 $202,750 293 2, 175
81 - 100% $60 , 160-$75, 199 $253,2 1 ,871 332 1 ,539
over100% Over $75,200 $2531250 11590 804 786
Loveland
Loveland Units
AMI Lev Income Limit Morda rice Households Available Gap
0 - 300 ft,$22,559 $77,460 21413 4 21409
31 - 50 $22 , 560-37 , 599 $ 126,900 1 , 685 29 1 ,656
51 - 60% $37 , 600 - $45 , 119 $ 152 ,000 1 , 067 68 999
61 - 80% $45 , 120-$607159 $202 ,750 11002 214 788
81 - 100% $60 , 160-$757199 $253,250 639 162 477
over 100% Over $75,200 over $253,250 779 407 372
Larimer County
Larimer
County Units
AMI Level Income Limit Affordable Price Households Available Gap
0 - 30% 0-$225559 $77,460 137918 20 131898
31 - 50% $22 ,560-373599 $ 126,900 8 , 651 140 87511
51 - 60% $37 ,600 - $455119 $ 152 ,000 3 , 674 187 37487
61 - 80% $45 , 120-$609159 $202 ,750 47114 589 37525
81 - 100% $609160-$75, 199 $253,250 31018 574 22444
over100% Over $75,200 over $253,250 33208 11655 17553
Source: Community Strategies Institute
The Colorado Division of Housing requires researchers to conduct the following gap analysis for
homeownership in Housing Needs Assessments . This analysis uses formulas from the National
Association of Realtors Housing Opportunities Index (HOI), as well as from Neighborworks. The
affordability index compares the ability of households at various income levels to afford the median
priced home in their market area. In Larimer County, the median price of homes on the market is
$241 ,186 in Fort Collins, $220,665 in Loveland, and $234,354 county-wide. As shown in Table 49,
households at 100% of the median income can afford the median priced home, while households
below 100% cannot afford the median priced home.
The "gap" is the difference between the mortgage needed to purchase the median home, and the
mortgage affordable to households at each income level. As is illustrated in the table below,
households in Larimer County do have a gap between what they afford and the median priced
house for households earning up to 80 percent of the AMI. H r, households earning above
this level can afford to buy the median priced home.
Table 52: Colorado Division of Housing Homebu er Gap Analysis, Larimer County
Fort Collins
Households
in Income Affordable Affordability Gap
Income Limit Range Price Index Analysis
0-30% 0-$22 ,559 9568 77 ,460 C44
$ 161 ,402
31 -50% $229560-37, 599 51539 126390 $ 110 ,479
51 -60% $37 ,600 - $45 , 119 25082 1521000 $847626
61 -80% $451120-$603159 25468 2021750 $327354
100% AMI $60 , 160-$75, 199 11871 253 , 250 -$197662
Loveland
Households
in Income Affordable Affo -lit
Gap
Income Limit Range Price In a Analysis
0-30% 0-$227559 21413 773460 47 $ 1407881
31 -50% $22 ,560-37, 599 11685 1263900 79 $897958
51 -60% $375600 - $45 , 119 15067 152 , 000 94 $647105
61 -80% $457120-$60, 159 11002 202750 126 $ 117833
100% AMI $60 , 160-$751199 639 2531250 157 -$407183
Larimer County
Households
ncome Affordable Affordability Gap
Income Limit 'Lange — Price Index Analysis
0-30% 0-$22 , 559 137918 773460 41 $ 154,570
31 -50% $227560-377599 81651 1267900 68 $ 103,647
51 -60% $37 ,600 - $45 , 119 35674 1525000 82 $77 , 794
61 -80% $459120-$60 , 159 41114 202, 750 109 $25 ,522
100% AMI $605160-$753199 33018 2533250 136 -$261494
Source: Community Strategies Institute
Housing Needs from Job Growth
Filling current housing gaps during the next 2 -3 years should be the priority for Larimer County
communities . However, Larimer County is expected to grow by over 73,359 persons between 2009
and 2020, according to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section. Job
growth in Larimer County has historically been strong. The current economic climate and downturn
in the national housing market make projections of housing demand based upon future population
growth difficult. Job losses are up, and construction activity is down. However, the economy in
Larimer County is stronger than many other areas, and growth at large employers and the university
continue to draw new residents to the area. A
Table 53 below shows the total estimated population and household growth in the City of Fort
Collins, City of Loveland and County, and broken dowrta ber of owners and renters.
Table 53: Household Growth by 2020
Fort Collins AMeland Larimer County
Increase in Population 351838 N97090 73 ,359
Estimated New Households 13 ,9947,446 28 ,420
Renters 5, 9312 , 167 8,942
Owners 81063 5,278 19478
Source: Colorado Demography Section, 2007 American Community Survey�laritas, CSI
CSI has estimated the number of new households expected in *Xies of Fort Collins and
Loveland, and county-wide by AMI level. These estimates are based uppn the distribution of
current households by AMI level, population estimates, and current household sizes .
Table 54: Estimated New Households by 2020 by AMI
AMI Level City of Fort Collins ty of Loveland Larimer County
Owners Renters Renters Owners Renters
0 - 30% 786 1 , 688 WV 689 1 , 984 27687
31 - 50 818 1 , 735 600 481 2 , 037 27387
51 - 60% 537 652 492 305 1 , 537 1 ,014
61 - 80% 946 773 777 286 2 ,440 17135
81 - 100% 985 586 778 183 21427 833
Over 100% 7991 498 27091 223 97053 885
Total 81063 5 ,931 51278 2 , 167 19,478 81942
Source: Colorado Demography Section , 2007 American Community Survey, Claritas, CSI
The Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland should plan for a variety of housing choices for new
households moving into the area in the next 12 years, including rentals and units for sale with a
variety of price points. While the central cities will attract new professional jobs as it has in the past
decade, low paying job growth will accompany any new higher income jobs, including retail clerks,
restaurant workers, and administrative assistance. Units currently on the market will meet some
demand, but the additional approximately 19,478 owner households and 8,942 renter households in
the next 11 years will not be housed in existing housing units .
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Larimer County economy has withstood the national recessionary forces better than the
economies of most Colorado counties . The Second Quarter 2009 economic forecast published by
the Colorado Legislative Council reports that retail sales have declined over 10 per cent, and both
residential and commercial construction starts have decreased substantially. Multifamily housing
starts are down by over 80% from the 2008 numbers. Single family starts have decreased by two
thirds from the previous year. The unemployment rate has increased somewhat during 2009. The
latest published figures from the Colorado Department of Labor, marks the Larimer County
number at 6. 6% in June, 2009.
While these statistics represent a palpable decline in ewn #c activity in the county, Larimer County
will likely experience less impact than other areas of the state. Moody's Economics.Com has
forecast that the Colorado economy will move in to the recovery phase earlier than most states. If
recent trends are consistent, Larimer County most likely will see gains in economic indicators earlier
than other Front Range Counties. The County ontinueZo see increases in population as a
result of new households moving to Ale area. Both atural attractions and the quality of life in
county communities will continue t attra�new reside is which will produce growth in economic
activity. While a recovery will benefit all sectors of the c�om unity, housing demand will remain
weak for some time.
With substantial declines in most of the major housing mark'Ots in ation, households moving to
Larimer County will have less purchasing power. Larimer ho alues have benefitted from large
numbers of move up buyers who used the equity gained fromir previous home sale to afford a
house in Larimer County` Those move-up buyers will need to buy less expensive homes in the next
few years. While there are some substantial federal ' entives for first time home buyers, the rising
unemployment rate_ is making those younger poten4purchasers more cautious about making a
home investment. While tax credits and low interree t rates are making mortgages more affordable,
stricter underwriting and down payment requireme ts are also keeping many younger buyers from a
home purchase.
The first wave of foreclosures i1�FFront Range communities receded the national housing market
g P g
collapse. Those first foreclosures were the product of affordability issues more than as a result of a
major decline in economic activit�. For many Front Range residents, housing prices were very
expensive and incomes did not grow fast enough to keep up with increases in energy costs and other
essentials. Many buyers purdaAsed expensive homes using the variety of alternative lending products
available. The loan structures assumed continual home price appreciation and in many cases, buyers
were not required to even submit validated income information. As the number of foreclosures
rose, the housing values in affected neighborhoods began to decline. As values fell, other owners
who were overextended began to default on mortgages . Recent research on the impact of
foreclosed properties on neighborhood housing values, shows that a relatively small number of
foreclosure sales in a neighborhood, starts prices on a downward trend. Because homebuyers view
their home purchase as an investment, when the market value declines in comparison to what is
owed on the property, the common conclusion is to cancel the investment agreement by letting the
lender repossess the property.
The present recession economy is going to produce another increase in foreclosure activity. In this
case, people will be unable to pay their mortgages due to job loss. If the Colorado economy
continues to shrink, there will be more foreclosure sales in the Front Range Counties due to
employment. Employment rates and economic activity are important factors in assessing demand
for both rental and for sale housing. In periods of declining employment, it is difficult for housing
developers to obtain both short and long term financing for new product. Demand often exceeds
the supply of housing as markets recover from recessionary periods.
Within the larger Larimer County market, there appears to be an adequate supply of both rental and
for sale housing to accommodate present demand. Affordability still remains a significant problem
for many County households. Unfortunately, the difficulties in the broader housing market are
making it difficult to expand the needed supply of housing
Within the larger Larimer units affordable to low and very low income households .
County market, there .
Much of the equity used to age development dollars
appears to be an adequate comes from public sources. The local governments and the
supply of both rental and state gover'nm t are fang substantial revenue declines.
There is little available for grants and loans to provide
for sale housing to 4 incentive for elopers to build new affoVble housing. A
accommodate present substantial source o f\ egwty for affordable rental properties
comes from the Feder, h.ow Income Housing Tax Credit
demand. Affordability Program. Because some of thelargest purchasers of tax credits
still remains a signi have fallen into receiv ship, the jare no longer buying credits
problem for to apply against their Federal Cax liabilities. Other smaller
corporate urchasers have left the market because they no
longer hav a tax liability. Many former corporate purchasers
ar@Ashowing to es, not profits, in their earnings. For the
developers of aftrdable rental properties, the capital raised
from the sale o allocated tax credits has fallen over % in the last two years. Some developers
who have been awarded credits have not been a4 to syndicate their credits at all. Without tax
credit equity, most rental projects become financially unfeasible. There are not many alternative
sources for substituting lost tax credit dollars.
Developers wishing to increase The inventory of affordable rental units are also facing challenges in
programming rental units tom demand segmented by income. The HUD Regional Economist,
in the most recent Market W eport, supports the need for rental housing units affordable to
households earning less than /o of the Area Median Income. The Regional Economist cautions
against building units with r nts targeted to a higher income grouping because at the higher rent
rates, new units would compete with an already adequate supply of market rate units. As a result of
market factors influenced by both the economy and the supply of rental units, the market rent rate
in the Fort Collins/Loveland housing market is equivalent to the 601/oAMI level which is the upper
end of the tax credit eligible renter population. For the past twenty years, the economics of
affordable rental housing development has relied on gaining revenue on higher income rents as a
means of subsidizing the annual operating costs of the units with minimal rent. If a developer
projects all rents affordable to incomes below 50% AMI, the necessary equity to minimize debt
service increases exponentially.
In creating a set of observations and recommendations for the Larimer County housing market, CSI
believes that any recommendation has to be feasible within the current market and economic reality.
Some of the recommended actions will need to be delayed until the conditions necessary for
implementation are more favorable. The most realistic estimates for improvement in the housing
market, place the recovery starting in 2010. Given the complexity associated with affordable
housing finance, it is likely that both public and private equity sources won't be returning to pre-
2008 levels for a couple of years after the recovery takes hold in the broader housing market.
While the old institutional and economic arrangements have shifted, causing problems for the
producers of affordable housing, there may be new opportunities that emerge as a result of the
upheaval in the financial system. Before the 2008 collapse, affordable housing finance was
becoming more centralized and increasingly became the domain of large national lenders and
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) . In
In order to move forward, order tJ move forward, communities are going to
have �o turn to more decentralized financing
communities are going to have to methods . These methods will revolve around
turn to more decentralized independent banks which are not part of the
financing methods. These methods Troubled Assetgecovery Program and Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) , which
will revolve around independent have a variety of financing sources from both the
banks which are not part of the ublic and private sector. In addition to existing
ces, Fu tners di ar , a Larimer County based
Troubled Asset Recovery Program FI has the edge base to create some new
and Community Development innovative funding sources such as tax credit equity
and private placement bonds. While many
Financial Institutions(CDFIs) which nal and international corporations don't report
have a variety of financing sources a profits to justify investment in tax credits, there
from both the public and private are individuals and profitable local businesses who
coul efit from tax credits if they could purchase
sector. them locks commensurate with their income tax
liahiWies. The technical aspects of syndicating tax
credits are beyond the scope of this assessment, but
community , d regional basel funds exlqftmany areas of the country. Models exist which can be
modified to meet local conditions Tax c & proceeds could be used with other public sources
including grants and loans. Bonds ssued through local tax exempt issuers could also be important
components of the new afforda ousing finance universe.
Larimer County collectively the communities of Loveland and Fort Collins have substantial
affordable housing productioT capacity. The Larimer community will be able to make the necessary
adjustments to their development plans as quickly as any area of the state. It will be necessary to
convene many local discussions to define roles, timelines and implementation plans. Until more
robust funding sources can be developed, it will be necessary to develop a pipeline of impending
projects and prioritize the most needed ones in order to align scarce resources with those priorities.
Even among priority projects and actions, timing the start of various efforts will be necessary in
order to make sure adequate financing is available when a particular project needs it. This process
will entail some painful compromises on the part of government funders and developers and
program operators in order to achieve the most effective fund distribution possible.
It is important to understand the term "affordable housing." The current federal guidelines set a
standard for housing affordability at 30 percent of monthly household gross income. This means
that a homeowner with an income below 80 percent of the median for the county of residence
should spend no more than 30 percent of their income for mortgage payments, taxes and insurance
(PITI) . In the case of a renter household with an income less than 80 percent of the median for the
area, no more than 30 percent of that income should be spent on rent and any tenant-paid utilities
excluding cable and telephone.
Example: A family of three wishing to purchase a home in Loveland with 80 percent of the
median income ($60,159) could afford to pay up to $202, 0. Their payment could be up to
$ 1504 per month for their PITI.
This affordability threshold was established based on consumer expenditure research. For
households in the lower segment of the income ladder, lfunds are limited in comparison to the costs
of other essentials such as medical care, child care, food and transportation. In order for a
household budget to balance between shelter and other essentials, housing expenditures must be
limited to 30 percent of overall income. For many households with incomes exceeding 80 percent
of median income, there is adequate money in the domestic budget to afford essentials and also pay
more for housing. This affordability standard has chanked over time. Following World War II the
accepted standard was 25 percent as the upper limit for shelter payments. Dur*O the 1950s and
1960s the common wisdom said that a worker should not spend more than a week's wages on
monthly shelter expenses. Some financing programs may per gher incomes than those used in
the examples above. HUD makes adjustments to median in figures to determine program
eligibility. Some privat, Wome
s use Private Mortgage ns d utilize slightly different
underwriting assumptions loans. , Many locaF-Move rnme programs also use different
underwriting ratios to determine credit wor ess� The Ci�of Fort Collins down payment
assistance program allo orrow to devot to 38% of their household income to PITI
expenses.
The same ofWatytandar applies to 1![Inilies rent their dwelling. A household should
spend no more than 30 percent of their gross income on their rental costs including rent and any
utilities that must be paid. If the total shelter expense on a three-bedroom rental unit is $800 per
month including all utilities, then the household should have a gross income of $25,920 in order to
afford the rent.
In order to provide e st)relev
o the recommendations, they will be organized into broad goals.
Under each goal statement, plans and policies will be referenced when they have application
to that goal. The narrative ant action plan items will identify whether the goal or action has
a County-wide application or is directed at a particular municipality in the County. The discussion
of the major goals is set in the context of the findings on local housing market conditions resulting
from the research and analysis conducted by CSI during the May, June and July of 2009. The earlier
sections of the report provide both quantitative and anecdotal data which has been used to
formulate the major goals as well as recommendations on action items which could be included in
plans and efforts to address the conditions described in this report.
Housing Choices
I . Provide a full range of housing choices in Larimer County . Special
efforts should be directed at the housing needs of groups which
are not easily served by the private market . Those groups include
moderate and lower income families of various sizes , elderly
households on fixed incomes , and those with special challenges .
Rental Housing
There is a strong demand for more affordability in rental units for Households with less than 50% of
the median income. Such low rental rates can only be achieved with sizeable subsidies either to
builders of the units or subsidies targeted to
the income qualified renters . The Federal
Government provides deep rental subsidies The housing authorities and non -profits
through the Section 8 Voucher Program. should continue to seek new voucher
Landlords receive a cash payment on behalf
of the renter for an amount that equals the allocations from both HUD and the Colorado
extra cost of the rent over the amo paid Division of Housing to accommodate
by the renter. The Section 8 pNgra
subsidizes the rent so that the tenant pa sizeable waiting lists.
no more than 30% of the house
h
income to the landlord. This program i ry effective at keepin ents affordable to the lowest
income households . However, because it cost rises as the rentntinue to rise from market
demand, Congress has not increased Section 8 appropriations,at level that allows HUD to issue
new vouchers to qualified renters he Obama Administratio�i has included a budget item for
150,000 new Incremental Rental Vo chers. However, it is too early to determine whether new
voucher allocations will be included the FFY 2010 budget. The Section 8 Vouchers are
administered by two Public Housing Authorities, Lovehind and Fort Collins. Other human service
organizations, including the mental health and homeless agencies also have allocations of various
special population vouchers . The housing authorities should continue to seek new voucher
allocations from both HUD and the Colorado Division of Housing to accommodate sizeable
waiting lists. While new vouchers allocated by Congress would be an overall increase in resources,
periodically both HUD and the Division of Housing have underused vouchers that could be
reallocated for special a es such as homeless, mental health clients or victims of domestic violence.
There are other sources funding for tenant-based rental subsidy. The PHAs or one of the non-
profit agencies could appl DOH for HOME funds that could be used for rental assistance
subsidies that would function similarly to Section 8 Vouchers . This rental assistance may be used
for a period of two years . While this rental assistance is of short term duration, it is probable that
some people would be able to receive a regular Section 8 Voucher within two years of receiving
rental assistance through HOME. As part of the economic recovery legislation recently signed into
law by President Obama, the Emergency Shelter Grant Program received a huge increase in funding.
The purpose behind the increase in funding was to prevent families who were suffering a job loss or
medical problems from losing their housing. Under the expanded ESG rules, administering agencies
such as local housing authorities or non-profits can provide up to 18 months of rental assistance to
qualified households to prevent them from becoming homeless. The local housing authorities could
form a joint agreement to apply for funding to be used by all the housing authorities to be able to
provide rental assistance in a shorter time than typical for their waiting list clients. The Colorado
Division of Housing has selected an administrative conduit for the funding. The Rapid Re-housing
funds will be administered by the Colorado Coalition for Homeless through the existing Balance of
State Continuum of Care system.
CSI analysis indicates that a gap exists in the number of units Increasing the
available with contract rents affordable to households earning less
than 30% of the AMI. The shortage of very low rent units exists supply of
throughout the county and in the population centers of Loveland apartments
and Fort Collins. The Housing Authorities maintain long waitink
lists of households waiting on those units . Gaps in the rental supply affordable to very
also exist in Loveland and the County in the 31 -50% AMI income low income
range. Fort Collins shows an adequate supply of rentA units in the households is a
31 -50% AMI income range. It is likely the supply i� ort Collins is
the cause of the perception that there are enough units in Larimer priority need in
County affordable to that income group. However CSI analysis Loveland and Fort
indicates that there is a need for more units affordable in the 31 - 0%
AMI price range in other communities.
Increasing the supply of apartments affordable to very to ome households is a priority need in
Loveland and Fort Collins. The realities of affo ble rent sing development make it difficult
to produce financially stable projects without ha ix of riced units with higher priced
units . Affordable developers � need to work with the MUD egi�onal Economist in planning
projects to ensure that project specific market studies and other market updates, show that a positive
absorption rate for the higher income units is feasible. Often, the construction start date has a
major influence on meeting rent-up projections for new units. In a slow market, it is important that
developers work with funders and len to time start dates so that there is not an over abundance
of new units placed in the mark
S ec eeds Ho
Households with special needs often suffer he negative effects of high housing costs. Many who
have various physical and mental challenges as well as the elderly often have fixed incomes which
Emit their ability to keep up with rising rental rates. Key informant interviews in both Fort Collins
and Loveland indicated that organization which provide supportive services or housing for their
special needs customers do not have enough very low rent options for the numbers of people who
need them. The problem can be acute for households which need accessible features in their
dwelling.
Homeless groups including agencies which serve domestic violence victims report sizeable numbers
of people needing transitional and longer term housing. Crossroads Safe House is working on a
proposal to develop ten new transitional units for their population. Both public and private
support are needed to bring those units on line in the Loveland area. Municipal and county
governments should react to requests for transitional housing developments as the most pressing
immediate need.
Expanding the supply of transitional housing will be a key component of the success of the Housing
First Initiative-Homeward 20/20 in Larimer County. Following up on the report issued in 2008 by
University Connections, the Larimer County United Way and others are formulating strategies for
eliminating the homelessness problem in the County. Current estimates place the number of
homeless families-primarily single mothers and children-at 500-600. This estimate is higher than the
count from the 2007 Point in Time survey. The most recent survey of homeless children enrolled in
one of the three school districts that serve Larimer County place the number of homeless children at
over 900 students . The homeless definition used by educators, counts children who are temporarily
staying with other family members or are "couch surfing" with unrelated hosts.
The Housing First model is an important enhancement to ho assistance planning. Research
results show that the sooner people can enter a stabI
shelter situation, the sooner they can start dealing wi A more effective
other problems that accompany homelessness. Much a is
which is reflected in the Larimer County Homeless�tiative alternative to the
Task Force report, suggests that it is more costly to allow mass shelter for the
homeless families to continue to access emergency services
than it is to provide stable, decent transitional h ing for chronically homeless
them. CSI believes that planning for transitional eeds is Single Room
to have a county-wide scope. Loved and Fort Co s, as
� Occupancy
the larger population centers, will have more need �nd
resources. However, there may be opportunities for, (SRO)housing
acquisition of smaller rental complexes in some of the other
municipalities. A county wide plan should target a producti n
goal of at least 12 transitional units placed in icYach 4;
Many communities are turning away from crea g new emergency shelter slots . Both neighborhood
and management issues make it difficult to operate uccessful mass shelters on an ongoing basis.
Communities generally make emergency plans for h ng large numbers of people during extreme
weather periods. Beyond that, few new emergenc helters are coming into service. A more
effective alternative to the mass shelter for the 406111cally homeless is Single Room Occupancy
(SRO)housing. Traditionally, such housing was available in old hotels and converted homes. As
urban renewal and gentrification have caused most of the old hotels and large homes to be
converted to other uses, there are very few single room occupancy units. The SRO would be a good
housing type to provide both short term and long term very low rent housing to single persons who
fall into the chronically homeles category. Many unattached individuals have minimal space
requirements. Because there ,` so few existing outmoded hotels available in either population
center, it may be necessary to7elop new units in a new structure or in an existing structure that
was not originally designed or housing. Both Fort Collins and Loveland have active downtown
redevelopment plans in place and SRO residences could enhance the urban diversity required for
greater economic activity in the central business area. In addition to formerly homeless individuals,
many elderly prefer smaller apartments with rent priced accordingly. There appear to be enough
demand for these type of units to encourage potential developers, including homeless service
agencies to do further feasibility analysis and property inventories in both Fort Collins and
Loveland. Single or multiple projects supplying 24 to 36 SRO units could be absorbed given the
existing demand.
Several human service providers receive some Section 8 Rental
Special needs providers Assistance for their clients . Rental vouchers are a good tool in a
rental where there are vacant units at prices which are greater
will need to work than what a low income tenant could pay without the assistance.
closely with affordable All agencies in Larimer County which would be eligible to apply
housing developers to to some source for Section 8 vouchers, should convene and
develop a comprehensive plan for application strategies and
expand the supply of coordination to ensure that competing applications to the same
housing that is source doesn't weaken chances for success nor result in a lower
overall allocation than if needs were consolidated into one
accessible and application. The two public housing authorities in Fort Collins
affordable for their and Loveland have a direct conduit to HUD for receipt of some
of the Incremental Vouchers distributed by HUD. However,
clients, there are a variety of other special purpose voucher allocations
which need to be coordinated in the county.
Special needs providers will need to work closely with affordable housing developers to expand the
supply of housing that is accessible and affordable f their clieurs. Many special needs populations
and the homeless share a common challenge: sec ecent housing on a limited income. This
county-wide need is still a major segfiit Qf the afford ity problem. The goveri�nt funders and
others who can contribute equity ding r projects should prioritize the goal of creating more
rental units affordable to those with verylow incomes . It may necessary to defer other needs and
concentrate on making a real impact on segment of the m
Elderly households in Lari ty benefit from a dime supply housing targeted for seniors.
Even with over 1100 units availa here are many elderly,l ouseholds who are cost burdened
because of their housing expenses. Over 2700 s1nior households earning less than 50% of the AMI
are cost burdened. There is also a sizeable segmen*fCausing
the senior population with higher incomes,
but who are also cost burdened. It appears thatseniors choose to live in more expensive
housing than they can afford. Usually the reasons oneself to be shelter cost burdened
are attributable to housing quality and or locatiovAssues . Many seniors choose more expensive
housing if they have ready access to services such as stores and doctor offices. Senior housing
developers will find solid ongoing demand for more senior rentals. Complexes which are mixed
income and are located close to amenities will be attractive to seniors. Developers with a charitable
mission should be able to take advantage of public financing and also limit rents. This way, not only
low income seniors, but moderat� income seniors could improve their domestic finances by
lowering their rent expense.
Homeownership Opportunities
While the collapse of the housing market in many areas of the country has resulted in price declines
and slow sales, the for-sale market in Larimer County has suffered less disruption than many other
areas in the country and the State of Colorado. The stability of the Larimer markets is good news
for those who own homes but first time homebuyers are not seeing any substantial increases in their
purchasing power as a result of market declines. Consumers generally lack confidence and many
people are worried they will lose their job if the economy does not improve soon. Consumer
pessimism probably is serving as a greater disincentive for home purchase then overall housing
prices.
At this point in time, because home prices are not increasing rapidly, salaries are keeping pace with
price increases. This is good news for purchasers who have household incomes above 80% AMI.
Potential purchasers over the 80% AMI range have nearly enough income to afford the mortgage on
the median priced home. Table 52 provides a good index of the amount of equity or subsidy that
would be needed to create affordability for different income groupings. Affordability can also be
improved by purchasing lower priced homes which still meet quality standards for various lending
programs. 4
The County is well served by two homebuyer assistance programs which can provide low interest
second mortgages for down payments on homes. The terms and amount of assistance are tailored
to household circumstances . There will be small amounts of state Neighborhood Stabilization
(NSP) funds that could be obtained for Larimer Counn y foreclosed homes. Most of the foreclosed
homes are in the smaller communities in the County. The NSP funded resales could add to the
number of homebuyer opportunities. Another opportunity to expand homeownership without
expanded down payment assistance funding is for on-profit1iousing agencies or contractors to
begin reusing the FHA 203K lending program. endy FHA loans have the lowest down
payment requirements. The 203K is a one-hun d percent insured loan, ?4C offers lenders
some of the highest fee income o any secondary market
product. A non-profit housing agency could4equire older
properties in need of repair, superviselthe re airs using a A low cost investment to
qualified contractor and then resell the douse to an encourage
household meeting income and underwriting requi y rements. homeownership would be
Beyond NSP and 203K funding, there is li e chance to
expand the amount available for down paym as
the maintenance of a well
loans. HUD has tailored the 203K Loan to pNBse
'denon- organized website to
governmental agencies a tool for revitalization. of
the cost of supervising acquisition/rehab project , 03K provide information on
loans could be used effectively by Larimer CouAo lousing homebuyer programs and
Authorities and non-pro wh h to expand
homeownership�opportunitie ` financing products
Lower income homebuyers have opportunities by working
with the Fort Collins and Loveland Habitat for Humanity organizations. Through community
contributions of labor, terials and money, potential homebuyers who are willing and able to help
build their home can ben t from the Habitat model. By incorporating so many sources into the
"sweat equity" approach, Ha itat Chapters are able to make homeownership possible for families
with very low incomes. The Colorado Support Office (SSO) of Habitat is developing new finance
models in order to produce a more stable source of ongoing capital to support Habitat building
projects. By utilizing new forms of finance agreements, the Colorado SSO will attempt to engage
local banking organizations in providing a secondary market for Habitat loans. With another capital
flow, the Larimer Habitat may be able to secure more buildable sites which is always a challenge in
higher priced communities.
Another relatively low cost investment to encourage homeownership would be the maintenance of a
well organized website and printed media campaign that would provide accessible information on all
homebuyer programs and financing products . CSI key informant interviews revealed a high level of
frustration among lenders and Realtors about the confusion and lack of information available to
people in the trade as well as potential buyers. The local Realtors organization created such a
website, Northern Colorado Homes, some time ago but the information on that website is not
current and the site needs to be regularly updated. The Larimer County Board of Realtors could
provide an important information tool to the community if it committed to keeping the Homebuyer
education website updated.
Housing Preservation
Goal 2 . Promote the preservation of the existing housing stock and older
neighborhoods by improving the housing and upgrading neighborhood
infrastructure and conditions .
r
Larimer County has the Larimer Home Improvement Program (IAHIP) which offers low interest
loans to homeowners wishing to make needed health and safety improvements to their homes. This
program offers low income homeowners the op ty to'�ot only obtain financing but also
construction management services fo ome imp rove projects . Because the Loveland Housing
Authority has experienced program Tanagers and construction experts, homeowners benefit from
good project management which is a very substantial value on any construction project. Because the
assistance offered is in the form of allortized lows which can be paid back according to the
individual household's budget, the demand for the program i ted. Many lower income
households cannot take on more debt even though they may hsevere deficiencies in their
dwelling. The LAHIP program has done a good job of marked, to low income households and
maintains a steady production output of rehabilitated units. HopTIully, the program will continue to
get a consistent level of support from local and s ate sources. It is far more cost effective to
have to maintain the existing housing stock than ce it because it has becomes unusable.
In order to expand theeffort to preserve the ee housing stock, the HUD 203K loan program
may provide a new source of project financing. There are over 12,000 potential new homeowners in
the Counfl4who could purchase a home that had been modernized using a 203K loan. The
Loveland Housing Authority would have tWability to support the 203K program through fees they
could charge to the individual projects. Currently the City of Fort Collins contributes funds for the
LAHIP program. Those funds are used to support projects in Fort Collins. The same benefits
could accrue to households in. Fort Collins who purchased a home modernized through the 203K
lending product. The FHA 203K loan has gained renewed interest because the FHA down payment
requirements of 3 .5% is onoof the most liberal in the industry currently. The 203K loan is available
to investors, non-profits and individual purchasers.
Loveland and Fort Collins have plans to increase the amount of housing units in their central
business districts . Fort Collins has supported both rental and purchase projects that are either in the
center of the downtown area or slightly on the perimeter. Both downtown areas need more
residential uses in order to provide the base for more stabilized retail activity in the central corridors.
In both communities there are buildings in the central district and also in the perimeter areas that
could be used for housing.
Loveland is developing a comprehensive downtown
redevelopment strategy that will rely on a combination of
Loveland is developing a public and private funding. In order to entice developers to
comprehensive construct housing in old or new buildings in the core area, the
downtown redevelopment public infrastructure investment should enhance the housing.
Important items should include adequate parking available at
strategy to entice minimal cost to the resident; a good mass transit node that
developers to construct would include both local and regional transit options; park
space including areas for dogs. It will also be important for
housing in old or new the municipal government to assess planning and zoning
buildings in the core area, regulations to ensure that issues over the reuse of buildings,
density, treatment of infill new construction, historic
the public infrastructure guidelines, parking requirements, etc. don't create barriers
investment should that become dealibreakers for residential developers. The city
enhance the housing. should also establish some guidelines for the inclusion of
affordable units in each residential project. Most downtown
redevelopment efforts include a mix of office space and retail
frontage. Many of those jobs will be service jobs which wilLnot pay enough for employees to
afford market rents on urban style units which will pensive to construct. The income data in
this report could be used to develop ratios as a is for calculating the nun*tr of affordable
units .
Partnerships
Goal 3 : Create innovative partnerships between government and the
private sector by creating ordinances , plans and policies that expand
housing opportunities and support economic diversity .
Housing is the most highly regulated Comm iaotivity in our modern economy. Federal
monetary policy dictates mortgage rates . Fe caws and regulations govern who lives in the
housing, where the timber is harvested, whether there is a secondary market for the mortgage, etc.
Local and state laws control where the housing gets built, what it looks like, how many houses or
units go on a particular site and who is allowed to build. The decisions made at various levels of
government influence the price and availability of housing.
Often government regulations are perceived as arbitrary barriers to the production of more
affordable housing types . Hower, the thoughtful observer quickly determines that government
agencies are placed in the We of regulator because their constituents, the local voters, desire
government to provide a variety of protections. As the West becomes more populated and land use
patterns become more dense, those who invest in property want government to take a firm hand in
protecting them from surrounding uses which might devalue property or adversely affect health and
quality of life.
A combination of targeted incentives and set-aside requirements should be used to ensure new
development accommodates all sectors of housing demand -- not just those with substantial equity.
Those incentives can include cash or density bonuses. In existing neighborhoods, denser land use
may be achieved by encouraging construction of accessory units attached to existing dwellings.
When there is public investment, subsidies or incentives to lower housing costs, enforcement
mechanisms should be in place to insure that public purposes are met.
Adequate public funding to bridge the gap between development costs and affordable consumer
payments must be in place. In addition to state and federal equity sources, county and municipal
governments often provide cash and non-cash seed money to jump start a project. Utility and
impact fees can easily add $ 10,000 to $20,000 to the cost of every dwelling. If utility authorities can
defer up-front fees and allow them to be paid from project cash flows, greater affordability can be
achieved. Beyond the "vision" contained in a community comprehensive plan, a careful analysis of
the zoning, subdivision, infrastructure, environmental and development standards can yield
efficiencies and reforms which streamline the housing productionoprocess while at the same time
preserve the integrity of the public process designed to prot ct ublic health and well-being.
The challenge th imer County municipalities face with
When there is public affordable housing needs are typical for high growth
communities . The larger cities are well positioned from a
investment, subsidies or planning and implementation perspective to significantly
incentives to lower increase housi choice. discussed at the beginning of this
section, gover funders are under tremendous fiscal stress
housing costs, presently. The ty of Fort Collins has diligently made
enforcement mechanisms improvements in its ,,development review process to make it
more user friendly and t crease the amount time needed to
should be in place to g� approval FortNed
conducted a study of
insure that publ " development fees chrrounding jurisdictions to
purposes are met, compare their fees with ased on the findings of the
005 Ho � Affordability Index Re ort, Fort Collins ranked
the mi of surrounding communities when comparing
development fees.
Unless a va ty tools are created an e mu pal government partners with the private
development sector, it will be difficult to achieve t} needed results. By partnering with developers,
the cities can reduce some developer risk. If transaction and carrying costs for a given project are
lowered, the final costs can be reduced the builder. Given the decline in development and
construction activity, both Loveland and F t Collins could use this slow period to perform a review
of their processes and fees . New fee structures, or streamlined rules will not return vigor to the
construction economy alone, but such actions could help focus community attention on the
opportunities to purchase W
housing at a price that hasn't been attainable for a number of
years.
Because downtown redevelopment can be easily linked with employment and transportation in both
population centers, concentrating on innovative regulatory and development strategies could be a
key component of locally instituted economic stimulus in Larimer County. Signs already point to a
protracted national recovery and many financing and investment mechanisms that were employed in
previous years will no longer be available. Communities that focus on overcoming economic
challenges at the local level will be better positioned to maintain healthy employment and economic
activity.
Some tools and incentives the Cities and County should consider include:
• Higher densities for a specific number of affordable units.
• Tax exempt financing products provided by the government.
• Local cash and fee waivers/deferrals.
• Coordination with other governmental entities such as the Forest Service, the Colorado State
University, state housing agencies, local housing agencies and others.
• City/County-sponsored funding applications to obtain the needed equity from private and
public funding agencies .
Community Support
IV . Facilitate and support affordable housing activities carried out by
community groups and individuals .
The recessionary economy Larimer County benefits from a large group of community
has not spared charitable based organizations devoted to addressing a host of
community needs. Because the County has experienced a high
groups from the loss of growth rate for e past scweral years, there are many families
revenue. Non -profit housing and individualMkt have not shared equally in the economic
bene its of the gr wth in jobs, households and opportunity.
organizations have relied on Through generous public and private support, many
developer fees from tax credit organizations work daily t reate affordable housing and to
provide a range of sul IIervices for individuals who face
investors. All the national both social and physical challen��s.
affordable housing revenue , �/
sources are in decline and he rece nary econom snot spared charitable groups
rom the 1 ss of revenue. The Loveland and Fort Collins
more will have to come from Housing Authorities have experienced cuts to their
local and state sources. management fees nd program revenues. They have turned to
A11111MIL more entrepreneial business practices as a way of continuing
However, new local and state to provide a high quality homes to their low income residents.
sources will have to beIn
Non-profit housing organizations have relied on developer
fees fr �� tax credit investors . All the national affordable
generated since governmhousi�ig revenue sources are in decline and more will have to
funds have also beencome from local and state sources . However, new local and
devastated by the 2008 state sources will have to be generated since government
funds have also been devastated by the 2008-09 Great
Great Recession. Recession.
Enhanced Volunteerism is one way to fill funding gaps. Cash
strapped organizations have also been devastated by the 2008-09 Great Recession. Highly qualified
community volunteers could be recruited to help with tasks that were formally filled by paid
employees. The model of community-wide paint and fix-up efforts is a good starting point. Every
community can benefit from harnessing community pride for painting the homes of frail, low
income citizens or cleaning up untended public and commercial areas. Habit for Humanity has
become one of the largest homebuilders in the world by relying on the backs of volunteers for home
construction.
Various charitable and government funders will need to innovate new ways of evaluating
organizational requests for assistance. Fund utilization analyses and effectiveness measures will need
to capture organizational performance in a way that helps decision makers direct limited funds to the
organizations which can demonstrate the most impact in the community. In some cases, it may be
necessary to merge organizations to gain greater impact for the dollar invested. Those decisions will
be painful to make but must be done in a way that opens the discussions to all interest groups and
allows free flow of information as various alternatives are considered.
Both the statewide housing organizations, Colorado Division of Housing and Colorado Housing
Finance Authority are in a state of flux. They will have new leadership in 2009 and it is important
that Larimer County governments and private organizations engage the new leadership in a problem
solving dialogue about how to best address the new financing realities. Larimer County has taken a
leadership role in the state affordable housing efforts fof many years. Larimer County has pioneered
models for affordable housing finance and for delivedlrth g cost effective supportive services. There
are a variety of federal funds that could be used to support integrated housing and self-sufficiency
efforts. Does the state need to rethink its Community Services Block Grant Program and can the
state utilize more Community Development anSMineral Impac unds for critical needs like worker
housing and homeless housing linked with services?
In an era of reduced resources, it is 'a common reaction t activities in order to better serve
limited objectives. However, community needs are multi ed and county-wide funders and
intermediaries need to reach the right W ce between provide port for a number of services
that directly impact the well beir� of childr and adults in the co d overly focusing on one or
two critical needs. Often organizations hav\ttheir undin truc re on a variety of blocks that
form the pyramid of stability. If one of th remo it can cause the structure to fail
and the community los aluable ice.
ACTION STEPS
Cost Estimate and Priority Scale
$ Little or no dollar outlay
$$ $ 1 ,000 to $ 100,000
$$$ $ 100,000 to $200,000
$$$$ $200,000 to $ 1 ,000,000
$$$$$ More than $ 1 million
Priority Scale
H High
M Medium
L Low
Guide to Abbreviations
Abbreviation Name
LHA Loveland Housing Authority
FCHA Fort Collins Housing Authority
MG Municipal Government
CG County Government
CHFA Colorado Housing Finance Authority
FP Funding Partners
LCUW Larimer County United Way
UC University Connections
FC Foundation Community
PPI Potential Private Investors
DOH Colorado Division of Housing
CARE CARE Housing
N2N Neighborie Neighbor
RH 20/20 Road Home 20/20 Plan
LCDHS Larimer County Department of Human Services
CCN Catholic Charities Northern
LCMH Larimer County Mental Health
FG Foothills Gateway
NCAP Northern Colorado Aids Project
CSH Crossroads Safe House
LIHOP Low Income Home Improvement Program
Housing Goal 1 : Action Steps for Housing Choices
Provide a full range of housing choices in Larimer County. Special efforts should be directed to the
housing needs of groups not easily served by the private market. Those groups include moderate
and lower income families of various sizes, elderly households, and those with special challenges,
new employees.
Item Action Priority Time players/Resources COST
line
a. Larimer county government H MGs, CG, FCHA ,LHA, FP, $$$$$
agencies, affordable housing CARE, local lenders, CHFA,
developers and financing DOH,LCUW,UC,FP,PPI
experts should develop a
local strategy for raising local
capital for affordable
housing developments
b. Larimer County affordable H 2O09- MGs, CG, $$$$$
housing developers, in 014 FC FP,CARE,N2N.local
conjunction with financing lenders, DOH,FB, HUD
entities, should produce 100
new rental units affordable
to households below 50%
AMI in three year period.
Fort Collins, Loveland.
C. Larimer County Housing H 2O09- FCHA,LHA,CARE,N2N, $
Authorities and non-profit 2014 RH2O/20,CCN, LCMH, FG,NCAP,
agencies providing housing HUD, DOH,
assistance to very low
income households<30%
AMI should coordinate plans
for increasing available rental
assistance through Section 8
appropriations and other
non-traditional sources of
assistance including Rapid
Rehousing Funds and
HOME tenant based rental
assistance
d. Larimer County Special H 2O09- FCHA,LHA,CARE,N2N, $$$$
Needs providers should 2014 RH2O/20,CCN, LCMH,
continue to work with FG,NCAP,CSH, LCUW, local
housing developers to lenders, HUD, DOH,CHFA
expand the supply of
transitional housing and
accessible units. Production
goal: at least 12 units
annually
Priority Time Players/Resources
Item Actions Frame COST
g. Larimer County agencies H 2O09- Mgs, CG, private lenders, $$$
should maintain and expand 2014 Realtors, DOH, CHFA,
the down-payment assistance HUD
programs operated by the
City of Fort Collins and
Loveland Housing Authority.
County wide.
h. Larimer County Board of M 2009- Mgs, CG, private lenders, $$
Realtors create/update a 2014 Realtors, DOH, CHFA,
comprehensive HUD
homeownership information
website that would inform
both industry personnel and
potential purchasers about all
the programs and
requirements to support
purchase of homes into
Larimer County.
Housing Goal 2: Action Steps for Housing Preservation
Promote the preservation and affordability of existing housing stock and older neighborhoods by
improving the housing and upgrading neighborhood infrastructure and conditions .
Time
Item Actions Priority Frame COST
Players/Resources
a. Larimer County agencies should H 2O09-2014 LHA, MGs ,CG. DOH $$$$
continue to support and operate ,local lenders, local
the county LIHIP and seek new builders
resources as available. County-
wide
b. Larimer County agencies should M 2009- LHA, MGs, CG. DOH, $$$
examine the expansion of their 20014 local lenders, local
housing preservation efforts by builde s. FP,HUD
initiating an acquisition/rehab
program that might include an
initial emphasis on foreclosed and
poorly maintained properties. IN
addition to current sources of
funding, the HUD 203K
program may be a new
County-wide
C. Fort Collins and Loveland should M 2009-2014 $$$$$
create the necessary plans and
regulatory framework to facilitate
the inclusion of affordable
housing in downtown
redevelopment projects as a way
of increasing the supply of
housing for workers in the MGs, private developers,
downtown businesses. Fort affordable developers,
Collins, Loveland. local lenders, FP
d. Loveland should focus public M 2009-2011 $$$$$
investment for infrastructure and
other public amenities in the 14
downtown re-development area Loveland MG, private
in way that makes downtown developers, affordable
convenient and attractive to developers, local lenders,
potential residents. - transportation agencies,
dog lovers
Housing Goal 3: Action Steps for Partnerships
Create innovative partnerships between government and the private sector by creating ordinances,
plans and policies that expand housing opportunities and support economic diversity.
Item Action Priority Time Players/Resources Cost
line
a. The municipalities and H 2O09- MGs, CG, local builders, $$$$
County should continually 2014 local lenders, local Realtors,
review local development affordable housing
regulations and incentives develope
to see if modifications
would encourage more
affordable housing
development. A review
should include
consideration of higher
densities, tax exempt
financing sponsored by
local governments, local
cash donations and fee
waivers
Housing Goal 4: Action Steps for Community Support
Facilitate and support housing activities carried out by community groups and individuals.
Item Actions Priority Time Players/Resources COST
Frame
a. Public and private agencies H 2O09- CG, MGs, LCUW ,religious $$$$
in Larimer County should 2014 community, charitable
continue to provide the foundations, i 'dual donors,
excellent financial and CSU,DOH, HUD,
political support for
community groups creating
new affordable housing and
family stability opportunities.
Countywide 4 #
b. Government and private H 2O09- CG, MGs, LCUW, local $
leaders in Larimer County 2014 affordable housing
should engage state and organizations, local lenders,
federal organizations in local charitable foundations,
discussions to develop new DOH, CHFA, HUD,
strategies for distributing
funding for local needs.
Countywide
C. In order to overcome M 2009- LCUW, affordab sing and $
funding cutbacks and 2011 human s ice genies,
limitations, local affordable charitable foundations,
housing and human service religious co unity, CSU,
organizations should local service clubs, students
examine ways to more fully and teachers
uti9volunteeli, or higher
lever work_ and more
complex projects. A central
agency should co e
available volunteer pose
with interested voluntee
Countywide
APPENDIX B - 2009 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES POVERTY
GUIDELINES
There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure : poverty thresholds
and poverty guidelines .
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure . They are
updated each year by the Census Bureau . The thresholds are used mainly for statistical
purposes — for instance, preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each
year. In other words, all official poverty population figures are calculated using the poverty
thresholds, not the guidelines . The thresholds are updated annually for inflation using the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( CPI - U ) . Although the thresholds in some sense
reflect families needs, they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete
description of what people and families need to live and many government aid programs use a
different poverty measure, the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) poverty
guidelines . %id
The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure . They are issued
each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS) .
The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for use for administrative
purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs . The
HHS poverty guidelines, or percentage multiples of them (such as 125 percent, 150 percent, or
185 percent), are used as an eligibility criterion by a number of federal programs . Poverty
guidelines for the United States are reported in Table 7 below .
Table 7 : 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the United St VS
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $ 10, 830
2 $ 14, 570
3 $ 18, 310
4 $22, 050
5 $ 25, 790
6 $ 29, 530
7 $33, 270
84 $37, 010
s Source : http ://aspe . hhs . gov/POVERTY/09povertV. shtml
4 For households with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person .
For purposes of comparison, Table 8 below reports the ratio of Area Median Income (AMI ) to
the poverty guidelines for a household of four. Essentially, households in poverty are all below
the 30% AMI level, meaning they are classified as "extremely low- income" according to the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development' s ( HUD ) classification system . The household
of four AMI level of $ 75, 200 has a ratio of income to poverty level of 3 . 14, which means a
household of four earning 100% AMI has more than three times the income as a family below
the poverty level . A household of four at 50% of AMI has an income of almost twice ( 1 . 70) the
income as the same size household below the poverty level .
Table 8 : Equivalency of AMI levels to Levels of Poverty and the Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent
Ratio of Maximum
Percent HUD Income to Affordable Monthly
2009 Annual AMIs of AMI Classification Poverty6 Rent'
$75, 200 100% Moderate Income 3 .41 $ 1, 752
$60, 150 80% Low Income 2 . 73 $ 1, 376
$45, 120 60% Low Income 2 . 05 $ 1, 000
$37, 600 50% Very Low Income 1 . 70 $812
$22, 550 30% Extremely Low Income 1 . 02 $436
$22, 050 29% Extremely Low Income 1 . 00 $423
5 2009 Median Family Income for a family of four for the Fort Collins/Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area
( Larimer County) according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is $75, 200, also known as the
Area Median Income (AMI ) .
6 The Census Bureau's poverty thresholds are the same nationwide, with no separate figures for different states,
metropolitan areas, or cities . The 2009 poverty threshold for a family of four is $22,050.
" Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent" is calculated by multiplying the AMI by 30%, then dividing by 12, and
subtracting $ 128 as an allowance for necessary utilities (electricity, natural gas, etc. ) . The $ 128 monthly utility
allowance is the HUD Section 8 guideline for Fort Collins .
APPENDIX C - CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THE 2010 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN
To be added after the public review .
APPENDIX D - DEFINITIONS
The City' s Land Use Code contains the following definitions for an affordable housing unit for
sale, an affordable housing unit for rent, and an affordable housing project
Affordable housing unit for sale shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for purchase on
terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty ( 80) percent or less of the median
income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-eight ( 38)
percent of their gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, utilities
and homeowners' association fees . The unit must be occupied by and affordable to such low-
income household (s) for a period of not less than twenty (20) years .
� `
Affordable housing unit for rent shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for rent on terms
that would be affordable to households earning eighty ( 80) percent or less of the median
income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty ( 30 ) percent of
their gross income for housing, including rent and utilities. The unit must be occupied by and
affordable to such low- income household ( s ) for a period of not less than twenty ( 20) years .
Affordable housing project shall mean a development project in which : ( 1 ) at least seventy-five
( 75 ) percent of the gross acreage to be developed under the plan is to be developed as
residential dwelling units or mobile home park spaces; ( 2 ) at least ten ( 10) percent of said
dwelling units or spaces (the "affordable housing units" ) are to be available for rent or purchase
on the terms described in the definitions of affordable housing unit for rent or affordable
housing unit for sale ( as applicable); ( 3 ) the construction of the dwelling units or spaces is to
occur as part of the initial phase of the project and ( i ) prior to the construction of the market
rate units or ( ii ) on a proportional basis, according to the same ratio as the number of
affordable units bears to the number of the market rate units; and (4) the units will be required
by binding legal instrument acceptable to the city and duly recorded with the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder, to be occupied by and affordable to low- income households for at least
twenty ( 20) years . S)
ATTACHMENT 2
2010 - 2014
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
City Council Work Session
May 11 , 2010
F�t`
Collins
bw
Guidance Sought
• Does Council have any questions or comments
regarding the proposed strategies and policies ?
Fort Collins
1
Background
• 1999 Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies Report
• 2004 Priority Affordable Housing Needs and
Strategies Report
• 2009 Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment
• Input from community stakeholders
• Affordable Housing Board and Community
Development Block Grant ( CDBG ) Commission joint
subcommittee
F�t`
Collins
February 23 Council Work Session
Goal 2010-2014 2004-2009
Priority Priority
Increase the inventory of # 1 # 1
affordable rental units
Preserve existing #2 #3
affordable housing units
Increase housing and facilities for #3 N / A
people with special needs
Provide financial assistance for #4 #2
first-time homebuyers
Fort Collins
2
2010=2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
• Establish goals and strategies to direct resources for
the next five years
• Guide funding and policy decisions
• Provide a flexible framework to address pressing
issues
City0Fort Collins
Financial Resources
Source Annual Amount 2010-2014 Total
CDBG Grant + $ 6895000 $ 3 , 3957000
Program Income
HOME Grant + $662 ; 110 $3 , 310 , 550
Program Income
City Affordable $ 188 ,890 $944 ,450
Housing Fund
Total $ 1 , 540 , 000 $7 , 700 , 000
-� Fort�ins
3
Goals and Objectives
1 Increase the inventory Produce rental units affordable to
of affordable rental units households at 50 % and below of
Area Median Income (AMI )
2 Preserve existing Monitor existing units and provide
affordable housing units assistance to keep them affordable
3 Increase housing and Encourage and support housing
facilities for people with and facility projects for those with
special needs special needs
4 Provide financial Encourage and support assistance
assistance to first-time to first-time homebuyers
homebuyers
Fort` Collins
�`
Five -Year Strategies
• Examine the City' s affordable housing development
incentives
Priority Processing
Development Review Fee Waiver
Impact Fee Delay
— Density Bonus
City of
Fort Collins
4
Five -Year Strategies
• Investigate a permanent source of funding for the
City' s Affordable Housing Fund
— Inconsistency of the General Fund
— Local source benefits
F�t`
Collins
Five -Year Strategies
• Require residential projects requesting Tax Increment
Financing (TIF ) to provide affordable housing units
— Projects within the Urban Renewal Authority or
Downtown Development Authority boundaries
— Minimum 10 %
City of
Fort Collins
5
Five -Year Strategies
• Increase the period of affordability for City-funded
projects from 20 to 40 years
— Secured with covenants or deed restrictions
— Keep the supply of affordable units as long as
possible
F�t` ollins
Policy
• Allocate financial resources according to the priority
goals of the adopted Strategic Plan
Assist decision - makers in the allocation of funds
Funding should go first to quality projects that
address the higher priority goals
City of
Fort Collins
6
Next Steps
Date Process Step
April-May 2010-2014 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(Strategic Plan) available for public review
May 11 Council work session on the Strategic Plan 's
goals , policies , objectives , and implementation
strategies
June 3 Public hearings on the Strategic Plan by the
Affordable Housing Board and CDBG Commission
June 15 Council considers adoption of the Strategic Plan
ort�`s
ha Ing
Thank You
1
`�t Collins