HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/26/2013 - HEARING AND RESOLUTION 2013-027 ADOPTING THE AFFORDATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Hearing and Resolution 2013-027 Adopting the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy,
a Strategic Plan for Preserving Affordable Housing, including Mobile Home Parks and Other Types of Affordable
Housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan.
The purpose of the Strategic Plan was to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects
by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the
displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are
located inside the city limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City
Charter.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy identifies strategies to preserve existing
affordable housing units. It also clarifies City and property-owner/redeveloper responsibilities and obligations to
residents when redevelopment projects cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-
2014, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as
an important component of the community’s housing stock, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents
displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities.
The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan
to address City policies contained in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014. This past fall,
City staff, with the assistance of a consulting team, began an effort to clarify the City’s role, responsibilities, and
obligations in avoiding the loss of affordable housing and dealing with relocation issues when redevelopment causes
the displacement of low-income people from their homes. The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategy addresses the City Council’s request for a change to the current ad hoc, case-by-case methods
of dealing with the loss of affordable housing and mobile home parks.
For a variety of reasons, a couple of mobile home parks recently closed in Fort Collins, and since the mid-1990s a total
of five parks have closed. These closures displaced park residents and caused them to relocate. In all of the
displacement cases, City staff provided support and collaborated with other agencies to relocate or find other housing
for park residents. While there were some similarities in these park closures, the City’s involvement varied, and was
basically handled on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis.
Affordable multi-family rental units are typically considered the more common form of low-income housing in the
community. In 2010, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, which contains four
priority goals for the development of additional affordable housing; the preservation of existing affordable units; the
addition of units and facilities for special populations (homeless, seniors, etc.); and offering additional home ownership
opportunities for low-income families. The City already has several programs in place to acquire, manage, and
preserve apartments on a non-profit basis to keep rents at affordable levels and to provide assistance to first-time
home buyers.
Manufactured/mobile homes are a unique form of low-income housing. Many mobile home residents are homeowners
(they own their unit) but lease the land on which their home is located. Closure/redevelopment of a mobile home park
means that unit owners must move not only their personal belongings, but also must move the unit itself, or find
another form of housing – a challenging and stressful situation for residents.
March 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 10
The following table presents a comparison of the number of units in designated affordable housing multi-family
apartment/condo complexes, where rents are limited to levels affordable to low-income families and that contain long-
term commitments (e.g., 30 years) for affordability, versus the number of manufactured/mobile housing units located
in mobile home parks within the City limits and boundaries of the Growth Management Area (GMA).
Number of Units Category
1,969 Designated Affordable Housing Units
in Multi-Family Apartment/Condo Complexes
2,781 Mobile/Manufactured Housing Units
within the City Limits and GMA boundary.
While not every family residing in a mobile home park qualifies as low-income, information from key stakeholder
groups, including mobile home park property-owners/managers and park residents, indicates that the vast majority
of residents are low-income (including many seniors on fixed incomes). Thus, from the table data above, mobile home
units represent a significant proportion of the city’s inventory of lower cost/affordable housing. However, there are no
requirements that lot rents remain affordable to low-income families, and there no affordability period guarantees with
any of the mobile home parks. Most mobile home park residents are on month-to-month leases.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy is a strategic plan that deals with
displacement mitigation of families forced to relocate due to redevelopment activities. But, the strategic plan also deals
with preservation and stabilization options to reduce the potential for future redevelopment and displacement of low-
income residents. Simply put, if a affordable rental unit and/or mobile home park can be stabilized and preserved,
it reduces the probability of needing to deal with relocation issues in the future. Topics covered in greater detail in the
strategic plan include:
• A review of current City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014.
• An inventory and analysis of apartments with income controls and required affordability periods and
manufactured/mobile home parks.
• Options to discourage the loss of affordable housing including affordable rental units and mobile home parks
including:
N Acquisition of designated affordable units by non-profit agencies (e.g., the Fort Collins Housing Authority)
to preserve them in the affordable housing inventory.
N Rezoning of mobile home parks into a Manufactured/Mobile Home Park District.
N Financial assistance for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.
N Resident purchase of mobile home parks.
• Options to mitigate the impacts of dislocation from affordable housing including:
N Requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Act.
N Requirements of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
N Additional notice of mobile home park closure.
N Requirements for a Relocation Report.
N Required payment of relocation costs.
• Summary of the public involvement process.
City Council Work Session, October 23, 2012
On October 23, 2012, the planning team (staff and consultants) conducted a work session with the City Council to
review mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements to mitigate the impact on
residents displaced and forced to relocate due to a redevelopment project. The team was seeking feedback from the
Council as to the level of comfort the Council may have with some of the preservation techniques and relocation
assistance requirements researched by the team so far in the planning process. A summary of the work session is
attached (see Attachment 1). Council gave direction to the planning team to keep all options on the table, with one
exception (the Notice of Vacancy “Illegal Closures”), and to process them further with the stakeholder groups and the
public, before returning to the Council for final decisions. While Council kept many options on the table, it did not mean
that all options would eventually be supported and adopted by the Council.
March 26, 2013 -3- ITEM 10
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the community. This
means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit to economic sustainability. Residents
of affordable housing include teachers, emergency services personnel, retail clerks, office support staff, etc., who all
provide needed goods and services to Fort Collins residents on a daily basis.
Redevelopment projects can produce significant benefits for Fort Collins, whether in increased sales and property tax,
or by removing blighted or underused properties, or by generating jobs or employment. So, it is always wise to
consider whether some types of redevelopment should be exempted from displacement mitigation strategies because
they could produce benefits to the City that offset (or more than offset) the costs they impose on current residents of
the property.
Requirements for redevelopment projects to pay the relocation costs of displaced low-income families would eliminate
the need for the City to consider contributing funds for relocations purposes. Requirements for redevelopment projects
to pay for the relocation of displaced families will increase the costs of the redevelopment project and could make
some projects economically infeasible.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing helps provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable housing options for low-income
people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the community instead of being forced to live outside the community
and commute into the city for work. This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green building practices.
Green building practices are being used in both new construction and major rehabilitation of existing housing unit
projects. These practices include geothermal applications and other energy saving techniques.
Most new affordable housing developments and significant rehabilitation projects utilize financial subsidies from federal
grant programs (e.g., CDBG and HOME). Utilization of federal funds requires an Environmental Assessment and an
analysis of floodplain hazards, noise, hazardous materials, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy.
Affordable rental units (apartments and homes), mobile homes (pre-1976), and manufactured homes (1976 and later,
which meet HUD safety standards) remain an important source of affordable housing in Fort Collins and Larimer
County. When affordable residential units are lost, they compound the difficulty of meeting the city’s affordable
housing needs. Many of the existing mobile/manufactured homes are located in mobile home parks, which raise
challenges when mobile home parks are redeveloped for other uses. Mobile/manufactured home owners own their
homes but rent the spaces where they are located. When mobile home parks close, residents need to move their
homes to other locations, which is complicated by the fact that many homes are old and difficult to move and spaces
in mobile home parks are often in short supply (particularly for older homes). If the mobile/manufactured home cannot
be moved, the owner faces the loss of not just a place to live but an asset that they have purchased. In recent years,
Fort Collins has experienced several mobile home park closures, has been asked to assist in relocating residents, and
has done so on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation
Strategy document sets a strategic policy direction for the City to address these issues in a more consistent way in
the future.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy recommends that the City of Fort Collins
take the following seven steps to address the above issues, each of which is described in more detail in the Strategic
Plan document. Some of the following recommended steps have been modified from the Public Review Draft
document based on recommendations by the Affordable Housing Board and/or the Planning and Zoning board - the
footnotes help explain the changes. A table comparing the initial recommendations in the Public Review Draft and
March 26, 2013 -4- ITEM 10
changes made and contained in the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy document
presented to the City Council is provided in the Board/Commission Recommendations section below.
1. Continue to expand the inventory of “designated affordable” dwelling units, buildings, and complexes through
current programs administered by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, other non-profit affordable housing
agencies, and private developers.
2. Continue to offer relocation assistance to those residents of affordable units redeveloped with the use of
federal, Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (FCURA), or other City funds, but do not extend a requirement
to pay relocation expenses in private redevelopment projects that do not use public funds and do not require
a discretionary land use decision by the City.1
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park Zoning District and rezone into that district those mobile home parks that
are relatively large and can serve as significant sources of affordable housing for the long term. From 1965
to 1997 the City of Fort Collins had two mobile home park zoning districts and most of the existing mobile
home parks located inside the city limits were zoned in one of those districts. A copy of the City’s former M-M
Medium Density Mobile Home Park district is attached for reference (see attachment 2).
4. Create a loan or grant program, or use the existing financial assistance competitive process, that would be
available to finance significant investments in new or existing affordable housing infrastructure that would be
available to those larger mobile home parks willing to commit to continuing operation of their mobile home
parks for a at least 10 years.2
5. Require a one (1) year notice of closure period for mobile home parks (rather than the 6 month minimum
notice required by the state). As an alternative, allow a six (6) month closure notice if the park owner delivers
to each resident on or before the notice date a detailed Relocation Report listing all available mobile home
park spaces available within 25 miles, providing the contact information for each of those park owners, and
including documented estimates of the costs of moving mobile/manufactured homes to those locations. In
addition, the notice provision shall also alert residents that the park may be closed before the mandatory
notice period has expired if all park residents have been successfully relocated to each party’s mutual
satisfaction.3
6. Require that redevelopment projects involving City financial assistance or a discretionary land use decision
by the City pay (a) actual costs of relocating owner occupied mobile/manufactured homes to a new site within
a 25 mile radius of the mobile home park, up to a maximum of $6,000 for a single-wide home and $8,000 for
a double-wide home, and (b) the actual value (as determined by the County Assessor) of any home that is
structurally able to be moved but that cannot be moved due to the unavailability of any spaces within 25 miles,
and (c) one-half of the actual value (as determined by the County Assessor) of any mobile/manufactured
homes that cannot be moved due to structural weakness or poor condition.4
1 The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority is currently considering narrowing its relocation assistance
policies to apply only when there is an eminent domain/condemnation action by the URA. This policy
change would have a significant impact on mobile/manufactured home owners, since they do not own the
land that is the subject of the condemnation action and generally do not participate in the negotiations.
This represents a departure from federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements followed by the Fort Collins
URA in the past, which were designed to protect renters in these types of situations.
2 Wording revised to broaden applicability to all affordable housing infrastructure, as recommended by
Planning and Zoning Board.
3 Wording revised to reflect recommendations of the Affordable Housing Board.
4 Affordable Housing Board recommended that this provision be strengthened, and Planning and Zoning
Board recommended that it be deleted. Recommendation remains unchanged from Public Review Draft,
except that relocation cost caps recommended by the AHB have been included.
March 26, 2013 -5- ITEM 10
7. Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-profit affordable housing providers, and support organizations
to purchase affordable housing types, including mobile home parks, offered for redevelopment and manage
them as long-term sources of affordable housing.5
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Affordable Housing Board
The Affordable Housing Board conducted a public hearing on February 7, 2013, to solicit comments on the Public
Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. The Board recommended
changes to two of the seven recommendations as contained in the Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. These changes have been incorporated into the recommendations
listed in the previous section. A copy of the Board’s meeting minutes is attached (see Attachment 3).
Planning and Zoning Board
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a special public hearing on March 15, 2013, to solicit comments on the
Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. Minutes of the March
15, 2013, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting are attached (see Attachment 4).
Presented below is a table comparing the recommendations as contained in the Public Review Draft document, to the
changes recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, to the changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Board, and whether or not changes were made to the recommendations in the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy document presented to Council.
Comparison of Recommendations from Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board
Public Review Draft ó City Council Document
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
1. Continue to expand the inventory
of “designated affordable”
dwelling units, buildings, and
complexes through current
programs administered by the
Fort Collins Housing Authority,
other non-profit affordable
housing agencies, and private
developers.
No change No change No change
2. Continue to offer relocation
assistance to those residents of
affordable units redeveloped with
the use of federal, Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority
(FCURA), or other City funds, but
do not extend a requirement to
pay relocation expenses in
private redevelopment projects
that do not use public funds.
No change No Change No change
5 Wording revised to reflect Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to broaden impact to include
purchase of all types of affordable housing.
March 26, 2013 -6- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park
Zoning District and rezone into
that district those mobile home
parks that are relatively large and
can serve as significant sources
of affordable housing for the long
term.
No change Do Not Include
Inconsistent with
Comprehensive Plan
and current zoning
criteria –
Recommended
Strategy
remains in City
Council
document
4. Create a loan or grant program,
or use the existing financial
assistance competitive process,
that would be available to finance
significant investments in mobile
home park water, sewer, septic,
or road infrastructure that would
be available to those larger
mobile home parks willing to
commit to continuing operation of
their mobile home parks for a at
least 10 years.
No change Substitute text to
broaden
recommendation to all
affordable housing
types:
“Create a loan or grant
program, or use the
existing financial
assistance competitive
process, that would be
available to finance
significant investments
in mobile home park
water, sewer, septic, or
road new or existing
affordable housing
infrastructure that would
be available to those
larger mobile home
parks willing to commit
March 26, 2013 -7- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
period has expired if all park
residents have been successfully
relocated.
moving
mobile/manufactured
homes to those locations.
In addition, the notice
provision shall also alert
residents that the park
may be closed before the
mandatory notice period
if all park residents have
been successfully
relocated to each party’s
mutual satisfaction.
6. Require that redevelopment
projects pay (a) actual costs of
relocating owner occupied
mobile/manufactured homes to a
new site within a 25 mile radius
of the mobile home park and (b)
pay at least a portion of the value
of units that cannot be moved.
• Note – this applies only to
projects involving city financial
assistance or a discretionary
land use decision.
Require that mobile home
park owners or
redevelopers pay (a)
actual costs of relocating
mobile/manufactured
homes to a new site within
25 miles of the
redevelopment site, with a
maximum relocation cost
of $6,000 for a single-wide
unit and $8,000 for a
double-wide unit, (b) the
actual value of any home
(as determined by the
County Assessor) that is
structurally able to be
moved but that cannot be
moved due to the
unavailability of any
spaces within 25 miles,
and (c) the actual value of
any home (as determined
March 26, 2013 -8- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
mobile home parks
offered for
redevelopment and
manage them as long-
term sources of
affordable housing.”
Summary of Significant Differences
• Recommendation #3 - Create a Mobile Home Park Zoning District and rezone several mobile home parks into the
new zone to help preserve them. The Planning and Zoning Board does not support a new mobile home park zone.
The Affordable Housing Board supports the recommendation.
• Recommendation #6 - Require redevelopment projects to pay displacement relocation costs. The Affordable
Housing Board supports the recommendation and sets limits as to the amounts of assistance to individual unit
owners. The Planning and Zoning Board does not support the recommendation and, instead, suggests
establishment of an impact fee or use of TIF to fund relocation costs and the development of additional affordable
housing.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The involvement of stakeholder groups, the general public, and City boards and commissions was a very important
component of this project. Three key stakeholder groups were identified and have been involved in the project,
including: (1) mobile home park property-owners; (2) mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and
interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and human service agencies (e.g., Fort Collins Housing Authority,
Neighbor-to-Neighbor, CARE Housing, The Murphy Center, and Funding Partners).
A project website (http://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/mobilehomeservices.php) was established for the
dissemination of information, announcement of upcoming public meetings, and collection of public comments. An
online survey was available to offer another option for people to provide feedback who were not able to attend the
information open house, or may not be able to attend the public hearings.
Two key City advisory boards have been involved in the process, the Affordable Housing Board, because mobile
homes are a low cost, affordable housing component of the community’s housing stock, and the Planning and Zoning
Board, because future redevelopment of mobile home parks will likely involve decisions by the Board.
Two departments of the Larimer County government were also involved, including the Planning Department and the
Environmental Health Department.
Stakeholder / Public Meetings
Three stakeholder informational meetings were scheduled in September 2012 as part of the first phase of the public
process for the project. The three meetings for the specific stakeholder groups included: (1) manufactured/mobile
home park property-owners; (2) manufactured/mobile home owners, park residents, and interested citizens; and (3)
affordable housing and social service agencies. Notes from these initial informational meetings are attached (see
Attachment 5).
In November 2012, a second set of stakeholder meetings were conducted to provide a project update and report on
the results of the October 23, 2012, City Council work session about how to mitigate the impacts to residents when
manufactured/mobile home parks are redeveloped for other uses. Topics covered at the meetings included the
following:
March 26, 2013 -9- ITEM 10
• Mobile Home Park Preservation and Stabilization Techniques
N Mobile Home Park Zoning District
N Resident Purchase of Mobile Home Parks
N Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Financial Assistance
• Notice of Park Closure
N Relocation Assistance Requirements
N Relocation Report
N Payment of Relocation Costs
Notes from these second set of stakeholder meetings are attached (see Attachment 6).
Open House
On January 24, 2013, an Open House was conducted to present the Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. Printed copies of the draft strategic plan document were available
at the open house. The document was also available for viewing on the project’s web site. Flyers announcing the
open house, as well as the future public hearings by the Affordable Housing Board, the Planning and Zoning Board,
and the City Council, were mailed to all 23 mobile home park property-owners and to 3,600+ residents (unit owners
and renters) of mobile home parks, located both inside the City limits and within the Growth Management Area. Flyers
were also sent via email to citizens who had attended previous stakeholder meetings and/or who indicated they wished
to receive notices of additional meetings by submitting their email address on the project’s web page, and to selected
staff of affordable housing and social service agencies.
The open house contained a series of 15 informational boards highlighting the key points of the strategic plan to
preserve affordable housing units, including mobile home parks, and the proposed requirements for the payment of
relocation assistance to displaced residents. Members of the planning team (staff and consultants) were available to
answer questions and provide additional information. Approximately 80 people attended the open house. Most
attendees were residents of mobile home parks, but a few park owners and staff from affordable housing agencies
also attended. Attendees were encouraged to fill out comment cards or complete the on-line survey using available
laptop computers.
Survey Results and Selected Public Comments
The Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy was posted for
public review on the project’s web site on January 10, 2013. In order to obtain additional detailed feedback on the
strategic plan, the planning team organized an on-line survey that was posted on the web site and publicized on
January 11, 2012. The survey was not a random sample, statistically valid survey to obtain results that could be
equated to being representative of opinions of a larger group of people in the community. Anyone could visit the
project’s web site and participate in the survey.
Public input from the survey and comment cards were integrated and the results are summarized in the Affordable
Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, October 23, 2012
2. M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home District
3. Affordable Housing Board Public Hearing minutes, February 7, 2013,
4. Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing minutes, March 15, 2013
5. September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings notes
6. November 2012 Stakeholder Update Meetings notes
7. Powerpoint presentation
Social Sustainability
321 W. Maple Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.fcgov.com
Attachment 1
October 31, 2012
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner
RE: Work Session Summary – October 23, 2012 – Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation
Strategies
Council Members Present:
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Pro Tem
Aislinn Kottwitz
Ben Manvel
Lisa Poppaw
Wade Troxell
Work Session Participants:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
Ken Waido, Chief Planner
Don Elliott, Senior Consultant, Clarion Associates
Ishbel Dickens, Clarion Associates
Direction Sought/Questions to be Answered:
The planning team (staff and consultants) attended the work session to receive Council’s
responses and comments regarding the following questions:
1. What feedback does Council have regarding the following preservation and stabilization
options for mobile home parks?
1
a. Mobile Home Park Zoning District
b. Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for
Sale of Mobile Home Park
c. Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement
2. What feedback does Council have regarding the following options for notice to affected
residents?
a. Notice of Closure
b. Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”)
3. What feedback does Council have regarding the following general relocation assistance
requirement options?
a. Relocation Report
b. Payment of Relocation Costs
c. Rental Assistance
4. Does the Council have any additional questions or comments at this time?
Council’s Discussion/Direction:
General Comments:
The current title of the project seems to indicate that the project addresses all affordable
housing, but the emphasis from the background materials is on mobile home parks – the
title should be revised to reflect either an emphasis on mobile homes or recognition that
other types of affordable housing are included in the project.
There is a need to clarify/be consistent with terms “mobile home” and “manufactured
housing.”
Project team should gather data to determine if mobile homes are actually a form of
affordable housing (i.e., need to look at average monthly costs, median incomes, percent
of income going towards housing, etc.).
All units within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) need to be addressed in this
strategic plan, not just units within the City limits
The strategic plan needs to address situations where mobile home park properties may
redevelop as other types of affordable housing.
Preservation and Stabilization Techniques
Mobile Home Park Zoning District
Council indicated that they did not believe a “one size fits all” solution is a viable option
for all parks. Different parks will need different techniques.
Approaches need to be tailored to different mobile home community characteristics,
which could include location, age, size, infrastructure, etc.
2
This option should remain a possibility and continue to be explored, especially in
combination with potential incentives for the development of new parks or voluntary
zoning into a mobile home park zone.
Park Resident Ownership
Resident-owned communities are likely to be very challenging to accomplish, but should
remain an option to be explored, looking at other comparable communities for potential
models or other ideas.
Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement
A program to provide financial assistance to mobile home park property-owners to
repair/replace aged infrastructure should remain an option within the strategic plan.
Notice of Closure
A longer notification period regarding a pending closure of a mobile home park seems
like a good approach and was supported by the Council – it would be good to have
examples of what other communities similar to Fort Collins are doing (e.g., is 12 months
suitable for a notification period?).
Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”)
Notice of vacancy may be a necessary approach to prevent circumventing of the
mitigation strategy requirements, but that needs to be explicit (otherwise this can appear
as too heavy-handed on the free market).
Council did not support this option.
Relocation Assistance Requirements
Relocation Report
A requirement for a relocation report which provides data and information regarding a
pending park closure, the socio-economic characteristics of park residents, and support
services available to residents seems like good approach to be included in the strategic
plan.
Payment of Relocation Costs
Taxpayer funds should probably not be the basis for future relocation assistance that is
needed due to private development. Relocation assistance could be paid by the
landowner/developer or possibly through a fund that generates revenue based on some
3
sort of mobile home transfer fees (although there may be some state limitations on
transfer fees).
The project needs to consider that any additional costs to the park owners could lead to
increased costs for residents in some communities.
Definition of Affordable Housing
Council requested clarification as to what constitutes an affordable housing unit. The City’s Land
Use Code contains definitions for an affordable housing unit. There are actually two definitions,
one for an affordable rental unit and the other for an affordable unit for sale.
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, adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty (30)
percent of gross income for housing, including rent and utilities.
Affordable housing unit for sale 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, adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-
eight (38) percent of gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes,
insurance, utilities, and homeowners’ association fees.
If low-income households were to pay a higher percentage of their gross income for housing than
the above limits, they would have less money available for food, medicine, transportation, etc.
The 2012 Median Income (AMI) for a family of four in Fort Collins is $77,700.
The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 establishes priorities for City financial
assistance for affordable housing programs. The top priority is to increase the inventory of rental
housing for families earning 50% or less of the AMI. The lowest priority is for first-time home
buyers earning between 60% and 80% of AMI.
Next Steps:
The planning team will meet in early November with each of the key stakeholder groups
and report on the Council feedback from the October 23 work session.
Stakeholder Focus Groups will meet to discuss more specific topics in November and
December.
The Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board will conduct public
hearings in January 2013.
The City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the strategic plan on February 5,
2013.
4
1
Attachment 2
The following zoning district for mobile home parks was included in the City of Fort Collins’
Zoning Ordinance from the mid-1960s to 1997.
M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District
Sec. 29-271. Purpose
The M-M Medium Density Mobile Home Park District is for areas for mobile homes.
Sec. 29-272. Uses permitted.
The uses permitted in the M-M District are as follows:
(1) Any use permitted in an R-M Medium Density Residential District, subject to all of the
use and density requirements of such district.
(2) Mobile homes on individual lots subject to all density requirements specified for a single-
family dwelling in an R-M Medium Density Residential District.
(3) Mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding eight (8) units
per net acre with accessory buildings and uses for storage, service and recreation.
(4) Mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding twelve (12)
units per net acre with accessory buildings and uses for storage, service and recreation,
provided that the plan for such mobile home park is shown on a Planned Unit
Development plan processed, approved and recorded according to the PUD code..
Sec. 29-273. Bulk and area requirements.
The bulk and area requirements in the M-M District are as follows:
(1) Each mobile home park established in the M-M District shall contain a minimum of five
(5) acres.
(2) Each mobile home park established in this district shall contain a minimum width of two
hundred (200) feet. In addition, there shall be a minimum width of sixty (60) feet which
shall front on a public street to provide access to the mobile home park.
(3) Minimum yard requirements in this district are as follows:
a. The minimum distance of any building or mobile home from any exterior lot line
of the mobile home park shall be thirty (30) feet. In addition, the minimum
distance of any building or mobile home from any public dedicated street shall be
twenty (20) feet.
b. The minimum distance allowed between mobile homes and the buildings in a
mobile home park shall be ten (10) feet.
1
Attachment 3
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado
February 7, 2013
Chair: Dan Byers
Staff Liaison: Ken Waido, 970-221-6753
City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw
Board Members present: Dan Byers, Jeffrey Johnson, Troy Jones, Curt Lyons, Tatiana
Martin, Karen Miller
Board Members excused: Terence Hoagland
Staff present: Ken Waido
Other Staff present: Kathryn Grimes, Note Taker
Guests: Shelby Sommer, Clarion Associates LLC; Ishbel Dickens, Manufactured
Homeowners Association of America; Jessica Ping-Small, City Revenue and Project
Manager
Meeting called to order with a quorum present at 4:05 p.m. by Chair Dan Byers
Public Comment
None.
Affordable Housing Displacement Relocation Mitigation Strategies
Ken Waido: Gave a PowerPoint presentation for an overview of the salient points of the
Public Review Draft Document before the board opened the meeting up to public comments.
The board will need to listen to public comments, have a discussion, then vote to make
recommendations to the City Council on items and issues related to the document.
The draft document has two major sections: 1) options for mobile home park stabilization
and preservation, and 2) options for displacement and relocation assistance of mobile home
park residents and what would be required for that particular section, Seven major
recommendations of the document are:
1) Continue to expand the inventory affordable housing units.
2) Continue to offer money and funding for these projects.
2
3) Create a Mobile home park zone for park preservation.
4) Create a grant or loan program for infrastructure maintenance.
5) Require one year notice of future park closures.
6) Provide relocation costs
7) Potential resident purchase of the park.
Dan Byers: At this time, we will open this up to public comment. Please keep your
comments to five minutes.
Susan Harmon: I currently reside at the mobile home park at 1601 N College Avenue. My
grandparents purchased a mobile home there in 1985. I now live there with my mother. The
park has been there since 1965. It is considered to be one of the nicer park although it is in a
highly desirable area of town for redevelopment. I thoroughly support the recommendation
extending the notification from six months to one year. We are looking at a resident
population of mostly over 55 years of age, senior citizens, who have very low income or
fixed income. Plus they’re elderly, set in their ways, resistant to change. It’s going to take
time for their families and other agencies to work with them when they need to relocate. A
year would definitely be a better option so they don’t feel the pressure. When you’re eighty
years old, six months seems like today and a year seems like tomorrow. So I thoroughly
support the year notification.
Again, relocation expenses, paid by the developer or the owner, I support as well. The reason
being, again, we’re looking at seniors. Most of them have very low income. There are
residents that have been in these parks for twenty years or more and it’s because of their
income. If they were forced to find the funds to move a mobile home, they’re not going to
find it because, number one, they don’t have the resources available to themselves, number
two, they don’t have an income to replace any kind of loan they would take, and the cost of
moving a mobile home is anywhere from eight to twelve thousand dollars which is ridiculous
in itself. But and then we’re talking about where would they move. Now that is a concern to
me that I hope this board will start thinking about. I had some time to speak with Ken about
what the zones mean and where they are and I understand it more now. But if you only have
“X” number of parks there that are zoned and all of a sudden we are finding that there are
eight parks that are closing, where are they going to go? Because a lot of these parks are
already filled. I’ve not seen anything that talks about the creation of another Mobile Home
Park Community for the residents that would be required to move if they are in a designated
targeted redevelopment area. So that’s something I would like to have this board discuss;
where are they going to go.
The mobile home park zoning was something new to me. I thank you again, Ken, for your
clarification on this subject. I do think that if you give mobile home park zones it is going to
give a more secure feeling to those residents in those zones. If the park is zoned for a mobile
home park, the chances are of it being redeveloped into something different are smaller. The
seniors I work with need some sense of security. A mobile home park zone might make them
feel a little bit more secure in their homes in those areas. Who is going to make that
determination of the value of that home? If it isn’t enough to compensate for their relocation,
that’s not begin fair to our seniors again. There is a great deal of people who do not have
access to computers and how will they get their opinions validated and heard? Nor do they
have access to get to these meetings. Has it ever been considered an option to hold a half
hour question and answer meeting at the clubhouses at some of these mobile home parks for
those folks who don’t have computers, can’t get out to these meetings, and don’t have the
3
resources to find out what we are talking about here? Because we’re talking about their lives
and where they’re going to live. So how many of the people who answered your survey were
from these mobile home parks? I would like to add that you have meetings at these parks to
include the actual residents of these parks in these decisions. We have to be appreciative of
our seniors and the greatest generation and we have to be helping them.
Nick (no last name given): Because, I’m not eighty five, I’m ninety and I can’t be moving
nowhere. It would be very hard for me to make a change right now. I cannot live with my
children; they have their own families. As far as cost, it costs quite a bit to move a home.
Every month we get enough to pay the rent from Social Security. And that’s all. We don’t
have the money to move. Thank you.
Dan Byers: Is there anyone else who has public comments? If not, this concludes the public
input portion.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Dan Byers: Let’s open this up to discussion. Our goal is to provide recommendation to City
Council.
Troy Jones: Could you help me understand number three?
Ken Waido: We’re looking at it as a step by step process. The first step is if the Council says
to create a mobile home park district. Then the City’s Land Use Code team would draft a
zoning district to be put into the Land Use Code. This strategic plan recommends which
mobile home parks should be put into that district. The details of what would and would not
be permitted in the zone have yet to be fleshed out.
Ishbel Dickens: A list of a range of options can be included in the zoning plans. It has not
been universal throughout all communities. It is what makes sense in that particular area. The
ordinance itself can also have exemptions.
Dan Byers: What was the reason the zoning went away?
Ken Waido: The city went to a more mixed-use land use concept.
Shelby Sommer: The city is shifting. The growth aspect is changing from outward growth to
inward growth. That is where the redevelopment pressure becomes stronger.
Dan Byers: To move forward, let’s go over each item. Number one, I think we all agree with
that one. Number two, you have to offer relocation assistance to be in compliance.
Jeffrey Johnson: We should consider striking the rationale. I’m suggesting we delete
“because” from the rest of the sentence.
Troy Jones: That makes sense. I’ll go along with you on that one.
Dan Byers: Rather than strike it out, maybe we could find a better way to say it. The city
could decide this on a case-by-case basis.
4
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree with that.
Troy Jones: Yes, that’s a good idea.
Troy Jones: Number three makes sense to me.
Dan Byers: There’s quite a bit of work to be done on this.
Curt Lyons: Is the intent of creating the zoning to deter development?
Ken Waido: No, it’s to preserve the mobile home park community as a mobile home park
community.
Dan Byers: Is there any opposition to the mobile home park zone? It sounds like the board
agrees on number three with additional clarification. Let’s talk about number four.
Troy Jones: One park on the north has a huge storm water management issue, big potholes,
etc. This seems like one that needs some redevelopment. Having the grant program in place
would help these issues.
Ken Waido: The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan has an action item for the City to look at
a permanent funding source for the Affordable Housing Fund. If a permanent funding source
is found, the AHF could have additional financial resources over what is available now.
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree that loan and grant money is critical. Infrastructure upkeep is
important. Could you get some money to take care of this? This seems to be an opportunity to
get some details. Can you sweeten it up with a loan or a grant? To make the property owner
feel better about infrastructure upkeep.
Dan Byers: Move on to number five. A lot of these parks are at full capacity. Is there space
to move all? I like the one-year notice.
Karen Miller: I would support removing the six-month caveat.
Tatiana Martin: I would rather see the six-month option included.
Jeffrey Johnson: I like the alternative of having both.
Troy Jones: That doesn’t seem like the way it’s written. To what extent do we want the early
closure tied to incentive? The developer isn’t on the hook to pay anything.
Ken Waido: We could combine numbers five and six somehow.
Karen Miller: It does kind of dovetail. It could force people into unfavorable conditions.
Dan Byers: I think we should keep five and six separate. They are two separate issues.
Ishmel Dickens: Six month closure would be allowed, it is between the owner and the
tenant, if everyone has left before the year then they can close the park.
5
Curt Lyons: Some kind of mutually satisfaction would be good.
Tatiana Martin: Residential apartment leases are month to month after one year, but I don’t
know for mobile homes.
Dan Byers: Concisely rewording number five: One-year notice is required unless the mobile
home park owner provides a packet plus the tenant shows they can leave or they are lawfully
evicted.
Karen Miller: I want it to say they will be appropriately relocated to each party’s mutual
agreement.
Dan Byers: Number six; does it say “Federal Funds”?
Troy Jones: I don’t support number six. The developer has to pay for relocation. I don’t
think the developer should pay for the relocation of everyone.
Dan Byers: That wouldn’t provide any assistance. That takes affordable housing out of the
community.
Karen Miller: Yes, that’s true.
Cory Lyons: I’m thinking of it like any other property. If somebody buys an apartment
building, it’s not the tenant’s right to be there forever.
Karen Miller: But you purchased the mobile home and you can’t compensate for it. Now
they can’t use their home anymore.
Jeffrey Johnson: There is a human component to this. But there is also a market component,
too.
Karen Miller: I think the park owner should at least pay the tenant for the home.
Dan Byers: I keep coming back to people being “involuntarily” displaced from their home.
Troy Jones: I’m uncomfortable with the A. Why is it the developer’s cost to move it? I agree
with the B and C. I can’t support A. Should we pull number six and vote on the rest?
Jeffrey Johnson: Change “market value” to “assessed value”, i.e., the assessor’s analysis of
real market value.
Dan Byers: I make a motion to accept numbers one, two, three, four, and seven.
Troy Jones: I second the motion.
Dan Byers: For number five; number five states: require a one year notice for relocation and
no less than the six-month minimum required by the State of Colorado, however, as an
alternative, the City could offer a six month notice detailed relocation report on all available
mobile home parks within twenty five miles by contact information to the park owners and
documented relocation costs and in addition, the mobile home park owner insures that all
6
tenants have been relocated to their mutual satisfaction or have otherwise abandoned or sold
their homes.
Curt Lyons: I move to accept number five as just stated.
Karen Miller: I second. And I agree with number six with a change of “market value” to
“assessor’s opinion of real market value”.
Troy Jones: I am in favor of everything but A. I would support A with a cap of $6,000 (for
single-wide units) - $8,000 (for doubl-wide unitse).
Tatiana Martin: I like it except for A.
Jeffrey Johnson: I don’t know how I feel about A. I accept B and C with “fair market value
determined by assessor”.
Curt Lyons: No opinion. It’s too long. There are so many parts to the equation.
Troy Jones: I move to recommend Item Six to council as written with the following
exceptions: Item A, having a cap of $6000 (single-wide) - $8,000 (double-wide) for
relocation and Item B with “full actual value according to the assessor’s opinion” and C with
the “½ attribute”.
Dan Byers: I second. All in favor? Five. Opposed? One: Jeffrey Johnson.
Comparison of Recommendations
Public Review Draft Affordable Housing Board
Public Review Draft Recommendations Affordable Housing Board
Recommendations
1. Continue to expand the inventory of
“designated affordable” dwelling units,
buildings, and complexes through
current programs administered by the
Fort Collins Housing Authority, other
non-profit affordable housing agencies,
and private developers.
No change
2. Continue to offer relocation assistance
to those residents of affordable units
redeveloped with the use of federal,
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
(FCURA), or other City funds, but do
not extend a requirement to pay
relocation expenses in private
redevelopment projects that do not use
public funds.
No change
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park No change
7
Zoning District and rezone into that
district those mobile home parks that
are relatively large and can serve as
significant sources of affordable
housing for the long term.
4. Create a loan or grant program, or use
the existing financial assistance
competitive process, that would be
available to finance significant
investments in mobile home park
water, sewer, septic, or road
infrastructure that would be available to
those larger mobile home parks willing
to commit to continuing operation of
their mobile home parks for a at least
10 years.
No change
8
Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes
281 N. College Conference Room A
March 15, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hart, Heinz, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, and Smith
Staff Present: Kadrich, Hendee, Waido, and Sanchez-Sprague
Chair Smith said hearing attendees and described the following processes:
• Citizen participation is an opportunity to present comments on issues not on the meeting agenda.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of
the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and
discuss in detail as a part of the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and
questions by board members. Public input follows.
• At the time of public comment, Chair Smith asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the
podium, state their name and address, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their
position. He encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
• Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered.
• The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
• The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
None
Discussion Agenda:
1. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 2
_______
Project: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies
Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to preserve existing
affordable housing units with an emphasis on mobile home parks.
Recommendation: Make recommendation to City Council
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior Planner Ken Waido introduced Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer and team members
Don Elliott and Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates. He provided background on the project – develop
a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities. He said
the project was needed to define the City’s role, responsibilities, and obligations in dealing with mobile
home park closures and the displacement of low-income families and cited recent efforts for Grape
Street and Bender Mobile Home Park.
Waido noted the Public Review Draft provided options for: affordable housing and mobile home park
preservation and stabilization and displacement relocation assistance. He cited the main reasons why
mobile homes parks close (market pressures increase property value and the property is sold for
redevelopment or the park’s infrastructure ages needing maintenance or replacement and the cost to do
so is not supported by lot rents). Waido said preservation and stabilization techniques include a Mobile
Home Park Zoning District, infrastructure maintenance/replacement with grants or loans, and City
financial assistance via Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Programs and Affordable
Housing Fund, and park resident ownership
Waido outlined recommendations for what the City should do if a mobile home park closes. He outlined
the project’s public involvement process and the short-term and long-term actions steps.
Public Input
Rose Lew, 2014 Westover Road, said she supports staff’s recommendations. She said the
establishment of a mobile home park zone is very critically important. She asked if there were no federal
funds, is there no requirement for the property owner/developer to pay any relocation costs.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, said they worked closely with the individuals
affected by the closure of the Grape Street and the Bender Mobile Home Park closures. She said
groups with whom she’s affiliated worked with social, environmental, and economic sustainability. She
said this plan really emphasizes that desire to look at economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
She said this plan really represents a lot of creative thinking by staff and the community at large. She
said as she worked with the displaced individuals, she came to respect them and to understand better
the devastating consequences they experienced. She said the plan addresses that. She appreciates
the zoning, the relocation expense and the one year notice. She appreciates that it looks at both
preservation and relocation.
Tawny Peyton, 22362 Schultz Lane, Berthoud, Co; said she’s the Executive Director of the Rocky
Mountain Home Association. They represent the manufacturing and modular home industry in Colorado.
She thanked staff for their efforts in the development of the plan. She asked what other businesses or
private property owners are required to provide a notice period before they change their use. What other
businesses have to provide a report for alternatives to their consumers? What other businesses are
required to pay for their consumer’s expenses? She said they are an affordable housing industry. She
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 3
said a lot of these changes will impact how likely businesses will want to do business within the city and
state. Some of the businesses are owned by ‘mom and pop’ owners who have worked their whole life to
provide housing for people. If they should need to sell their property due to a medical emergency, have
they lost the value of the property because of the relocation costs? Will they lose value because it’s
been zoned for one use?
Keith Cowan, 3240 Iris Ct., Wheat Ridge, said he owns Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. He said he’s
one of the ‘mom and pop’ operations just described by Ms. Peyton. He said if you’re an investor coming
into the city and you see the type of restrictions that are being proposed, you’ll say no because you’re not
going to be able to do the business you want. He said over time they’ve purchased homes and tried to
make them available for low income families by financing them. He said all this was good until last year
when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted and financing was no longer an option. He thinks it’ll affect an
owner’s ability to keep their property up. He said only in Fort Collins is there a sales tax on the transfer
of a mobile home. He knows of some cases where people do not change the title into their name
because of the sales tax expense. He said both at the city and the state level, they are considering
legislation that will make it very difficult to keep mobile homes an affordable housing option.
Zach Heath lives at 135 S. Sunset. He said he’s encouraged by the plan to keep mobile homes an
affordable housing option in Fort Collins. Fort Collins is known as not being an affordable place to live.
He said you’d need to make $15 per hour to be able to afford rent in Fort Collins. He does think it’s a
vitally important and he appreciates staff’s efforts. He thinks the 6 month notice is not enough and a
longer period is required to reduce stress on ‘vulnerable’ community members. He believes that takes
priority over business interests. Mr. Heath asked about something he’d heard relative to new
developments being required to provide 10% affordable housing units in their development. Is that part
of this plan?
Chris Parks, 7408 Triangle Drive, said he works for RHB Properties. They’re the largest private owner of
mobile home communities in the country. They operate the Harmony Road Park. He said they’ve
provided more assistance than the city when helping people relocate and cited the Dry Creek Mobile
Home Park as an example. He said as the homes age it becomes more problematic from an investment
standpoint. He said you cannot stereotypically assume all mobile home owners are low income. He said
some have more savings than you or I. He said when you have a requirement of keeping mobile home
parks as they are or requiring them to be responsible for relocation you are essentially reducing property
values by 20%. Or, it’s adding 20% to the cost of redevelopment. He said it’s important when we look at
how to solve this problem where there’s less focus put on the community owners who have done their
best to maintain what’s in the market. He thinks the only reasonable option proposed is the transfer tax.
He appreciates the work that has been done and he hopes we look at the true cost of this and what the
city can do if they feel it’s very important.
Barbara Trewarton, previous Cloverleaf Community Manager, and a manufactured home owner. She’s
concerned that a manufactured home community is a business. She believes it is unfair to the owner to
make them wait a year to sell their business. On the homeowner’s side, if we can’t find a place to move
their manufactured home within 6 months; it’s not worth moving.
End of Public Input
Member Heinz left the meeting.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 4
Staff Response
Chair Smith asked staff to respond to the questions raised during public testimony.
Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, said with regard to the question if there are no federal funds involved will
there be no duty to pay relocation. Elliott said if there were no federal, redevelopment or city funds and
the applicant is not applying for a discretionary rezoning or permit; there would be no duty to pay. If it’s a
redevelopment by right under the zoning district and you are not asking for financial assistance; they you
would not have a duty to pay redevelopment costs. Board members agreed a redevelopment plan would
almost always require a discretionary decision. Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates said it would likely
be a single family/allowed use per zone but it probably would not accommodate a full scale
redevelopment. Elliott agreed it would be better to restate the language in the report.
Elliott said with regard to the question what other industry requires notice of this type none that he can
think of. He said there are no other housing products he knows where the resident owns the unit and not
the land. That is why the State of Colorado has a notice requirement. With regard to any other industry
that requires a report he said not that he knows of. He said this plan does not require a report rather the
strategy says go to a one year notice but if you want to finish up in 6 months or less you may provide a
report that will lets people know where they can move and how much it would cost, etc. He said with
regard to what other industry requires relocation payments; he said it depends on the facts of the
redevelopment. He said when parks have closed they’ve come before City Council to request relocation
assistance. The question is “is there a system in place to pay” or does it come to City Council each time.
Elliott asked if the owner is required to pay relocation costs who actually pay. It may well be the owner of
the unit who pays due to increased rents. It might be rolled into the deal you make with the redeveloper.
Elliott said with regard to the question does the adoption of regulations such as these prevent investment
in this type of industry in Fort Collins he said no one knows. Every regulation has the potential to
discourage investment. He said as a practical matter, we’ve not seen investment in new mobile home
parks in Fort Collins for quite some time. He said a fair statement is in urban areas such as Fort Collins,
there isn’t a lot of investment going on in mobile home parks. The investment is going on in rural areas
where land is cheap, where development is simple, and where neighborhood opposition is lower.
Member Campana said it’s important to distinguish the development of new parks versus the purchase of
an older park.
Elliott said it’s up to the board to determine in their judgment if this is a reasonable plan. Any time you try
to deal with the externalities of any real estate investment, you’re going to affect the business climate.
The question is--is this a fair balance.
Elliott said the last question relative to an inclusionary housing requirement—for example, you redevelop
a park in which you need to house 10% of low-income people on site. They did think of it. They did not
find other models tied into mobile home park strategies. He said it’s a unique housing type. It’s not a
mobile home for an apartment exchange—you still own a mobile home that needs to be disposed. He
thinks in this case, it would be a mismatch.
Board Questions
Member Campana asked if staff looked at mitigation from the perspective of preventing the displacement
or mitigating the impacts of displacement. Elliott said there were two parts to the study and they did
both. He said that Council wanted both tools that discourage the redevelopment of mobile home parks
so they stay in the housing pool or tools that say it’s a free business environment – redevelopment when
you want but let’s figure out what should be done about relocation. He said on the west coast they’ve
concluded it’s less expensive to preserve than to allow the housing to go away.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 5
Member Kirkpatrick referred to the 6400 affordable housing units in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(AHSP). Waido said the AFSP’s goal is to increase affordable rental units because that’s where the
greatest deficit is. He said mobile home units represent 50% of the affordable housing stock.
Member Hart asked Waido to speak to the fact that Fort Collins charges sales tax. Waido said he called
the Sales Tax Office to ask if Fort Collins is the only city that charges sales tax. They said no there are
several other cities in Northern Colorado. Hart asked if that was addressed in their strategies. Waido
said no. Member Kirkpatrick said maybe it would be a good idea to shift the proceeds to a relocation
fund.
Waido said they have investigated inclusionary zoning. A few years ago a consultant evaluated an
impact fee (whether on residential or commercial) or inclusionary zoning. The State Supreme Court
ruled that inclusionary zoning for rental purposes is unconstitutional. It seems the window is for home
ownership. He said Boulder and Longmont had inclusionary zoning requirements for home ownership.
Elliott said he’d like to thank the park owners. Throughout the process they have been extremely
collaborative, helpful, and engaged in the process. It’s added to a better product.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if there’s been interest in affordable house development. Waido said City
Council really did not take anything off the plate at their last worksession on this topic. If council says
yes to a zoning district, then how do you do that? He said the city has used zoning to preserve specific
types of housing in the past. If it gets into the Land Use Code, there’s nothing to stop a property owner
from coming to the city and requesting a rezoning. That may be one of the uses we can put our Land
Bank properties. With a RFP (Request for Proposal), we could see if any developer (profit, non-profit, or
combination) would be willing to get into that market.
Elliott said the intent of the report was to provide the information comprehensively. Not all tools will apply
to every park – there should be a system of which tools would apply in which situation. He said they’ve
found several examples of cities in the past 15 years who adopted districts such as this. They didn’t get
good answers on whether it was to preserver affordable housing or to rezone.
Member Kirkpatrick said if we closed a mobile home park we are not allowing the same level of density
(number of residents per unit) in another area. She asked what the project team had found at a national
level. Waido said the data they were looking for was not available at a geographic level. Sommer said
the number can vary even in Fort Collins depending on the population—there may be very ‘senior’ parks
with lower numbers.
Member Kirkpatrick asked about Strategy 7. Waido said given the two avenues – one is a new
organization the other an established organization such as CARE Housing; its better, at this stage of the
game, to go with the known established agency. He said there are organizations nationally that have
been successful in other states. He said it takes a willing seller.
Board Discussion
Member Carpenter asked how the memo drafted by the Board would be used. Director Kadrich said it is
still available should you choose to make that your recommendation. It is also available for modification.
Member Hart said he understands they are being asked to approve the strategies presented by staff with
or without certain modifications the Board may want to put forth.
Member Campana said he understands and originally supported the intent of the plan having been
involved with the Bender Mobile Home Park. His understanding was staff was directed to come up with
a displacement mitigation strategy so citizens would have an expectation/know what’s going to take
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 6
place when relocation is required. He said solving affordable housing is gigantic in comparison. In his
experience their concerns were affordability and availability. Predictability is helped by have 6 to 12
months to find a new location. He agrees with one of the citizens who spoke who said if you can’t find it
in 6 months, it’s probably due to the condition of your home. He said there’s a sense of independence
related to the ownership that offers another degree of complexity. Campana said with regard to
mitigation strategies, he could support a lot of what’s been presented. When it comes to discouraging
redevelopment, he doesn’t think we want to be in the business of discouraging redevelopment. We want
to encourage the development of affordable housing. If the city wants the right to preserve something,
he believes the city should be putting some money into it. It’s a community issue and we have to deal
with it.
Member Carpenter said she agrees. She said she thinks we’ve said this before. This grew into
something that nobody really perceived it to be. She’s having a hard time deciding whether she can
even recommend approval of the whole plan. The plan is a completely different thing than encouraging
affordable housing (which she supports). She’s struggling on how to get that across to City Council.
Member Kirkpatrick said she could support the plan moving forward to City Council and the board’s
comments except for # 3. She said the plan feels very disjointed – not quite sure what problem it’s trying
to solve. Parts of it make more sense for when we address our next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
She thinks mobile home parks are an important part of our housing stock. She thinks some of those
decisions go beyond this board.
Member Campana said the market should be allowed to exist where it exists with regard to mobile home
parks.
Member Hart said he does not support a specific zone because he doesn’t think that will help the
community. Member Carpenter agreed.
Chair Smith said that City Council has a very tough job and it’s a different job than this board’s. There
are a lot of considerations which the Planning and Zoning Board simply shouldn’t address. It’s outside
the board’s purview. Inherently there are very strong noble concepts and objectives in our
Comprehensive Plan as expressed in our Land Use Code. We’re going to build a city built on a lot of
uses. We’re going to encourage in-fill and redevelopment around transit. When we say we’re going to
stop adhering to some of those principles in one certain area, it’s problematic for a lot of reasons. One
is we’re going to create islands and stifle innovation. He said what he thinks is really problematic is it’s
clear to him that perhaps at the highest levels, the city has not made the commitment to affordable
housing as a general concept and mobile homes as a subset. He thinks the city is trying to use
regulations without looking at incentives such as waiving sales tax and disincentives first.
Smith said with regard to the creation of a Mobile/Manufactured Home Zoning District, he doesn’t think
we should be doing that. He said he’s okay with the memo the board drafted as being their
recommendation. The city, as a governmental entity, should look at what it’s doing as a much higher
objective in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. It should also look at some of the other financial
considerations such as sales tax. He said he’d be more in favor of an Affordable Housing District.
Member Carpenter said to have an Affordable Housing District is so against our philosophy of mixed-use
and making sure our neighborhoods have diversity. For her it would almost be a discriminatory thing.
She understands mobile home owners seeking independence but she thinks it’s a false sense of
independence. It doesn’t have the predictability and that’s what gives you independence.
Member Carpenter wondered how the board should proceed. Director Kadrich said as a recommending
board they could have: no recommendation, recommend in its entirety, or substitute something.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 7
Chair Smith made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board forward the following comments
The Planning and Zoning Board recognizes and supports the need for an adequate supply
of safe and healthy affordable housing in Fort Collins. As such the board would prefer
that recommendations brought forward to City Council apply to ALL affordable housing
types rather than only limited to mobile home parks. As such the board would support
Public Review Draft Recommendations #1, 2, and 5 and offer the following thought on the
other three recommendations.
Recommendation #3: This recommendation is clearly inconsistent with not only current
zoning criteria in the Land Use Code (LUC), but also some of the primary objectives of our
Comprehensive Plan. City Plan is largely based on a vision of compact, mixed-use,
redevelopment. More specifically, City Plan calls for a variety of land uses and building
types in every zone district, and as a result, encourages innovation that promotes
enhanced sustainability, efficiency, and vitality. As such, the board believes that a
Manufactured Home Park Zoning District would move away from the overall vision zoning
for the Fort Collins Community and should not be considered as an option.
Recommendation #4: The Board recommends substituting the following
recommendation: Create a loan or grant program, or use the existing financial assistance
competitive process that would be available to finance significant investments in new or
existing affordable housing infrastructure that would be available to those willing to
commit to continuing an affordable housing product for at least 10 years.
Recommendation #6: The board is not in agreement that this is the most effective way to
deal with the problem for a variety of reasons including the recommendation shifts too
much of the “burden” to the property owner and that it does not effectively preserve
affordable housing. If the ultimate goal is to provide affordable housing, the board feels
this process may lead to subsidizing substandard housing. The board suggests
implementing an impact fee and/or a TIF to help cover the costs of relocation or
development of affordable housing stock.
Recommendation #7: The board for the reasons listed previously offers a substitute
recommendation as follows: Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-profit
affordable housing providers, and support organizations to purchase affordable housing
types, including mobile home parks offered for redevelopment and manage them as long-
term sources of affordable housing.
with the addition of: adding manufactured housing in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan as a
primary goal and revisit sales tax on mobile home and perhaps either eliminate it or direct it to
some type of mitigation/relocation fund. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 8
Other
Director Kadrich said they’re getting ready to advertise for the Planning Manager position. If there’s any
interest in participating in the process, please let her know.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair
1
Attachment 5
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Mobile Home Park Owners Meeting
September 25, 2012 – Harmony Library
Lots of differences between each mobile home community
City has handled each mobile home park closure differently. The purpose of this project is to City clarify
role/policies for future situations.
Potential Strategies to Prevent Redevelopment:
o Right of First Refusal
o Right of Last Refusal/offer
o Right of Preferential housing
o Incentives
o Zoning Changes
In other communities, did vendor fees increase to match the maximum relocation assistance amount?
o A pre‐determined amount usually means vendors will charge that amount
o A non‐fixed amount (actual cost) of relocation assistance may be better approach to avoid this
problem
o Consulting team will explore typical actual costs for moving within Fort Collins
What happens to abandoned homes when a park closes?
o The owner of park is usually responsible for removal
o This is a challenging issue for park owners, especially for re‐1976 (HUD) homes that are in poor
condition
If a federally‐funded redevelopment project occurs, a relocation process is already determined(Uniform
Relocation Act, which occurs at the cost of the redevelopment project)
Key factors in whether units are moved or abandoned are market vacancy rates and the age/value of
units
There may not be places to move homes in the event of a closure in Fort Collins
Is the City in favor of opening new parks?
o Mobile home parks are permitted uses in the LMN zone
o Although they are permitted uses, many higher density housing projects (e.g., student housing,
mobile home parks, etc.) can encounter opposition from surrounding neighborhoods/property
owners
The last mobile home park approved in Fort Collins was Dry Creek, although this project had some
financial challenges
The Housing Authority does have some modular housing units on permanent foundations – this trend
will likely increase in the future
Have there been any reconfigurations of mobile home parks to enlarge lots/reduce density?
o Not to the team’s knowledge, but this is permissible by amending the site plan (usually the
mobile home park is platted as one large lot)
2
o This is typically not usually a zoning issue as long as setbacks and minimum densities are
satisfied
Would the relocation mitigation policies apply to re‐configuration/reducing the number of lots in mobile
home parks?
o Probably not since it is unlikely that a park owner would eliminate lots if they were occupied
(i.e., consolidation of lots would generally occur only if vacant lots were available)
How would the displacement strategies differ for mobile home owners vs. renters?
o Residents who rent homes from the mobile home park owners or other landlords generally
have month to month (or longer) leases, and in these instances standard landlord/tenant
agreements apply (not displacement strategies)
o For mobile home owners who just lease the land, displacement mitigation assistance may apply
if the City decides to adopt such policies
How would the relocation strategies apply to properties outside of city limits?
o If a property is located within the County but adjacent to (Contiguous with) the City, any
redevelopment project would spur the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City
and the County, and the property would be annexed into the City and the development project
would be subject to City requirements (including displacement mitigation).
o If a property is located in the County and not adjacent to the City, redevelopment would be
handled by the County, and the City’s requirements would not apply, other than the City’s
requirement that the property sign an agreement to annex to the City when eligible.
If park owners are required to pay for relocation mitigation, they could get double the burden by having
to pay for relocation and then also by having to pay the costs of removing abandoned homes
Key issues to consider when developing strategies are the quality of the homes and occupants. The free
market determines which homes are worth moving and which ones are not worth moving (abandoned).
The abandoned homes are a big issue, and the strategy should explore whether or not some sort of
relocation assistance fund could also apply to park owners who are left with removing abandoned
homes.
Need to explore whether or not there are any State/City or other regulations about moving pre‐HUD
homes (some perceptions that regulations exist, but uncertainty about who governs/enforces).
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Residents and Representatives Meeting
September 25, 2012 – Northside Aztlan Center
Meeting Notes
The planning process seems to be short; need to determine if there is enough time allotted for thorough
feedback from all stakeholders
Need to advertise meetings as open to the public; mobile home park newsletters may be a good tool to
notify folks of future meetings
Will plan address MH parks in County?
o Mobile home parks in the City (approximately 1200 units) – yes, this plan will address
3
o Mobile homes in the County but contiguous/adjacent to City limits (approximately 1100 units) –
yes, the plan will address
o Mobile homes in the County and not contiguous/adjacent to City County (approximately 700
units) – no, these are subject to the County’s process and requirements, but the County will be
involved throughout the effort
Cheryl and Catholic Charities deserve recognition for Bender assistance efforts
City assistance helped with the Bender displacement but more assistance needed (could Section 8
vouchers be explored in the future?)
Low‐income housing needed throughout the City
Residents are the ones who lose out
This plan may also involve exploring changes in state laws and regulations to protect residents from
displacement
What have other communities done to prevent redevelopment of mobile home parks?
Right of First Refusal – time period given depends on location
o (Right of First Refusal) in Resident‐Owned Communities (ROC USA)
o Housing trust fund support – tap into local lenders
Right of Last Offer
Right of Preferential Housing (1st in line for new units)
o Form of inclusionary zoning
o Can be tied to existing rents or area median income
Incentives
Zoning – strengthen process/make it harder to close MH parks
o Some variation of a mobile home park zone
o Could this be a taking? No, as long as reasonable economic use of the property
o Why did the City drop MH park zones in 1997?
o Thought was that LMN would help preserve parks
Potential Assistance Tools when Displacement will Happen
Notification
o 6 months in CO
o Longer in other states (12 month – 2 year)
Financial Assistance
o Relocation Assistance Fund (WA) – state operates, funded by transfer of title fees paid by
residents
o Property owner/landlord pays (OR)
Landlord support (relocation coordinator)
Vacancy rate triggers notice
Purchases/Land trusts
Other Comments and Questions
Relocation of pre‐1976 homes is very challenging; Hard to find new parks that will accept them
o Solution needs to include voluntary abandonment
o Need state action to override covenants
How will various options be evaluated?
o State/local action/level of support
4
o Best practices/lessons learned
o City Council to be the final decision maker
Title changes – personal property vs. real property (stronger consumer protections for real property)
Mortgage settlement fund – explore potential to use some of this money for relocation assistance
Are mobile homes really affordable?
o Preserving existing communities cheaper than building new
o Residents are captive in parks
Land Trust model of non‐profit developer model could work to help with preservation
o Lowry a good CO model for affordable housing
Does the City have funding for mobile home community preservation? Look at overall affordable
housing budget in City
What role does/could CHAFA play?
Credit union lending could play a larger role
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Housing Agencies and Advocates Stakeholder Meeting
September 26, 2012 – 281 N. College Avenue
Meeting Notes
Current title of project is complicated but it needs to address preservation and displacement
mitigation
Explore partnerships/coordination with CARE housing and others on residents or agencies
owning mobile home parks
Would it be possible to develop the City’s land bank property as a mobile home park or swap
this property for another property?
State and federal funding is very limited to assist in relocation efforts (rough estimate of total
State funds for affordable housing +/- 2 million, Federal funds +/- 10 million)
Need models/case studies about the economics of resident owned communities or other
“benign” landowner situations
Some of the mobile home communitieLimited ability to move pre-1976 homes
Lots of very old parks
o Failed infrastructure one cause of closures
o Infrastructure improvements a possible strategy ( partnerships)
Dry Creek was the last mobile home park developed
Explore the potential development or trading of the City’s Land Bank properties to save mobile
home parks from redevelopment
5
Some communities have tried to secure long-term commitments to retain mobile home parks
but without much success
Need to clarify City vs. County vs. State vs. URA responsibilities when
redevelopment/displacement occur and compare these with the federal Uniform Relocation Act
requirements
Case studies to research
o Mapleton mobile home park (Boulder, CO Thistle Community Housing)
o Rocky Mountain Community Land Trust (CO Springs)
Aging in place a key issue in mobile home parks as well as throughout the community. Could
mobile homes be part of the solution?
Resident Owned Communities a successful approach in some areas
o Homeowners need financial partners to make this successful (partner with local banks?)
o Explore the role of the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) in establishing
resident owned communities
Revolving Loan Fund in Northern CO can be used on mobile homes but there is a $5,000
maximum allowed on repairs for mobile homes
The City doesn’t enforce private covenants, such as those enacted by mobile home parks and
other subdivisions
1
Attachment 6
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Mobile/Manufactured Home Park Owners Meeting Notes
November 19 – Harmony Library
General Discussion
Are Manufactured/Mobile Homes affordable housing?
o Anecdotally, most park owners agree that nearly all of their residents could be categorized as
low income households and a large proportion would qualify for affordable housing
o Census data is not available at that level of geography so detailed information about income and
percent of income spent on housing is not available
Some property owners think they might be able to knock on doors to get income data
Others think this type of information would be very tricky to gather
Mobile home vs. manufactured homes:
o Mobile homes can be put wheels on/move away (required to have a steel frame)
o Pre HUD/1976 = mobile homes
o Post HUD = manufactured homes
o Modular vs. manufactured (these terms are not necessarily synonyms either)
o CO state laws have definitions that should be referenced
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Would a Manufactured/Mobile Home zone also apply to new parks?
o New manufactured/mobile home parks are already permitted in some existing zones (LMN, E
districts)
o A new mobile home park zone would probably allow new parks, but that would need to be
determined if a new zone is created
o Some current park properties were previously in Manufactured/Mobile Home districts (ML,
MM)
Different options for a mobile home park zone district could include the City applying the zone to certain
parks (based on certain criteria), or parks volunteering to apply the zone now or in the future
o If the City decided to place some or all properties in a new zone district, property owners would
not have veto power of a rezoning (City Council is final decision maker)
Some property owners sent membership checks/correspondence to the National Manufactured Home
Owners Association (NMHOA) after meetings last January. There have been issues with communication
with this organization and property owners would like a response from the association’s representative
If the City provided grants or loans for property owners to upgrade/fix infrastructure issues, there are
concerns that this money would come with some conditions (e.g., requiring a certain percent of units to
remain affordable) that the property owners may/could not adhere to
2
High City sales tax collected on mobile homes presents is a huge barrier to preserving existing parks
within the City
o People leave the City for cheaper unit ownership opportunities in the County
o Many people avoid changing unit titles to avoid sales taxes
o Estimated $3000 in sales tax to the City for an average mobile home unit
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
What is the purpose of a longer notification period?
o Gives more time for residents, affordable housing and social service agencies, and the City to
explore relocation options
o What about a 13 month notification period (which would be offset so that people could still
enter one year leases)?
Most leases are month to month
o General agreement/perception that residents will wait until the very last minute to relocate,
regardless of how long the notification period lasts
There would be economic impacts resulting from a longer notification period
o There is a cost burden for property owners if a longer notification period is required (i.e., the
property owner will have to carry the property longer with reduced income)
o Persons buying a park property for redevelopment may not willing to wait for the full
notification period and may devalue a property.
Do leases alert residents about potential sale of land?
o Some do, but not all of them do because it is not a mandatory provision
Relocation assistance payments (if required to be paid by the property owner) would ultimately be
transferred to the costs of operating the park, which would mean higher rents up‐front
Would relocation assistance be triggered even if public funding was not requested for a redevelopment
project?
o This project is examining that topic.
Would rental mobile home units be subject to relocation assistance?
o Probably would not be covered, but being explored as part of this project.
Has the City considered assessing a fee or other tax to build a relocation fund?
o That has come up in other meetings as well, but the City may be limited in the amount of new
fees/taxes it can charge.
o As part of a bigger picture, the City is looking a securing a more reliable funding source for all
types of affordable housing, which could include some sort of potential relocation assistance.
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Residents and Representatives Meeting Notes
November 19, 2012 – Northside Aztlan Center
3
General Discussion
County staff is considering more temporary (e.g. yurts) housing options now than before the High Park
Fire – this may have a positive impact on affordable housing options
What happened to the affordable housing project on Willox Lane west of College?
o The project fell through and is no longer proceeding as proposed; property may be bank‐owned
Impacts of right to farm on affordable housing
Are manufactured/mobile homes affordable housing?
o Would be difficult to get accurate data but there may be some ways to acquire some data
Section 8 data, LEAP loan applications, other government‐sponsored programs
Harmony Mobile Home Park has sold 3 times since 1998; none of these sales have been advantageous
to residents as lot rents have increased
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Resident‐owned communities
o What did the property owners think of the concept?
Not a lot of feedback for or against
Acknowledged that there has to be a willing seller
o What needs to happen so that non‐profits are poised or better prepared to own and/or manage
mobile home communities?
Park managers are not necessarily the property owners‐ could they be retained even if a
non‐profit purchases the land?
Real property vs. personal property
o Residential pay annual property tax
o Does real property means that the property is affixed to land? Uniform Law Commission
recently adopted a titling act for manufactured houses – they do not need to be affixed to the
land in order to be titled as real property.
o Need to examine if any other states have moved mobile homes into the real property category?
o What sorts of benefits/impacts would that shift cause?
Infrastructure Assistance
o This type of assistance would typically be in the form of a 0% interest loan due on resale
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
Notification period
o Longer notification period is generally preferable to residents
o May be an issue to address at a statewide level, rather than locally (although Fort Collins as a
home rule city could probably adopt stricter requirements)
o Certain conditions could potentially be satisfied by the property owner to the reduce
notification period (e.g., relocation report, payment of relocation expenses, etc.)
Payment of relocation expenses
o Could the project explore some cost sharing options (e.g., public‐private arrangements)
o The City did pay for Bender relocation expenses, so some think that a precedent was set
o City should explore a potential fee, tax, or other source to build a relocation fund or more
general affordable housing fund
4
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Affordable Housing Agencies and Advocates Meeting Notes
November 16, 2012 – 281 N. College Avenue
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Resident‐owned communities
o This would be difficult to organize but may be an opportunity for housing agencies/non‐profits
to become involved (none of the groups present volunteered for this role immediately, but are
open to exploring the idea long‐term)
Infrastructure Assistance
o This type of assistance would only be an incentive if it was provided as a grant; loan dollars
would come with other stipulations and would need to be paid back
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
Notification period
o Could the length of the notification period be scaled based on the number of units involved
(e.g., a longer notification period for more homes)?
o Could there be a “buy down” option to reduce the notification period (e.g., the property owner
pays relocation costs or some other benefit to the residents in exchange for a reduced
notification period)?
o What sort of disclosures/notices are provided in typical mobile home community leases?
There is no typical lease, but some clause about potential sale of the land or notification
requirement would be valuable to put in all leases
The City of Longmont’s website has a helpful mobile home owners’ handbook, which
could be a useful model for Fort Collins
o Agencies are well aware of potential expiration of tax credits for other types of affordable
housing (non‐mobile homes) long before they expire and work to mitigate the impacts
Payment of relocation expenses
o Potential triggers for the payment of relocation costs could be requests for rezoning, public
assistance/funding, and/or development plans
o Abandonment of homes remains a huge issue for property owners and needs to be addressed in
any sort of relocation expense requirement
1
1
Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
March 26, 2013
City Council Public Hearing
2
Introductions
• City Staff:
– Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
– Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
– Ken Waido, Chief Planner
• Consulting Team:
– Shelby Sommer, Clarion Associates (Fort
Collins)
ATTACHMENT 7
2
3
CITY PLAN IMPLENTENATION
NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIONS: 2011 AND 2012
• 24. Relocation Plan - Develop a
proactive plan to address the issue of
resident displacement due to
redevelopment activities.
CITY COUNCIL 2012 WORK PLAN:
• Develop an “Affordable Housing
Relocation Strategic Plan.”
4
Need for the Project
• This project was needed to define the City’s
role, responsibilities, and obligations in
dealing with mobile home park closures and
the displacement of low-income families.
– Grape Street
– Bender Mobile Home Park
• City involvement in previous closures:
– Ad-hoc, case-by-case basis
– Status quo is unacceptable
3
5
Affordable Housing
Relocation Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
The strategic plan provides:
• Options for affordable housing and
mobile home park preservation and
stabilization
• Options for displacement relocation
assistance requirements
6
Unit Comparison
Numbers Category
1,969
Units
4,800
Population
Designated Affordable
Rental Housing Units
In Multi-Family Apartment/Condo
Complexes
2,781
Units
6,800
Population
Mobile/Manufactured
Housing Units
Within the City Limits and
GMA Boundary
4
7
Relevant City Policies
City policies from City Plan and the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014:
• Recognize manufactured housing/mobile
homes as an important component of the
city’s housing stock.
• Encourage the preservation of affordable
housing units.
• Mitigate the relocation displacement impacts
upon residents due to redevelopment
activities.
8
Redevelopment Benefits
• Redevelopment has certain benefits,
including:
– Elimination of “blight,”
– Additional retail and service opportunities,
– New jobs/employment,
– Additional tax revenues.
• City Plan identifies Targeted Redevelopment
Areas on the Structure Plan map.
– Details are contained in adopted subarea
plans (e.g., North College Corridor Plan).
5
9
Reasons for MHP Closures
• There are two main reasons why mobile home
parks close:
1. The property is zoned for a different use (e.g.,
commercial zoning) and market pressures
increase the property value so the property is
sold for redevelopment purposes.
2. The park’s infrastructure ages and needs
major maintenance or complete replacement
and the cost to do so can not be supported by
lot rents as a mobile home park.
10
Preservation and
Stabilization Techniques
• Mobile Home Park Zoning District
• Fund Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement
• Resident Ownership of Mobile Home Parks
6
11
Relocation Assistance Strategies
• Increase the Time of the Notice of Closure
• Require a Relocation Report
• Require Payment of Relocation Costs
12
Public Involvement
• Three key stakeholder groups have been
identified and have been involved in the
project:
– mobile home park property-owners
– mobile home park residents (unit owners
and renters) and interested citizens
– affordable housing and human service
agencies
7
13
Public Involvement
• September 2012 - three stakeholder
informational meetings were conducted.
• November 2012 - a second set of stakeholder
meetings were held to provide a project
update and report on the results of the
October 23, 2012, City Council work session
• January 24, 2013 - an Open House was
conducted to present the Public Review Draft
of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy document.
14
Public Involvement
• City boards/commissions
– Affordable Housing Board
– Planning and Zoning Board
• Larimer County government
– Planning Department
– Environmental Health Department
• Project web page was established
– On-line survey
8
15
Implementation Actions
The strategic plan has developed
implementation actions grouped into either:
• Short-term actions, or
• Longer-term actions
Implementation actions are listed in three basic
categories:
• Actions the City can adopt unilaterally
• Actions that require coordination with Larimer
County
• Actions that require new state enabling
legislation
16
Recommendation #1
Continue to expand the inventory of “designated
affordable” dwelling units, buildings, and
complexes through current programs
administered by the Fort Collins Housing
Authority, other non-profit affordable housing
agencies, and private developers.
9
17
Recommendation #2
• Continue to offer relocation assistance to
those residents of affordable units
redeveloped with the use of federal, Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority (FCURA), or
other City funds, but do not extend a
requirement to pay relocation expenses in
private redevelopment projects that do not use
public funds and do not require a
discretionary land use decision by the City.
18
Recommendation #3
Draft a Manufactured Home Park Zoning
District and rezone into that district those
mobile home parks that are relatively large
and can serve as significant sources of
affordable housing for the long term.
10
19
Recommendation #4
Create a loan or grant program, or use the
existing financial assistance competitive
process, that would be available to finance
significant investments in new or existing
affordable housing infrastructure that would be
available to those larger mobile home parks
willing to commit to continuing operation of their
mobile home parks for a at least 10 years.
20
Recommendation #5
• Require a one (1) year notice of closure period
for mobile home parks (rather than the 6
month minimum notice required by the state).
As an alternative, allow a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner delivers to each
resident on or before the notice date a detailed
Relocation Report listing all available mobile
home park spaces available within 25 miles,
providing the contact information….
11
21
Recommendation #6
• Require that redevelopment projects involving
City financial assistance or a discretionary
land use decision by the City pay (a) actual
costs of relocating owner occupied
mobile/manufactured homes to a new site
within a 25 mile radius of the mobile home
park, up to a maximum of $6,000 for a single-
wide home and $8,000 for a double-wide
home, and (b) the actual value (as determined
by the County Assessor) of any home that is
structurally able to be moved …
22
Recommendation #7
• Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-
profit affordable housing providers, and
support organizations to purchase affordable
housing types, including mobile home parks,
offered for redevelopment and manage them
as long-term sources of affordable housing.
12
23
Significant Differences
• Recommendation #3 – Create a Mobile Home
Park Zoning District.
– Supported by the Affordable Housing Board
– Not supported by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
• Recommendation #6 – Require redevelopment
projects to pay displacement relocation costs.
– Supported by the Affordable Housing Board
– Not supported by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
24
Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
March 26, 2013
City Council Public Hearing
RESOLUTION 2013-027
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT DISPLACEMENT
MITIGATION STRATEGY, A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PRESERVING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, INCLUDING MOBILE HOME PARKS AND
OTHER TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHEREAS, City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, encourage the preservation of existing affordable
housing units, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the
community’s housing stock, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the
closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities; and
WHEREAS, as part of its 2012 Work Plan, the City Council directed City staff to work on
a relocation plan for residents displaced by redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the purpose for the relocation plan was to define the City’s role, responsibilities,
and involvement in redevelopment projects that displace low income people from their homes,
especially mobile home parks, within the City or the City’s Growth Management Area, rather than
dealing with such situations on a case-by-case basis; and
WHEREAS, City staff, with the assistance of a consulting team, has developed the
Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy, dated March 2013, attached
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “Mitigation Strategy”); and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Strategy addressed displacement mitigation for people forced to
relocate due to redevelopment, but also presents options for preservation and stabilization to reduce
the likelihood of future displacement, including creation of a Manufactured Home Park Zoning
District; creation of a grant or loan program for funding improvements to mobile home park
infrastructure; and requiring a one-year notice of closure period for mobile home parks; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Board and the Planning and Zoning Board both held
public hearings to solicit comments on the Public Review Draft of the Mitigation Strategy, and those
Board’s recommended changes have been incorporated to the extent possible into the Mitigation
Strategy; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Strategy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that adoption of the Mitigation Strategy is in the best
interests of the citizens of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby approves and adopts the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy dated March 26, 2013, attached as Exhibit A.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
26th day of March A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
by the County Assessor)
that cannot be moved due
to structural weakness or
poor condition.
• Should apply to all
applications for
redevelopment
regardless of city
financial involvement
or land use decision
Do not include.
Not the most effective
way to promote
affordable housing, may
subsidize substandard
housing, and
inappropriately shifts
cost burdens to mobile
home park owners.
Instead recommend
impact fee or TIF to help
cover cost of relocation
or development of
affordable housing.
Recommended
Strategy
remains in City
Council
document.
7. Build the capacity of homeowner
groups, non-profit affordable
housing providers, and support
organizations to purchase mobile
home parks offered for
redevelopment and manage
them as long-term sources of
affordable housing.
No change Recommend revised
text:
“Build the capacity of
homeowner groups,
non-profit affordable
housing providers, and
support organizations to
purchase affordable
housing types, including
PZ Board
revised text
included in City
Council
document
to continuing operation
of their mobile home
parks for a at least 10
years.
PZ Board
revised text
included in City
Council
document
5. Require a one (1) year notice of
closure period for mobile home
parks (rather than the 6 month
minimum notice required by
Colorado law). However, as an
alternative, the City could offer to
allow a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner delivers
to each resident on or before the
notice date a detailed Relocation
Report listing all available mobile
home park spaces available
within 25 miles, providing the
contact information for each of
those park owners, and including
documented estimates of the
costs of moving
mobile/manufactured homes to
those locations. In addition, the
ordinance should provide an
incentive for the park owner to
assist in relocation by providing
that park may be closed before
the mandatory one year notice
Recommend substitute
text to ensure adequate
notice of potential earlier
closing
“Require a one year notice
of closure period for
mobile home parks (rather
than the 6 month minimum
notice required by the
state). As an alternative,
the City could offer to allow
a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner
delivers to each resident
on or before the notice
date a detailed Relocation
Report listing all available
mobile home spaces
available within 25 miles,
providing the contact
information for each of
those park owners, and
including documented
estimates of the costs of
No change AHB revised
text included in
City Council
document