HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/22/2019 - ADJOURNED MEETINGCity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Adjourned Meeting
January 22, 2019
6:00 PM
Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen
Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials
to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2)
hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented.
NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to
election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which
the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and
activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-
6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Oath of Office for Susan Gutowsky, Appointee to Council District 1 Seat.
2. Council will Consider a Possible Motion to go into Executive Session
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711
for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
January 22, 2019
(After the Adjourned Council Meeting, which begins at 6:00 PM)
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset. (staff: Ginny Sawyer, 10 minute presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to present Council with options for renewing/maintaining Keep Fort
Collins Great revenue once the 0.85 tax sunsets on December 31, 2020.
April 2019 is the anticipated election for a potential ballot related question to address funding needs.
2. Occupancy Study. (staff: Ginny Sawyer, 20 minute presentation; 60 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to present and review the report and findings from the Occupancy Study.
3. Outdoor Residential Wood Burning. (staff; Cassie Archuleta, 15 minute presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to discuss a regulatory option to support a goal of allowing wood burning
fires in residential areas that do not negatively impact neighbors. Periodically, the City and Poudre Fire
Authority (PFA) are contacted regarding nuisance, health and safety concerns from wood smoke in
residential areas. This item was identified as a Council priority May 2017, and staff received direction
October 2018 to develop a regulatory option that did not ban residential wood fires, but still addressed
fires that negatively impact neighbors. Additional direction will be sought regarding adoption of a permit
system that allows outdoor residential wood burning with a permit, where permit conditions are
designed to mitigate potential smoke impacts on neighbors.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
January 22, 2019
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to present Council with options for renewing/maintaining Keep Fort Collins
Great revenue once the 0.85 tax sunsets on December 31, 2020.
April 2019 is the anticipated election for a potential ballot related question to address funding needs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Which revenue replacement option would Council like to move forward?
2. If Option B, what should be the length of the term?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2011, KFCG has funded basic operations and enabled the City to both maintain a desired level of
service and respond to community desires in an environment of population growth and annual inflation.
The revenues from this tax are, by ballot, distributed to the following areas:
33% Street Maintenance and Repair
17% Other Transportation Needs
17% Police Services
11% Parks and Recreation
11% Other Community Priorities
11% Poudre Fire Authority
Prior to the 2020 sunset of KFCG, and before building the 2021-22 budget, the City has been engaging
the community in the decision of how to fund current service levels or make alternative plans for a lower
service level at a lower cost. If the desire is to replace KFCG funds in full this can be achieved through
a dedicated tax, an increase to the on-going base rate, or a combination of these.
If City Council or the community decide NOT to replace KFCG revenue in full then reduced levels of
service will need to be identified during the 2020 budget process for 2021-22 budgets.
Options
The following two options are being brought forward following a year-plus process that included Council
Finance meetings, Council meetings, public meetings, and interaction with 18 City Boards.
1
Packet Pg. 2
January 22, 2019 Page 2
Option A - Increase the City base sales tax rate by 0.85%.
This option would be a one-time vote to increase the base rate tax by 0.85%. This revenue would be
general fund revenue and would be prioritized and allocated by Council and the community to address
needs and desires through the budgeting process.
Option B - Increase the City base sales tax rate by 0.60% and put forward a 0.25% renewable tax.
This option includes a one-time vote to increase the base sales tax by 0.6% and a vote to consider a
0.25% dedicated, renewable tax. The 0.6% amount covers all but 0.01% of current level KFCG
contributions for Police, Streets, Fire, and Parks and Recreation programs and services.
To maintain existing KFCG programs and services, the remaining 0.25% tax would support “Other
Transportation” and “Sustainability” programs and services.
Ballot Language
Both options would include ballot language to honor and continue to provide funding for Fire Protection
and Emergency services at an 11% of 0.85% amount.
Neither option would result in an increase to tax on groceries or prescription drugs.
The current 0.85 tax exempts manufacturing and current ballot language will reflect the same
exemption.
Both options would trigger TABOR election notice requirements.
Outreach
Staff has been heavily engaged in public outreach on this topic. Specific outreach has included:
Boards and Commissions Business/Community Groups Other Meetings
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Women’s Commission
• Golf Board
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Zoning Board of Appeals
• Downtown Development Authority
• Air Quality Board
• Transportation Board
• Housing Catalyst Board
• Affordable Housing Board
• Campus West Merchants
• UniverCity Connections
• Visit Fort Collins Board
• North Fort Collins Business
Association
• Fort Collins Chamber
Legislative Committee
• Downtown Business Association
(Board & Members)
• Leadership Fort Collins
• Six open meetings (one in
each Council district)
• Three open meetings for
CityWork Alumni
• Poudre Fire District Board
• Coloradoan Editorial Board
• January 10, 2019 open
meeting
1
Packet Pg. 3
January 22, 2019 Page 3
• Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board
• Senior Advisory Board
• Youth Advisory Board
• CDBG Commission
• Commission on Disability
• Planning & Zoning Board
• Natural Resources Board
• Landmark Preservation
Commission
All of these events have included background information and varying data related to KFCG and City
and financial information over time.
The general questions put to these groups focused on “do residents like the current level of service
they experience, and do they feel the service is provided at the right price.” Discussions also focus on
the functions and specifics of base rate and dedicated taxes.
In general, feedback highlights include:
• Overall support for replacing most if not all revenue.
• Some trepidation of losing dedicated funding for particular services but an understanding that
greater flexibility in funding could be a benefit.
• Encouragement to keep the ballot and ballot language as simple as possible.
• Overall support for an increase to the base rate (particularly to cover police, streets, and fire.)
• City revenue and expense is a challenging conversation for the public to be able to provide specific
revenue options.
• Majority like level of service with limited suggestions for where to reduce.
Next Steps
• February 5 regular meeting- Last day to refer language for April 2019 election.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (PDF)
2. Description of Ballot Options A and B (PDF)
3. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 4
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
1.1
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
DRILLING PLATFORMS - FUNDED OFFERS All KFCG OCP and OT goes away = $6.9M ongoing and $1.2M one-time
as of 1/3/2019 entire offer is eliminated reduction amount
funding for offer is reduced
Rank
Offer # - Offer Description
FTE
Offer Type
Offer Total
General Fund
Ongoing
General
Fund 1-Time
& Reserves
KFCG
Dedicated
KFCG OCP KFCG OT Other
Notes / Funds included in
"Other"
Ongoing One-Time Total
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY & SOCIAL HEALTH
1 42.1 - Social Sustainability O 1,659,853 1,091,806 0 568,047
2 66.1 - Neighborhood Programs and Services O 1,683,469 1,503,388 100,000 80,081
3 65.1 - Development Review Programs and Services O 6,743,330 5,634,562 0 101,000 1,007,768 806K Trans, 202k Data & Comm
4 53.1 - Low Income, Senior and Disabled Rebate Programs O 269,500 269,500 0 0
5 37.1 - Graffiti Abatement Program O 144,077 144,077 0 0
6 66.2 - Larimer Humane Society Contract O 830,000 682,330 147,670 0
7 89.1 - West Nile Virus Management Program O 359,081 0 0 359,081 359,081 0 359,081
8 48.1 - ENHANCEMENT: Poudre School District After-School Programs for Title
1 Schools
E 75,000 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 75,000
10 42.6 - ENHANCEMENT: Homelessness Initiatives E 294,000 50,000 244,000 0 50,000 244,000 294,000
16 65.5 - ENHANCEMENT: Wireless Communications Plan E 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 50,000
22 65.8 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE Contractual - Historic Preservation
Building Survey
1.00 E 89,564 0 0 89,564 89,564 0 89,564
24 42.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Human Services Program Grant Funding E 250,000 100,000 150,000 0 100,000 150,000 250,000
28 89.2 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: West Nile Virus - Adult Mosquito Treatment
Efficacy Study
E 20,000 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 20,000
31 42.12 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Murphy Center Expansion & Housing
Placement System
E 88,000 0 0 88,000 0 88,000 88,000
32 65.9 - REDUCTION: -1.0 FTE - Planning Technician & Intern (vacant) (1.00) R (84,475) (84,475) 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
33 66.7 - REDUCTION: -1.0 FTE - Compliance Inspector (vacant) (1.00) R (64,505) (64,505) 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
Funded Subtotal (1.00) $12,406,894 $9,401,683 $691,670 $1,305,773 $1,007,768 $673,645 $552,000 $1,225,645
448,645
CULTURE & RECREATION
1 47.2 - Recreation Activities and Programs O 5,036,682 0 0 1,007,360 0 4,029,322 Recreation Fund
2 47.3 - Recreation Administration and Communication Services O 1,213,849 461,175 0 150,000 0 602,674 Recreation Fund
3 58.3 - Museum of Discovery O 1,074,336 945,801 0 0 0 128,535 Museum Fund
4 58.4 - Gardens on Spring Creek O 1,010,614 810,068 91,000 109,546 0 0
5 29.1 - Parks, Trails and Facility Grounds Maintenance O 7,846,699 6,192,342 283,747 904,716 65,894 400,000 Con Trust Fund
6 47.1 - Ice & Aquatics O 2,718,779 0 0 497,259 0 2,221,520 Recreation Fund
7 28.1 - Memorial Parks O 838,498 153,006 0 103,020 0 582,472 Cemeteries, Perpetual Care
8 49.1 - Cultural Facilities: Utilities and Custodial O 1,809,221 1,809,221 0 0 0 0
10 58.1 - Cultural Services O 4,557,344 1,581,909 0 0 0 2,975,435 Cultural Svcs
11 29.3 - Parks Life Cycle Program O 550,000 0 0 550,000 0 0
12 57.1 - Urban Forest Management O 2,079,565 1,880,452 0 0 199,113 0
15 27.1 - Community Services Administration and Technology Support O 356,635 306,097 0 0 50,538 0
19 29.8 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: 2.0 FTE - Park Maintenance Workers and
DRILLING PLATFORMS - FUNDED OFFERS All KFCG OCP and OT goes away = $6.9M ongoing and $1.2M one-time
as of 1/3/2019 entire offer is eliminated reduction amount
funding for offer is reduced
Rank
Offer # - Offer Description
FTE
Offer Type
Offer Total
General Fund
Ongoing
General
Fund 1-Time
& Reserves
KFCG
Dedicated
KFCG OCP KFCG OT Other
Notes / Funds included in
"Other"
Ongoing One-Time Total
TARGET REDUCTION
30 29.6 - ENHANCEMENT: Improving Playground Accessibility for All E 125,000 0 125,000 0 0 0 Skipped due to needing ongoing
33 57.5 - ENHANCEMENT: Forestry Emerald Ash Borer Pre-Infestation Program E 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000
46 32.7 - ENHANCEMENT: Poudre River Downtown Master Plan Reach 4
Feasibility Study
E 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000
53 57.6 - REDUCTION: Forestry Tree Replacement Plantings E (75,000) (75,000) 0 0 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
54 47.12 - REDUCTION: -1.0 FTE – EPIC Ice Leader Position (1.00) E (60,177) 0 0 0 0 (60,177) Excluded Reduction Offer
55 47.13 - REDUCTION: -0.50 FTE Recreation Coordinator (0.50) E (46,150) 0 0 0 0 (46,150) Excluded Reduction Offer
Funded Subtotal 5.25 $30,699,807 $14,299,056 $974,747 $3,508,858 $315,545 $10,833,631 $233,985 $150,000 $383,985
ECONOMIC HEALTH
3 41.1 - Economic Health Office O 889,156 589,756 0 299,400 0
12 30.1 - Downtown Landscaping and Maintenance O 1,984,941 1,662,961 38,000 228,980 55,000 GID 228,980 0 228,980
14 67.1 - Downtown General Improvement District (GID) Core Offer O 112,000 0 0 0 112,000 Dedicated funding source Dedicated funding
15 41.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Use Tax and Business Personal Property Tax Rebates E 401,157 0 401,157 0 0 Dedicated funding source Dedicated funding
22 80.1 - Convention and Visitors Services O 1,098,916 1,098,916 0 0 0 Dedicated funding source Dedicated funding
25 41.10 - Northern Colorado Regional Airport Operational Support O 177,500 111,257 66,243 0 0 Contractual obligation
26 30.2 - ENHANCEMENT: 2.0 FTE - Park Technician and Park Maintenance
Worker with Expansion of Downtown Maintenance
2.00 E 173,998 135,498 38,500 0 0 135,498 38,500 173,998
31 41.15 - ENHANCEMENT: Metro District Support E 87,500 87,500 0 0 0 87,500 0 87,500
46 80.2 - ENHANCEMENT: Tourism Master Plan, Visitor and Convention Services E 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 50,000
Funded Subtotal 2.00 $4,975,168 $3,685,888 $593,900 $0 $528,380 $167,000 $451,978 $88,500 $540,478
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
5 43.2 - Timberline Recycling Center O 291,916 0 0 291,916 0
9 86.2 - Natural Areas - Department Management O 1,118,975 53,375 0 0 1,065,600 Natural Areas Fund
13 43.1 - Environmental Services O 1,624,914 1,441,799 0 183,115 0 250,000 250,000
20 86.5 - Natural Areas - Planning and Special Projects O 1,721,256 30,585 0 98,770 1,591,901 Natural Areas Fund 129,355 129,355
24 9.16 - ENHANCEMENT: CAPITAL - Utilities: Environmental Learning Center
Dam Rehabilitation - Design & Permitting
E 500,000 0 166,500 0 333,500 Utilities Funds / Skipped due to
needing ongoing
33 43.12 - ENHANCEMENT: 2030 Climate Action and Energy Policy Update –
Optimizing Policy, Targets and Strategies
E 40,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 Utilities Funds / Skipped due to
needing ongoing
35 86.10 - ENHANCEMENT: Encampment Cleaning Services E 206,000 0 100,000 26,000 80,000 Utilities Funds 126,000 126,000
38 9.20 - ENHANCEMENT: Utilities: Legal and Consulting Services for Response
to the Northern Integrated Supply Project
E 150,000 75,000 0 0 75,000 Utilities Funds 75,000 75,000
43 43.10 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Road to Zero Waste Plan Update E 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 15,000
DRILLING PLATFORMS - FUNDED OFFERS All KFCG OCP and OT goes away = $6.9M ongoing and $1.2M one-time
as of 1/3/2019 entire offer is eliminated reduction amount
funding for offer is reduced
Rank
Offer # - Offer Description
FTE
Offer Type
Offer Total
General Fund
Ongoing
General
Fund 1-Time
& Reserves
KFCG
Dedicated
KFCG OCP KFCG OT Other
Notes / Funds included in
"Other"
Ongoing One-Time Total
TARGET REDUCTION
2 25.2 - Police Patrol Services O 16,972,937 15,876,625 91,431 1,004,881 0 0
3 25.5 - Police Information Services O 8,019,397 6,657,427 0 1,361,970 0 0
4 33.1 - Municipal Court Services O 1,131,144 1,049,582 9,810 0 71,752 0
5 75.1 - Poudre Fire Operation, Maintenance & Capital (General Fund) O 26,715,616 26,715,616 0 0 0 0
6 75.2 - KFCG: Poudre Fire Authority Operation, Maintenance & Capital O 2,972,456 0 0 2,972,456 0 0
7 87.1 - City Manager's Office: Office of Emergency Management - 0.5 FTE plus
2.0 FTE transfer from PFA
2.50 O 357,087 230,638 49,449 0 0 77,000 Utilities Funds
8 51.1 - Police Facilities Utilities and Building Operations O 422,515 386,515 36,000 0 0 0
9 25.1 - Police Office of the Chief and Administration O 3,525,894 3,049,600 0 476,294 0 0
10 25.4 - Police Criminal Investigations Division O 7,275,807 5,688,208 85,000 1,502,599 0 0
11 25.9 - Police Colorado Regional Information Sharing Project [CRISP] O 494,040 0 494,040 0 0 0
12 25.6 - Police Vehicle Program O 2,087,704 1,784,950 133,000 169,754 0 0
13 25.3 - Police Community and Special Services O 5,268,946 3,729,172 25,000 1,514,774 0 0
15 25.23 - ENHANCEMENT: CAPITAL REPLACEMENT - Police Services
Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Replacement - Minor Capital Replacement
E 148,540 0 148,540 0 0 0
16 25.14 - ENHANCEMENT: Police Radio Infrastructure - Northern Colorado
Regional Communication Network [NCRCN]
E 58,860 0 58,860 0 0 0
20 96.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Event Log and Performance Monitoring Tool E 139,300 0 12,996 0 0 126,304 Utilities Funds
21 33.2 - ENHANCEMENT: 0.2 FTE for Municipal Court Judge and Security
Screeners
0.20 E 93,268 93,268 0 0 0 0
22 25.19 - ENHANCEMENT: Police School Resource Officers for Poudre School
District
E 110,240 110,240 0 0 0 0
23 25.16 - ENHANCEMENT: Police Reports Voice-to-Text Transcription E 88,836 (3,890) 92,726 0 0 0
25 25.11 - ENHANCEMENT: 8.0 FTE - Police Services Resources for a Growing
Community
8.00 E 391,593 391,593 0 0 0 0
26 25.20 - ENHANCEMENT: Debt Service for Police Regional Training Facility E 661,000 218,130 442,870 0 0 0
28 25.8 - Police Red Light & Camera Radar Program E 599,897 599,897 0 0 0 0
29 96.2 - ENHANCEMENT: Cyber Security Training, Monitoring and Measuring E 70,000 0 30,800 0 0 39,200 Utilities Funds
42 73.2 - ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE (0.75 FTE Attorney, 0.25 FTE Legal
Assistant) - Municipal Court Prosecution Resources
1.00 E 175,683 155,683 20,000 0 0 0 155,683 20,000 175,683
50 73.1 - ENHANCEMENT: Municipal Prosecution Technology Tools E 24,755 24,755 0 0 0 0 24,755 0 24,755
55 25.15 - ENHANCEMENT: Police Camera Radar/Red Light Addition E 575,124 575,124 0 0 0 0 Dedicated funding source Dedicated funding
68 25.31 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - FC911 Emergency Services
DRILLING PLATFORMS - FUNDED OFFERS All KFCG OCP and OT goes away = $6.9M ongoing and $1.2M one-time
as of 1/3/2019 entire offer is eliminated reduction amount
funding for offer is reduced
Rank
Offer # - Offer Description
FTE
Offer Type
Offer Total
General Fund
Ongoing
General
Fund 1-Time
& Reserves
KFCG
Dedicated
KFCG OCP KFCG OT Other
Notes / Funds included in
"Other"
Ongoing One-Time Total
TARGET REDUCTION
10 35.3 - Essential Street Operations O 3,114,863 440,794 0 0 1,132,963 1,541,106 Transportation Fund 1,573,757 0 1,573,757
11 35.1 - Street Maintenance Program O 15,885,512 0 0 7,606,019 0 8,279,493 Transportation Fund / KFCG
Dedicated to Street Maintenance
14 6.4 - FC Bikes O 435,494 0 0 0 352,251 83,243 Transportation Fund 352,251 0 352,251
15 6.3 - Safe Routes to School Program O 169,807 0 0 0 169,807 0 169,807 0 169,807
16 6.9 - School Crossing Guard Program O 94,350 0 0 0 94,350 0 94,350 0 94,350
17 31.1 - Streetscape Maintenance O 760,604 760,604 0 0 0 0 760,604 0 760,604
19 34.4 - Signal Pole Inspection and Maintenance O 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000
22 34.5 - Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program O 150,000 88,581 0 0 61,419 0 General Fund portion is dedicated to
this program
61,419 0 61,419
25 1.3 - KFCG City Bridge Program O 1,700,000 0 0 1,700,000 0 0 KFCG Dedicated to Street
Maintenance
33 1.26 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Railroad Crossing Maintenance E 125,000 0 0 0 125,000 0 125,000 0 125,000
34 45.11 - ENHANCEMENT: Electric Bus Pilot E 880,000 0 105,000 0 0 775,000 Transit Fund / Grant related
35 45.15 - ENHANCEMENT: Transfort Capital Asset Repair and Replacement E 2,387,000 0 144,000 0 0 2,243,000 Transit Fund / Grant related
37 69.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Debt Service for Prospect & I-25 Interchange E 1,377,500 674,833 483,667 0 0 219,000 Transportation Fund 1,158,500 0 1,158,500
40 31.2 - ENHANCEMENT: 1.0 FTE - Park Technician and New Streetscapes 1.00 E 162,833 162,833 0 0 0 0 162,833 0 162,833
45 34.3 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: Adaptive Signal System Expansion E 57,581 0 0 0 57,581 0 0 57,581 57,581
91 31.5 - REDUCTION: Contractual Median Maintenance R (25,000) (25,000) 0 0 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
Funded Subtotal 1.00 $56,794,984 $10,936,407 $981,655 $9,306,019 $4,840,191 $30,730,712 $0 $4,708,521 $157,581 $4,866,102
2,772,731 100,000 1,993,371
HIGH PERFORMING GOVERNMENT
1 2.1 - Information Technology Application Services O 3,304,825 2,022,329 0 0 0 0 1,282,496 Data & Comm
2 3.1 - Information Technology Infrastructure Services O 3,155,915 1,383,448 0 0 0 0 1,772,467 Data & Comm
3 3.2 - Information Technology Client Services O 1,594,117 1,132,458 0 0 0 0 461,659 Data & Comm
4 3.3 - Information Technology Infrastructure Equipment O 1,610,586 410,835 332,000 30,000 0 0 837,751 Data & Comm
5 4.1 - Information Technology Administration Services O 524,687 376,533 0 0 0 0 148,154 Data & Comm
6 5.1 - HR Core Services O 2,399,883 2,056,883 343,000 0 0 0 0
9 10.2 - Utilities: Customer Service & Administration - Customer Connections
Programs and Services
O 6,710,985 50,744 0 0 0 0 6,660,241 Utilities
12 13.1 - City Clerk Services O 807,436 807,436 0 0 0 0 0
13 13.2 - Elections O 318,744 0 318,744 0 0 0 0
14 15.1 - Communications and Public Involvement (CPIO) O 1,848,005 1,763,559 0 0 84,446 0 0
15 39.2 - City Manager's Office O 2,303,336 2,123,118 18,000 0 0 0 162,218
16 52.1 - Financial Programs and Services O 3,929,009 3,820,705 108,304 0 0 0 0
17 64.1 - PDT Administration O 1,252,393 599,139 0 0 0 0 653,254
19 63.1 - General Legal Services O 2,637,059 2,242,040 0 0 0 0 395,019 Utilities
20 39.1 - City Council O 177,290 161,290 0 0 16,000 0 0
DRILLING PLATFORMS - FUNDED OFFERS All KFCG OCP and OT goes away = $6.9M ongoing and $1.2M one-time
as of 1/3/2019 entire offer is eliminated reduction amount
funding for offer is reduced
Rank
Offer # - Offer Description
FTE
Offer Type
Offer Total
General Fund
Ongoing
General
Fund 1-Time
& Reserves
KFCG
Dedicated
KFCG OCP KFCG OT Other
Notes / Funds included in
"Other"
Ongoing One-Time Total
TARGET REDUCTION
32 50.8 - ENHANCEMENT: Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Replacements E 664,943 0 206,648 9,310 0 3,185 445,800 Equipment Fund / Skipped due to
needing ongoing
43 50.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Facility Major Maintenance E 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 Skipped due to needing ongoing
45 50.14 - ENHANCEMENT: 0.0 Net FTE Contractual to Classified Conversion -
Facilities Construction Project Manager
E 7,621 7,621 0 0 0 0 0 $7k is noise on an $8M task
66 71.2 - ENHANCEMENT: Arc Flash Hazard Analysis E 70,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000
73 52.7 - ENHANCEMENT: City Give Program 1.0 FTE Contractual (formerly City
Fund Foundation)
1.00 E 146,351 0 146,351 0 0 0 0
75 15.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Video Production Assistance Programs - Fort Collins
Public Access Network (FC Public Media)
E 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000
85 15.4 - REDUCTION: Stop Doing - City News Newsletter R (26,000) (26,000) 0 0 0 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
86 3.10 - REDUCTION: Scheduled Computer Replacements R (125,000) 0 (125,000) 0 0 0 0 Excluded Reduction Offer
Funded Subtotal 1.00 $44,988,832 $29,231,551 $2,433,047 $39,310 $349,363 $3,185 $12,932,376 $201,204 $85,000 $286,204
201,204 85,000 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ALL OUTCOMES $3,185,614 $4,843,376 $6,904,126 $1,214,081 $8,118,207
1/9/2019 Page 5 of 5
1.1
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Option “A” Ballot Question
Shall City of Fort Collins taxes be increased by an estimated [dollar amount] for the first full fiscal
year (2021), and by whatever additional amounts are raised annually thereafter, by extending,
without an expiration date, the City’s current .85% sales and use tax set to expire December 31,
2020; with this tax not applying to items exempt from the City’s sales and use tax under the City
Code, such as food for home consumption and prescription drugs, and the use tax not applying
to manufacturing equipment; with the revenue from it used for any public purpose, except 11% of
revenues shall be used to fund fire protection and related services in the City through the Poudre
Fire Authority or other means; and with all the tax revenues, and investment earnings thereon,
collected, retained and spent as a voter-approved revenue change notwithstanding the spending
and revenue limitations of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and any other law?
Option “B” Ballot Question
Shall City of Fort Collins taxes be increased by an estimated [dollar amount] for the first full fiscal
year (2021), and by whatever additional amounts are raised annually thereafter, by extending the
City’s current .85% sales and use tax set to expire December 31, 2020; with .60% of the tax rate
having no expiration date and its revenues used for any public purpose, except 15.6% of revenues
shall be used to fund fire protection and related services in the City through the Poudre Fire
Authority or other means; with the remaining .25% of the rate used for the City’s sustainability and
transportation programs and expiring [date]; with the sales and use tax not applying to items
exempt from the City’s sales and use tax under the City Code, such as food for home consumption
and prescription drugs, and the use tax not applying to manufacturing equipment; and with all the
tax revenues, and investment earnings thereon, collected, retained and spent as a voter-approved
revenue change notwithstanding the spending and revenue limitations of Article X, Section 20 of
the Colorado Constitution and any other law?
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Description of Ballot Options A and B (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
1
City Council Work Session
January 22, 2018
Keep Fort Collins Great-2020 Sunset
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Direction Sought
1. Which revenue replacement option would Council like to move
forward?
2. If Option B:
• What should be the length of the term?
2
1.3
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Timeline
Last Day to Refer Ballot language- February 5, 2019
Election-April 2, 2019
3
1.3
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
KFCG Conversation
November 2017
Council Finance Committee
January 2019
Council Work Session
4
Council Finance Committee
Council Work Session
Council Regular Meeting
1.3
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
KFCG Sunset Key Elements
Council direction to date:
No additional tax on groceries
Don’t increase total tax burden
Maintain financial commitments to Poudre Fire Authority
5
1.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Options: Same Revenue
Option A: Increase the City base sales tax rate by 0.85%.
• One-time vote to increase the base rate tax by 0.85%.
• Revenue prioritized and allocated by Council through budgeting process.
Option B: Increase the City base sales tax rate by 0.60% and put
forward a 0.25% dedicated, renewable tax
• One-time vote to increase the base sales tax by 0.6% and consideration of a
0.25% dedicated tax.
• To maintain existing KFCG programs and services the 0.25% would support
“Other Transportation” and “Sustainability” programs and services.
6
1.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Ballot Language Basics
Both options would include ballot language to honor and continue to
provide funding for Fire Protection and Emergency services.
Neither option would result in an increase to tax on groceries or
prescription drugs.
The current 0.85 tax exempts manufacturing and current ballot
language will reflect the same exemption.
Both options would trigger TABOR election notice requirements.
7
1.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Outreach Feedback
Overall support for replacing most if not all revenue.
Some trepidation of losing dedicated funding for particular services but an
understanding that greater flexibility in funding could be a benefit.
Support for keeping ballot question as simple as possible.
Overall support for an increase to the base rate (particularly to cover police,
streets, and fire.)
City revenue and expense is a challenging conversation for the public to be
able to provide specific revenue options.
Majority like level of service with limited suggestions for where to reduce.
8
1.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Direction Sought
1. Which revenue replacement option would Council like to move
forward?
2. If Option B:
• What should be the length of the term?
9
1.3
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
DATE:
STAFF:
January 22, 2019
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Occupancy Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present and review the report and findings from the Occupancy Study.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council have regarding the report and findings?
2. Does Council have any requested follow-up action items based on the presentation and discussion?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins has a long history with the occupancy ordinance. The original ordinance was adopted in
1964 and limited occupancy to no more than three unrelated people. In 2005, after much public input and an
Economic Study, City Council amended the ordinance to add clarity and to make violations a civil infraction thus
making the ordinance more enforceable.
Enforcement of the revised ordinance began in 2007. In 2009, a policy discussion and review of the ordinance
included an additional Economic and Impact Study. The study provided a mix of quantitative and qualitative
information with a goal of determining the impact of enforcement.
The ordinance has always been controversial among stakeholders. The Associated Students of Colorado State
University and others have requested an increase in occupancy limits and the real estate community has
questioned the efficacy and potential impact of the ordinance on housing affordability. Neighbors and long-term
residents, especially those living near CSU, remain strong advocates of the ordinance and its positive impacts in
their neighborhoods.
Over the last decade, staff has made numerous tweaks in the ordinance and in administration of the ordinance
including changes to notification requirements, to the disclosure statement process, and to allowances for host
families and extra-occupancy rental units.
In 2016, the City was asked to consider soliciting another study to determine both the effectiveness of the
ordinance as well as potential unintended consequences. In 2017, in partnership with Colorado State University
(CSU), the Associated Students at Colorado State University (ASCSU), the Board of Realtors (BOR), and
neighbors, a scope of study was created, and an RFP issued. Corona Insights was chosen to conduct the study
which began in 2018 and was coordinated to work around the academic school year.
Study scope:
Primary questions to be answered
a. Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood quality?
b. Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
2
Packet Pg. 23
January 22, 2019 Page 2
Information on short term rental impacts was also included.
This study, unlike the previous, did not include “what-if” questions or scenarios. It is intended to be a snapshot in
time of the rental market and the forces that affect it, with comparisons over time from which the City and the
community can identify trends.
Study Process
Corona Insights utilized census data, City enforcement and violation data, randomized surveys, and targeted
surveys to short-term rental license holders to conduct overall analysis of our local housing market, trends, and
resident perceptions related to the occupancy ordinance and neighborhood quality.
Many of these same techniques and markers were used in both the 2005 and 2009 studies, which allowed for
comparisons over time.
The full report examines the following major topics:
1. Overview of rental market trends compared to other comparable markets.
2. Estimates of the number of occupancy ordinance violator households and their characteristics.
3. Examination of neighborhood quality issues and any correlations with proximity to ordinance violators and/or
short-term rentals
4. An examination of the outcomes of City investigations of complaints related to the occupancy ordinance.
5. Public support/opposition to the occupancy ordinance and short-term rental rules.
6. An overview of the short-term rental market in terms of numbers, types of units, and revenues.
7. Results of a survey of licensed short-term rental operators to assess uses and origins of their units.
Data sources include a public survey that oversampled areas near the campus, a survey of licensed short-term
rental operators, a review of previous studies, an analysis of City occupancy complaint data, and a review of
secondary sources such as U.S. Census data, Colorado Division of Housing data, and private sector data.
Key Findings
Overall Rental Market
• Rental vacancy rates have rebounded from 1.2 percent in the 2009 study to 2.4 percent today. (These are
multi-year averages to stabilize trends.) However, the vacancy rate remains low and has been consistently
lower than similar cities.
• Median rental costs in Fort Collins have increased by about 65% since 2005, a larger increase than similar
cities.
• Forces affecting rental vacancy rates have included new construction (increases vacancy rates), population
growth (decreases vacancy rates) changes in owner occupancy rates over time (decreases vacancy rates in
this time period), occupancy ordinance noncompliance (compliance decreases vacancy rates, noncompliance
increases vacancy rates), and the rise of short-term rentals (decreases vacancy rates), with numerous other
contributing forces.
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
• The estimated number of violator households declined after ordinance enforcement began from
approximately 1,200 households to under 600 households in 2009 but has since risen back to the pre-
enforcement era estimate of 1,200 households. (This represents a slightly lower incidence of the population
than 2005 due to population growth.)
• 74 percent of violator households had three or more vehicles, compared to 22 percent of non-violator
households.
• Violator households generally formed and dissolved quickly. 47 percent of violator households have lived in
their home for less than a year.
• 67 percent of occupancy violation complaints were unfounded in 2017 compared to 45 percent in 2011.
2
Packet Pg. 24
January 22, 2019 Page 3
Occupancy Ordinance Perceptions
• Most residents were aware of the ordinance (89 percent), though most said that it has no significant impact on
their neighborhood (78 percent). Support for the ordinance was higher than opposition (42 percent versus 24
percent), and residents were more likely to say that it had a positive impact on their neighborhood than
negative (15 percent versus 8 percent).
• 38 percent of residents liked the current enforcement philosophy of the ordinance. Among those desiring a
change, roughly equal proportions wanted it to be enforced less strictly (18 percent) versus more strictly (17
percent). 28 percent said they did not know.
Short-Term Rentals (STRs)
• Over the past year, there were approximately 500 to 600 short-term rentals being offered each month. The
number of STRs grew rapidly from 2014 through 2017. Growth is slowing in 2018, but year over year growth
appears to be 45 units per year.
• STRs are evolving toward full-unit rentals as opposed to rooms inside a person’s home. Full units have gone
from 34 percent of STRs in 2014 to 46 percent in 2018.
• Average monthly revenues per unit have risen notably, from $599 in October of 2014 to $1,201 in October of
2017. This is likely due to larger units being offered over time and more units being offered on a full-time
basis.
• Estimated total short-term rental revenues have risen from approximately $500,000 in 2014 to $6.6 million in
2017, and a trend for $9.6 million in 2018.
• STR hosts in Fort Collins were nearly exclusively sole proprietors who were motivated to rent their properties
for extra income, the unique benefits/flexibility of STRs over alternatives, and the cultural experience of the
STR scene.
• Approximately 30 percent of STRs were former long-term rentals that were converted, and another 30 percent
were removed from the housing market in other ways. Approximately 40 percent would not be on the housing
market if they were not STRs.
• Most residents say that STRs had no significant impact (or unknown impact) on their neighborhood (80
percent). Only 2 percent say that STRs had a positive impact compared to 13 percent who said they had a
negative impact.
Neighborhood Quality Indictors
Note: Neighborhood quality was measured via four attributes: peace and quiet, maintenance of lawns/houses,
and sense of community).
Negative issues with neighbors were measured in eight areas: inappropriate parking, loud non-party noise, non-
shoveled walks, uncontrolled pets, trash or junk in yard, disruptive parties, poorly maintained homes, and criminal
activity.
• Among eight neighborhood quality issues tested, the most common issue citywide was vehicles parked
inappropriately, followed by loud noise (excluding parties) and non-shoveled sidewalks.
• Residents with at least one suspected ordinance-violating neighbor were much more likely to report lower
neighborhood quality than did residents without a suspected ordinance-violating neighbor. They were also
more likely to report negative issues with their immediate neighbors on each of the eight tested issues.
• Residents with at least one suspected short-term rental (STR) neighbor were more likely to report lower
neighborhood quality than those without an STR neighbor. These negative impacts were generally (but not
always) smaller than the impacts of ordinance-violating households.
• Residents with STR neighbors were also more likely to report negative issues with their immediate neighbors
on each of the eight tested issues. The negative impacts were generally slightly larger in areas where STRs
are not allowed than in areas where STRs are allowed. The negative impacts were generally notably smaller
than the impacts reported by those with ordinance violating neighbors (with the exception of uncontrolled
pets, where the impacts were similar).
2
Packet Pg. 25
January 22, 2019 Page 4
STR Rule Perceptions
• Residents generally supported or were neutral on STR rules (41 percent supported, 39 percent neutral,19
percent opposed).
Public Engagement
A stakeholder group of neighbors, ASCSU, and Board of Realtor members met both prior to and after the study.
The group was also engaged through email as the resident survey was created.
In seeing and discussing the findings overall comments included:
• Good and valuable information.
• Some surprises.
• Reiteration that our housing market is complex, and it is difficult if not impossible to draw one-to-one
correlations.
Potential Action Item
Although not related to the study, the Home Share program presents an option for an exception to the occupancy
ordinance.
The Home Share program was developed locally and is administered by Neighbor to Neighbor out of the Off-
Campus Life Office at CSU. The program is open to home owners who live in their home and are over 55 years of
age. Home Share helps to match tenants with these home owners through interviews and background checks. If
needed, the lease includes a reduced rent for household help (maintenance, snow-shoveling, errands, etc.)
Under the current ordinance, a home owner couple over 55 could not rent to another couple or to two unrelated
tenants. This could be an area to consider an exemption. This possibility was discussed among the stakeholder
group and was considered a good option provided that parking was addressed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Neighbor to Neighbor Homeshare Information (PDF)
2. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
3. Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 26
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Neighbor to Neighbor Homeshare Information (7567 : Occupancy Study)
2.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Neighbor to Neighbor Homeshare Information (7567 : Occupancy Study)
January 22, 2019
City Council Work Session-Occupancy Study
Ginny Sawyer and Corona Insights
ATTACHMENT 3
2.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Questions
1. What questions does Council have regarding the report and
findings?
2. Does Council have any requested follow-up action items based on
the presentation and discussion?
2
2.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
History
Enacted in 1964 - criminal violation
Neighborhood Quality Efforts 2003-2005:
Public Nuisance Ordinance, Party Patrol, Increased fines, Nuisance
Gathering, Community Liaison, Landlord Training
2005-Occupancy Ordinance Revisions:
De-criminalized, changed definition, disclosure statement, extra-
occupancy rental house permit—effective 2007
3
2.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Studies
2005 – Economic and Market Study (pre-ordinance)
Goals: Effect on rental vacancy rates; rental prices; and home values.
2009 - Economic and Market Impact Study (4-year post ordinance)
Goals: Estimated # of violators; Changes in rental prices and vacancy
rates; Perception surveys and interviews
2017 – Proposed New Study (11-year post-ordinance)
• Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood
quality?
• Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
4
2.2
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Study Questions
Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
- Likely yes.
Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood quality?
-Yes.
Many additional factors and trends also contributing
to overall housing situation.
5
2.2
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Rental Housing Forces At Work
6
A variety of issues have affected the local rental market
over the past 15 years.
Rental Market
Population Growth
Wages
Construction of New Housing
Occupancy Ordinance Rise of Short Term Rentals
Household formation
dynamics and geography
Condo Defects Law
The Great Recession
2.2
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Snapshots of the Rental Market
2005 - 2007 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
5.4%
Excess Rental Units
+100 units
1,200 violator
households
2010 - 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Excess Rental Units
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
2015 - 2017 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
2.4%
Excess Rental Units
-800 units
1,200 violator
households
2.2
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Supply and Demand Impact on Rent
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston‐Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0123456789
Percent Change in Gross Median Rent
New People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005‐2017
Population growing faster
than housing supply
2.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Rental Housing Market
9
Despite similar population trends:
Vacancy rates remain lower than others.
Rent has increased at a higher rate than similar
areas post ordinance.
2.2
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings-Ordinance Violators
Estimated number of violator households declined approximately
1,200 to 600 between 2005 and 2009.
In 2017 number back to estimate of 1,200.
74% of violator households had three or more vehicles, compared to 22% of
non-violator households.
Increase in non-student violator households.
Approximately 67% of occupancy investigations were found to NOT be in
violation in 2017.
10
2.2
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
The number of occupancy-
violating households has
risen back to pre-ordinance
levels.
2.2
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Ordinance Violator Vehicles
Violator
households tend
to have more
vehicles.
2.2
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Ordinance Demographics
Mostly young and unrelated
population, but diverse in
age. Children emerging as
demographic.
2.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Violator College Status
In 2005, Less than 50 percent college students
71% of
violator
households
had collage
students
2.2
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Ordinance Investigations
55% 56%
48% 50%
45%
37% 33%
45% 44%
52% 50%
55%
63% 67%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Outcomes from Over Occupancy
Investigations
Unfounded
Violation
Complaints are
more likely to be
unfounded
2.2
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings-Ordinance Perceptions
89% of residents are aware of the ordinance.
78% reported ordinance has no significant impact on their neighborhood.
Support for the ordinance was higher than opposition (42 % vs 24 %).
Residents were more likely to say that the ordinance had a positive impact on
their neighborhood than negative (15% vs 8%).
Among those desiring a change, roughly equal proportions wanted it to be
enforced less strictly (18%) versus more strictly (17%).
16
2.2
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Occupancy Ordinance Opinions
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
Support 42% 38% 44% 43% 45% 37% 53% 30% 19% 47% 43% 28%
Neutral 31% 34% 26% 31% 29% 34% 25% 38% 31% 31% 29% 40%
Oppose 24% 26% 25% 23% 22% 27% 19% 29% 44% 19% 24% 27%
No opinion 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 5%
More support than opposition for ordinance
2.2
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings-Neighborhood Quality
Neighborhood Quality : peace and quiet, lawn/home maintenance, sense of community
Negatives: inappropriate parking, noise, non-shoveled walks, pets, trash or junk in yard,
disruptive parties, poorly maintained homes, and criminal activity
Most common issues citywide were vehicles parked inappropriately, loud
noise and non-shoveled sidewalks.
Residents with suspected ordinance-violating neighbor(s) were much more
likely to report lower neighborhood quality than residents without.
Residents with suspected short-term rental (STR) neighbor were more likely
to report lower neighborhood quality than those without.
18
2.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Neighborhood Quality and Violators
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Proximity to a suspected ordinance violator correlates with lower neighborhood quality
2.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Trends in Quality
84% 81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their
Neighborhood Good or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
Trends are not
correlated only
with violators
Neighborhood quality rose and then fell in the past 15 years
2.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings-Short Term Rentals
Full unit rentals are increasing.
Hosts are sole proprietors motivated by extra income, unique
benefits/flexibility of STRs over alternatives, and the cultural experience.
~ 30% of STRs are previous long-term rentals.
~ 40% would not be on the housing market if they were not STRs.
80% of residents report STRs having no significant impact on their
neighborhood.
2% report a positive impact compared to 13% reporting a negative impact.
21
2.2
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Types of Short-Term Rentals
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) are evolving toward full units.
Entire home/apt Private room Shared room
2014 34% 57% 9%
2015 37% 56% 6%
2016 41% 54% 4%
2017 44% 52% 5%
2018 46% 50% 4%
Pulled Directly
From Long-
Term Rental
Market
30%
Pulled From Housing
Market, Either Rental or
Ownership
30%
Would
Not Be In
the Rental
Market If
Not Short-
Term
Rental
40%
2.2
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Summary
Numerous factors, including the occupancy ordinance, have
contributed to a significant increase in rent prices over the last 15
years.
Neighbors report higher neighborhood quality when they don’t
perceive any over-occupied housing near them.
In general, there is higher support than opposition to the occupancy
ordinance.
Demographic of violator households has shifted.
23
2.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Questions
1. What questions does Council have regarding the report and
findings?
2. Does Council have any requested follow-up action items based on
the presentation and discussion?
24
2.2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Home Share
Neighbor to Neighbor Program
Home owners 55+
Background checks, interviews, lease writing assistance
Matching owners with tenants
Program could be constrained by current occupancy ordinance
25
2.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Market Study
ATTACHMENT 2
2.3
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Contents
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 2
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 28
Section 1: Rental Market Trends 33
Section 2: Ordinance Violators 88
Section 3: Short-Term Rentals 126
Section 4: Neighborhood Quality 150
Appendix 170
2.3
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary
2.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2005 to 2010
Market forces 10 to 15 years ago conspired against the rental market.
In 2007, the City began actively enforcing the Occupancy Ordinance, which was expected to create new
rental demand as larger households disbanded to form a higher number of smaller households. This
occurred at a time when the city’s rental market was healthy, with a slight surplus of vacant rental units, so the
expectation of resulting decreases in vacancy rates was not of major concern.
However, in December of 2007, the Great Recession began, resulting in a major slowdown of new home
construction. The population of Fort Collins continued to grow, creating more demand for housing than the
construction market could meet.
In addition, several market forces specifically increased demand in the rental market. In addition to the
ordinance enforcement and general population growth, the economy likely created new renters due to
foreclosures, and the new Condo Defects Law likely stunted the development of condominiums that are a
traditional path from renting to home ownership. The result was a steep decline in rental vacancy rates that
created a very challenging market for renters in the 2010 to 2012 time frame, as shown on the following page.
We conclude that the ordinance was one of several forces that led to the decrease in vacancy rates during this
period, which would have contributed to increasing rental prices.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 4
2.3
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Snapshot – 2005 to
2012
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 5
2005 to 2007 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
5.4%
Excess Rental Units
Above Ideal Vacancies
+100 units
1,200 violator
households
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Rental Unit Shortage
Below Ideal Vacancies
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
Intervening Events
The Great Recession
• Slowdown in construction
• Increased rental demand due to
foreclosures, lack of supply, financial issues
• “Lost renters” due to lower household
formation or other issues
Ordinance Enforcement
Increased rental demand as households reformed
Population Growth
Increased natural rental demand
3.9 percent per year rental cost increases
2.3
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Overview, 2010 to 2018
A slow recovery over the past several years
As the recession ended, Fort Collins’ rental market was more or less gridlocked, with a very low vacancy rate.
In the light of this supply shortage, construction surged. However, the population was still growing and
prices were on the rise quickly, creating new challenges. While construction began making headway in
moving the market back toward a healthy level, it barely outpaced increased demand. In addition, pent-up
demand from the recession was released, bringing new households into the market.
Likely a result of housing affordability and other issues, home ownership rates continued to drop, albeit at a
slower rate than they had in the recession. Additionally, a new market phenomenon arrived on the scene to
siphon off the rental housing supply. Short-term rentals are a relatively small force, but nonetheless diverted
some of the housing supply from long-term rentals to short-term rentals.
In response to this, some households began doubling up for different reasons than we saw in the recession.
The result is more households that violate the occupancy ordinance, but they are not so much the college
students who used to represent that population. A majority are now non-students, often with children.
The result has been a slow movement toward a healthy rental market, but not yet enough. The market has
improved, but remains unbalanced in favor of landlords and against tenants, as shown on the following page.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 6
2.3
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Snapshot – 2010 to
2017
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 7
2010 to 2012 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
1.2%
Excess Rental Units
-1,000 units
550 violator
households
2015 to 2017 Era
Rental Vacancy Rate
2.4%
Excess Rental Units
-800 units
1,200 violator
households
Intervening Events
Construction Boom
Tripling of home construction rates
Affordability
Slower road to home ownership,
more ordinance violators
Population Growth
Continued population growth
Short-Term Rentals
New demands on housing stock (though
small compared to other forces)
4.2 percent per year rental cost increases
Ordinance
Compliance continued to increase rental demand and
contribute to low vacancy rates (and thus cost increases)
2.3
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
The population has grown faster than the housing supply
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 8
A comparison of population growth
to housing supply growth shows that
Fort Collins is an outlier compared to
a number of similar communities
around the United States. Fort
Collins’ population has grown faster
than the change in housing supply,
with nearly 7 new people joining the
population for each new housing unit
being built. This is primarily due to
the shortfall of new supply in the 2005
to 2010 time period, which is still
affecting the market today.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North
Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North
Carolina
Winston-Salem, North …
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0123456789
Percent Change in Gross Median Rent
New People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
2.3
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins has lower vacancy rates than other comparable markets in
Colorado*
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
While other standalone Colorado metro areas
faced many of the same market forces as Fort
Collins, they were generally starting at a
higher vacancy rate, so the declines in vacancy
rates moved them from an unhealthy (high)
vacancy rate to a generally healthy vacancy
rate. In contrast, these forces pushed Fort
Collins from a generally healthy vacancy rate
to an unhealthy (low) vacancy rate. The Fort
Collins market has been slowly moving back
to a healthy level since 2011, but is still a
challenging market for renters.
* Yearly data were not available for the fourth
standalone metro area of Grand Junction
2.3
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins’ rental costs have increased faster than other comparable markets
in Colorado*
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 10
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of
InRent the face of low vacancy rates, market 2005
competition will push prices higher. While
this has driven prices upward in other
Colorado markets as well (with the exception
of Grand Junction), the impact has been
largest for Fort Collins.
(The graph at right is a rental cost index that
controls for base differences in rent. It
measures each metro area at a 2005 value of
100.) Rents in Fort Collins are 78 percent
higher in 2017 than they were in 2005.
2.3
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Rental Market Dynamics
Rental households are getting larger, and owner occupancy is declining
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 11
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people. This is a notable increase in size, and means that nearly 8,000 additional
people are living in rental units solely due to this increase. The result is that rental properties are more
densely occupied now than they have been in the past.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in
past years would have owned their homes. This places more demand on the rental market.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
HHouseholds Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
2.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Occupancy Ordinance Compliance
The number of households not in compliance with the Occupancy Ordinance
has increased
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 12
Three studies have been conducted over the past 15
years to estimate the number of households that are
violating the occupancy ordinance. Prior to active
enforcement of the ordinance, the number was
estimated at slightly more than 1,200. The figure
declined by nearly 50 percent after enforcement
began, but has since risen back to roughly the
original number.*
However, as described on the following pages, the
types of households that are in violation have
evolved since 2005.
* - Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
2.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
College students are no longer the most common type of violator
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 13
In the initial 2005 study, it was estimated that 71
percent of ordinance violators were college students.
In the 2018 study, the proportion has shifted
dramatically. Only 47 percent of violators are now
estimated to be college students, with 53 percent
estimated to be non-students.
This is a notable change because it implies that
affordability may be an issue among non-student
populations that is leading to larger households.
45% Undergraduate Students
2% Graduate Students
42% Adult non-students
10 % Pre-K to 12th
grade students*
* These are minor school-age children of other segments.
2.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households are mobile, generally unrelated, and live in houses
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 14
Violator households tend to either form quickly or
be mobile, as nearly half moved into their home
within the past year. This mobility may increase the
likelihood of conflict if they are new to a
neighborhood.
Of particular note is the age profile. While 40
percent are 18-21 year old adults, 47 percent are
older, and 13 percent are children. This influx of
adults with children represents a change in the
profile over time.
47% have moved into their home in the past 12
months
40% are age 18 to 21
73% live in single-family homes or duplexes
25% of households have children
13% are children
61% have no related people (all roommates)
2.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Profile of Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Violator households tend to have numerous vehicles
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 15
When residents were surveyed about the prevalence
of eight different neighborhood issues, the most
commonly seen issue was inappropriate parking of
vehicles. Violator households are vulnerable to this
issue because they tend to have numerous vehicles.
* - Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
2.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Support outweighs opposition, though many are neutral
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 16
The ordinance is well known, with 89 percent of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards
it, but more residents support the ordinance (42 percent) than oppose it (24 percent). The biggest split
is that homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while
homes without a student have the opposite stance.
* - Note that due to population growth, the proportion of
violator households relative to the population is somewhat
lower.
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure
College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42% 38% 44% 43% 45% 37% 53% 30% 19% 47% 43% 28%
Neutral 31% 34% 26% 31% 29% 34% 25% 38% 31% 31% 29% 40%
Oppose 24% 26% 25% 23% 22% 27% 19% 29% 44% 19% 24% 27%
No opinion 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 5%
2.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of Occupancy Ordinance
Most residents don’t see the ordinance impacting their neighborhood and are
split on enforcement
.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 17
Nearly 4 in 5 residents don’t believe that the
ordinance has an impact on their neighborhood.
Among those who do see an impact, it’s more positive
than negative. The one exception is that residents in
homes that contain college students are more likely to
see a negative impact than a positive impact (17
percent negative versus 11 percent positive).
Residents generally prefer the current level of
enforcement over more/less strict enforcement.
Again, the exception is residents in homes with
college students, who strongly prefer less strict
enforcement (8 percent more strict, 34 percent less
strict.
78% don’t believe that ordinance has an impact
on their neighborhood.
• 15% see a positive impact
• 8% see a negative impact
38% like the current level of enforcement
• 17% want more strict enforcement
• 18% want less strict enforcement
• 28% have no opinion
2.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) are a growing market
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 18
STRs have consistently grown in number over the past three years. The figures below represent the
number of listed units each month for the time period for which data were available at the time of this
report.
Revenues for proprietors have risen from an estimated $500,000 citywide in 2014 (annualized estimate)
to roughly $9.6 million citywide in 2018 (annualized estimate).
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
2.3
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
The Short-Term Rental Market
Short-Term Rentals (STRs) partially cannibalize units from the rental supply
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 19
In a tight rental housing market, a concern might arise that STRs
are removing long-term rentals from the market. While this is
true to some extent, not all STRs do so. Approximately 40
percent of STRs are units that would not otherwise be on the
market if they weren’t STRs. (For example, they might be a
spare bedroom that would just be used as a spare bedroom.)
Another 30 percent of STRs are estimated to be directly
converted from long-term rentals, and the remaining 30 percent
are removed from the housing market, but it cannot be
determined if they would have been rental units or owned units.
As such, STRs to date do negatively impact rental vacancy rates,
but they are currently a smaller force than other market forces.
Pulled Directly
From Long-
Term Rental
Market
30%
Pulled From
Housing
Market, Either
Rental or
Ownership
30%
Would Not Be
In the Rental
Market If Not
Short-Term
Rental
40%
2.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Perceptions of STR Licensing Rules
Support generally outweighs opposition, though many aren’t aware of the rules
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 20
Only 31 percent of residents were aware of STR
licensing rules. However, when asked about
support or opposition, residents were more likely
to support the current rules than oppose them. 41% support current STR rules
39% have no opinion
19% oppose current STR rules
2.3
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality - Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 21
Four measures of neighborhood quality were tested, and all received positive ratings. Peace and quiet,
lawn maintenance, and home maintenance received particularly high ratings, while sense of community
was lower (but still positive). The neighborhood west of campus is rated lower by its residents than
other parts of the city, and renters tend to rate their neighborhood lower than owners.
Total
Region Tenure
College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
2.3
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower
neighborhood quality ratings
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 22
Even within neighborhoods, proximity to suspected ordinance violators tends to correlate with lower
ratings on neighborhood quality.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
2.3
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs in areas where they are not allowed is correlated
with lower neighborhood quality ratings
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 23
Overall, there is a negative correlation between perceived neighborhood quality and proximity to STRs.
However, this is an issue only in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2, Not applicable = excluded
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
2.3
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues - Citywide
Residents generally observe few problems amongst their neighbors
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 24
Among the tested issues, the most common are parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises other
than parties. The latter is reported much more commonly by renters than by owners.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose
0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
2.3
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Trends in Neighborhood Quality- Citywide
Residents generally rate their neighborhood as having positive qualities
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 25
Neighborhood quality
ratings rose from 2004
through 2008 for single-
family homes, and have
declined since. While this
appears to correlate with the
increases and decreases in
violator households, the
pattern was also reported by
residents who did not live in
proximity to ordinance
violators.
84%
81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
2.3
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Issues and Ordinance Violators
Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with more incidents of
neighborhood issues
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 26
Loud noise and inappropriately parked vehicles stand out as issues that seem associated with proximity,
particularly in the area west of campus.
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
2.3
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Executive Summary: Key Findings
Neighborhood Quality and Short-Term Rentals
Proximity to suspected STRs is correlated with more incidents of neighborhood
issues
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 27
The impact is smaller than that seen for ordinance violators, but nonetheless negative impacts are
reported, particularly in areas where STRs are not allowed.
Figures represent average reported
number of incidents per respondent.
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
2.3
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Introduction
2.3
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Introduction: Background
In 2018, the City of Fort Collins retained Corona Insights to conduct an examination of rental market
conditions in Fort Collins, particularly with respect to the City’s occupancy ordinance. The initial research
questions were:
> Has the occupancy ordinance had an impact on neighborhood quality?
y Our conclusions are shown on Page 4 and 7 of the Executive Summary.
> Does the occupancy ordinance impact the affordability of housing?
y Our conclusions are shown on Page 22 and 26 of the Executive Summary.
This report is a followup to two previous studies conducted for the city in 2005 and 2009. The previous
studies contained some common elements to this study, but generally had somewhat different emphases.
> The 2005 study focused primarily (but not exclusively) on estimating the impacts of the ordinance on the rental
market if it were fully enforced, but also included measures of neighborhood quality among single-family home
residents.
> The 2009 study focused primarily on the impacts of the ordinance enforcement on various constituency groups. It
also included a tracking survey of neighborhood quality.
> This 2018 report steps back and takes a larger view of the rental market, updates the tracking survey, and provides
the first examination of the impact of Short-Term Rentals on the market and on neighborhood quality. The 2018
report also expanded the survey to include all households rather than just single-family home residents.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 29
2.3
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Introduction: Occupancy Ordinance
The occupancy ordinance states that
"Occupancy in a residential dwelling unit (single-family, duplex, and multifamily) is
restricted to:
one family as defined below (Section 5.1.2) and not more than one additional
person;
OR
one adult and their dependents (if any), a second adult and their dependents
(if any), and not more than one additional person.“
The ordinance has existed for many years, but was enforced actively beginning in 2007.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 30
2.3
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Introduction: Geographical Analysis Areas
Because the occupancy ordinance
has been of particular focus in
areas near the Colorado State
University campus, several
analyses in this report break down
citywide results into three areas, as
shown here.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 31
2.3
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Introduction: Report Layout
The report addresses housing in terms of overall market trends as well as specific topics. The
layout follows the order below. Each sub-section includes unique key findings.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 32
Section 1. Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
Section 2. Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number
Profile of Violators
Investigation Outcomes
Public Sentiment Toward Ordinance
Section 3. Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
Rental Hosts and Properties
Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
Section 4. Neighborhood Quality
Citywide Quality Measures
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
2.3
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Section 1: Rental Market Trends
2.3
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 34
Section 1.1
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Other Colorado Metro Areas
1.1.1 Change in Demand
1.1.2 Change in Supply
1.1.3 Change in Vacancies
1.1.4 Change in Average Rent
2.3
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Colorado Comparisons
 While population growth in Fort Collins is higher than most comparable areas, the highest
rates in the city were concentrated pre-ordinance.
 The average size of rental households increased over the long term.
 The proportion of homes that were renter-occupied increased over the long term.
 Housing supply trends in Fort Collins are largely consistent with other Colorado markets
across time periods. The city had a significant decrease in new residential building permits
between 2004-2009 that has since rebounded.
 While the entire state has seen a decrease in rental vacancy rates over the last two decades,
Fort Collins has had a significantly lower (in relative and absolute terms) vacancy rate in the
post-ordinance era.
 While trends in the cost of rent in Fort Collins were similar to comparable cities pre-
ordinance, the rate of increase has been much higher (in relative and absolute terms) in the
post-ordinance era. Nonetheless, most comparable Colorado cities have seen a steep increase
in rent between 2013-2017.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 35
2.3
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 36
Section 1.1.1
Change in Demand
2.3
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Population growth in Fort Collins is fairly consistent with
similar metro areas
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 37
Average Population from State Demographer
Average Population
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 169,179 188,187 202,794 217,593 236,169
Fort Collins 118,195 129,874 138,852 148,360 161,421
Loveland 50,985 58,313 63,942 69,233 74,749
Colorado Springs 359,794 379,203 400,872 430,156 455,163
Grand Junction 45,188 49,417 55,839 61,029 63,677
Greeley 76,804 84,062 89,758 94,571 101,572
Pueblo 140,737 148,286 155,100 160,084 163,532
Population Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 11% 19,008 8% 14,607 7% 14,800 9% 18,576 40% 66,990
Fort Collins 10% 11,679 7% 8,978 7% 9,508 9% 13,061 37% 43,226
Loveland 14% 7,329 10% 5,629 8% 5,291 8% 5,516 47% 23,764
Colorado Springs 5% 19,409 6% 21,669 7% 29,285 6% 25,007 27% 95,369
Grand Junction 9% 4,229 13% 6,422 9% 5,190 4% 2,648 41% 18,489
Greeley 9% 7,258 7% 5,696 5% 4,813 7% 7,001 32% 24,767
Pueblo 5% 7,548 5% 6,814 3% 4,984 2% 3,448 16% 22,795
2.3
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins’ population has converged with Pueblo
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 38
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Population from State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction
Greeley Pueblo city Loveland city
The last 20 years has seen
Fort Collins’ population
increase by around 51%.
While at the higher end of
these similar metro areas,
this growth is fairly similar
to Grand Junction and
Greely, which have both
seen an increase of 48%
during the same time
period.
Fort Collins’ convergence
with Pueblo is largely the
product of a smaller
increase of only 23% in
the latter.
2.3
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Population growth rate in Fort Collins is consistent with
similar metro areas
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 39
Yearly population growth
in Fort Collins is similar
to comparable state
metro areas.
The city’s annual
population growth rate
was the highest between
1998 and 2001, averaging
3.25%. While the last
four years have seen
higher rates, Fort Collins’
annual population
growth rate has not been
above 3% since 2001.
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6% Percent Population Change From State Demographer
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
2.3
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The renter population is growing, and so is the average
number of people living in rented homes
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 40
Because Fort Collins is a growing community, we would expect the number of rental households to increase,
along with number of people living in rental households. However, the more interesting analysis is how
rental households are changing within the housing landscape.
Over the past ten years, the size of rental households has increased notably from an average of 2.11 people
per household to 2.38 people per household. This is a notable increase in size, and essentially means that
nearly 8,000 additional people are living in rental unit solely due to this increase in household size. There
could be many reasons for this, but affordability is a likely suspect, potentially forcing more roommate
situations or delaying home buying for families.
Also of interest is the continuing increase of rental households among the population. Comparing the
current rate to ten years ago, we can conclude that approximately 950 households are renting now, and in past
years would have owned their homes.
Era
Rental
Households
Rental
Population
Average Renter
Household Size
Proportion of
HHouseholds Who Are
Renters
2005-2007 23,130 48,790 2.11 43.1%
2010-2012 26,044 59,530 2.29 45.6%
2015-2017 28,871 68,815 2.38 46.4%
2.3
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 41
Section 1.1.2
Change in Supply
2.3
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Growth in housing unit supply has increased significantly
since 2013
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 42
This graph normalizes
housing supply growth
as a percentage of each
city's 2006 value,
allowing for a more
effective comparison.
While housing supply
in Fort Collins was
fairly stagnant between
2005 and 2010 the last
five years has seen a
higher rate of
expansion in housing
units.
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Housing Units as a Percentage of 2006 Value (Three
Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
2.3
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Housing development in Fort Collins bottomed out in
2009
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 43
The US Census’
Building Permits Survey
shows that the creation
of new housing units in
Fort Collins was in
decline before the 2008
housing crisis and
reached its nadir in
2009.
The increase seen in
overall housing units
after 2013 is mirrored in
the growth of newly
authorized units. 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized in Fort
Collins Metro Area
Total Single Family Units
2.3
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Growth in renter occupied units is consistent with similar
metro areas
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 44
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Renter Occupied Units as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
All four Colorado metro
areas have seen a steady
increase in renter
occupied units.
The increase in renter
occupied units is coming
from both increases in
housing units and a
decrease in home
ownership rate.
2.3
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 45
Section 1.1.3
Change in Vacancies
2.3
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Colorado Springs and Greeley are converging to Fort
Collins’ high occupancy rate
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 46
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Housing Units Occupied
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
These Census data, which
combine the rental and
owner housing markets,
show that occupancy rates
in Fort Collins have
historically been higher
than similar metro areas.
More than 95% of all Fort
Collins’ housing units have
been occupied since 2010
2.3
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Renters are making up a higher percentage of occupied
units in Fort Collins
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 47
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Compared to similar
metro areas in the state,
Fort Collins has had a
high percentage of
renters in occupied units.
The state-wide increase
in renting could be
attributed to the 2008
financial crisis and
increasing costs of home
ownership post-recession
2.3
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Colorado has seen a steep increase in home values over
the last six years
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 48
While median home values
in Fort Collins were largely
stagnant between 2005 and
2011, the next six years
saw about a 50% increase.
While all four metro areas
had significant increases in
home values between 2005
and 2017, Fort Collins
demonstrated the largest
percentage with the
median home value
increasing from $229,700
to $366,500 80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Median Home Value as a Percentage of 2005 Value
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
2.3
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Sale-to-list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 49
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
101%
102%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Sale-to-List Price for Residential Homes
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
Detailed home sale data is
only available after 2011
for Fort Collins.
The last few years have
seen home buyers paying a
higher percentage of list
price.
While the sale-to-list price
for neighborhoods east of
campus appear lower than
others, it is important to
note that this data is based
exclusively on the
“University Park” area.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
2.3
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Sale-to-list price in Fort Collins has been increasing over
the last few years
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 50
Average monthly home
sales west of campus are
very similar to those in
neighborhoods away from
campus over the last few
years.
Sales in the University Park
area have converged with
average rates in other areas
of Fort Collins over time.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average Monthly Home Sales Per Neighborhood
West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
2.3
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Multifamily vacancy rates in Fort Collins are low across
unit types
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 51
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fort Collins Multifamily Unit Rental Vacancy Rate by Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom All
Rental vacancy rates in
Fort Collins steadily
decreased across all unit
types between 2004 and
2012 and have remained
consistently below 5%
since.
While three bedroom
units experienced
significantly higher
vacancy rates in the mid
2000s, they have
converged to the average
rate in the city.
2.3
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Vacancy rates in Fort Collins follow a similar trend to
comparable metro areas, but are lower in the post-
ordinance era
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 52
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rates (One Year Average)
Fort Collins/Loveland Average of Four Comparable Markets
The four comparable
metro areas have
demonstrated a similar,
but less extreme, decline
in rental vacancy rates.
Fort Collins has spent
most of the post-
ordinance era having a
significantly lower rental
vacancy rate than similar
Colorado markets,
although appear to be
converging lately.
2.3
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Recent vacancy rates in Fort Collins have been lower
than similar cities
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 53
Average Vacancy Rates - Multi-Family Units
Average Vacancy Rate
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland 3% 12% 7% 4% 3%
Colorado Springs 5% 11% 10% 6% 5%
Grand Junction 5% 7% 4% 9% 4%
Greeley 3% 10% 7% 4% 3%
Pueblo 5% 8% 8% 10% 5%
Average Vacancy Rate Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-IV I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 8.6 -5.1 -3.0 -1.2 -0.7
Colorado Springs 6.3 -0.6 -3.9 -0.8 0.9
Grand Junction 2.1 -3.5 5.0 -4.9 -1.3
Greeley 7.0 -3.0 -3.1 -1.4 -0.5
Pueblo 3.6 -0.4 1.8 -5.2 -0.3
2.3
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Total renter vacancy rates in Fort Collins are very low
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 54
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Rental Vacancy Rate (Three Year Average)
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining the total rental
vacancy rate (single and
multifamily homes) from
the Census confirms the
trends observed in the
Colorado Department of
Housing data.
Fort Collins has had a
lower rental vacancy rate
than similar markets in the
post-ordinance era. The
decrease between 2008 and
2011 has led to an
extremely tight rental
market with few vacant
rental units.
2.3
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 55
Section 1.1.4
Change in Average Rent
2.3
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Across unit types, average rent in Fort Collins has nearly
doubled over the last 20 years
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 56
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Fort Collins Rent by Multifamily Unit Type
Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bed, One Bath
Two Bed, Two Bath Three Bedroom
Rent in Fort Collins is
increasing across all unit
types. Efficiencies and
three bedroom units have
seen the largest
percentage increase over
the last two decades.
2009-2018 saw a 56%
increase in the average
rent of all unit types.
This is significantly
higher than the 18%
increase observed
between 1999-2008.
2.3
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Average rent increased in Fort Collins at a higher rate
than similar metro areas, especially between 2006-2013
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 57
Rental Prices - Multi-Family Units
Average Rent
1998-2001 2002-05 2006-09 2010-13 2014-2017
I II III IV V
Fort Collins/Loveland $656.90 $733.22 $799.85 $956.93 $1,237.35
Colorado Springs $613.51 $665.32 $700.37 $768.00 $970.91
Grand Junction $465.27 $486.76 $620.62 $626.14 $514.95
Greeley $537.49 $606.97 $630.59 $680.35 $942.25
Pueblo $434.08 $479.29 $513.34 $567.87 $655.00
Rental Price Change
I-II II-III III-IV IV-V Total Change I-V
Fort Collins/Loveland 12% $76.33 9% $66.63 20% $157.08 29% $280.41 88% $580.45
Colorado Springs 8% $51.80 5% $35.05 10% $67.63 26% $202.92 58% $357.40
Grand Junction 5% $21.49 28% $133.86 1% $5.52 -18% -$111.19 11% $49.68
Greeley 13% $69.48 4% $23.62 8% $49.76 38% $261.90 75% $404.76
Pueblo 10% $45.20 7% $34.05 11% $54.54 15% $87.13 51% $220.92
Breaking down the change in average rent across four year segments illustrates how Fort Collins’ rent
compares to similar metro areas in the state. The percentage change from era I to II shows that Fort
Collins followed a similar pattern of steady increase seen across the state. More recently, the change
between IV and V shows most metro areas experiencing a steep increase in rental prices. The main
period where the Fort Collins’ market appears to be unique is the change between III and IV. Here the
rate of change is double that of comparable cities.
2.3
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Average rent in Fort Collins increased at a higher rate
than similar metro areas
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 58
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Average Rent of Multifamily Units by Market Area
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
While rent in Fort Collins
has always been higher
than comparable metro
areas, the last decade has
seen rent in the city
increase at a faster rate.
All metro areas, except for
Grand Junction, have seen
steep increases in multi-
family unit rent in recent
years.
2.3
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Post 2005 rent has increased in Fort Collins at a higher
rate than similar metro areas
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 59
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Multifamily Rent as a Percentage of 2005 Rent
Fort Collins/Loveland Colorado Springs Grand Junction Greeley Pueblo
Examining average rent
as a percentage of each
city’s 2005 value
confirms the previously
identified pattern.
While recent years have
brought increased rents
across the state, Fort
Collins has experienced
the most significant rise
in rental costs.
2.3
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Calculating total median rent from the Census confirms
the trend
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 60
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Average Median Gross Rent by Market Area From Census
Fort Collins Colorado Springs Greeley Pueblo
Examining total median
rent (single and multifamily
homes) from the Census
confirms the trends
observed in the Colorado
Department of Housing
data.
Fort Collins has historically
had higher rental costs
than comparable metro
areas, but has also seen the
largest increase during this
period - 68% compared to
an average of 48% for the
three comparable cities.
2.3
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Despite similar population trends, rent in Fort Collins
increased at a higher rate than similar areas post-
ordinance
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 61
Population and Multifamily Unit Rent Change Pre and Post-Ordinance
Average Yearly Change in Rent Average Yearly Change in Population
1997-2005 2006-14 Difference 1997-2005 2006-14 Difference
Fort Collins/Loveland 2.76% 5.28% 2.51% 2.70% 1.92% -0.77%
Colorado Springs 2.73% 2.60% -0.14% 1.45% 1.49% 0.04%
Grand Junction 1.52% -0.89% -2.42% 2.01% 1.88% -0.12%
Greeley 2.63% 3.54% 0.91% 2.53% 1.39% -1.14%
Pueblo 1.34% 2.49% 1.15% 1.34% 0.72% -0.62%
Average change calculated: (last year/first year)^(1/# years in period)
 The geographic and temporal coverage of the Colorado Department of Housing’s data allow for an
assessment of pre and post-ordinance trends. The table below shows average yearly changes in
population and multifamily rent in two eight year periods before and after the ordinance. In its 2009
report, Corona Insights identified 2006 as the first year that ordinance affected the rental market
due to the start of education and registration efforts.
 The table demonstrates that rental costs in Fort Collins grew at a very similar rate to comparable
metro areas pre-ordinance. However, rent increased at a much faster rate post-ordinance. A
decrease in the average yearly change in population shows that this change is not likely due to a
increase in housing demand unique to Fort Collins.
2.3
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 62
Section 1.2
Rental Market Trends
Fort Collins Compared to Selected Nationwide Cities
2.3
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Nationwide Comparisons
 While population growth in Fort Collins was higher than comparable national cities in the
1990s, it has regressed toward the mean in the post-ordinance era.
 Fort Collins’ housing supply increased at a relatively high rate in the 1990s, but is near average
in the post-ordinance era. Housing stock growth is lower across all comparable cities.
 The rate that renters have occupied housing units in Fort Collins is higher in absolute and
relative terms post-ordinance.
 Fort Collins’ rental vacancy rates are lower (in relative and absolute terms) than similar cities
in the post ordinance era.
 Fort Collins’ expansion in demand (population growth) has exceeded supply (housing units).
 Rental costs in Fort Collins have increased at a faster rate than similar national cities in the
post-ordinance era. Fort Collins also had a high increase in rent in the 1990s.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 63
2.3
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
How to read a box plot
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 64
outlier
maximum
third quartile
median
first quartile
mean
minimum
 Box plots offer a quick and effective way to
identify differences between groups of
populations.
 They show the median value of each
population (marked with a line) and a
surrounding box that stretches from the 25th
to 75th percentile. The “middle half ” of
observations are contained in the box.
 The “whiskers” show the range of the top
and bottom 25% of observations respectively.
If an observation has a value that is more
than 1.5 times the interquartile range (the
distance between the 75th and 25th percentile
value), it is deemed an outlier.
 The City of Fort Collins logo shows where
the city falls on the distribution.
2.3
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins’ population growth has regressed toward the
mean
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 65
Fort Collins Values:
3.06%, 2.33%
Average population growth has
generally declined across the case
study cities.
Fort Collins’ population growth
rate has decreased in absolute
relative terms. While the city’s
rate was previously at the higher
end of the distribution in the
1990s, it is well within the middle
half in the modern era.
2.3
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The rate of Fort Collins’ housing stock growth has
significantly decreased
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 66
Fort Collins Values:
3.05%, 0.84%
While Fort Collins had the
highest rate of housing unit
change in the 1990s, this value
has decreased in absolute and
relative terms.
Given the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession, there is a
significantly lower rate of
housing unit change between
2005-2017 for the entire sample.
Nonetheless, Fort Collins went
from pacing this group in the
first time period to the median in
the second.
2.3
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins’ housing growth lags population growth
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 67
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North
Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South
Carolina
Sioux Falls, South
Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Change in Population 2005-2017
Change in Housing Units 2005-2017
Supply and Demand Trends in the Housing Market
This graph plots the change in
population and housing units
between 2005-2017. The
Colorado markets from the
previous section are added for
reference.
The trendline shows the
average relationship between
supply and demand. Fort
Collins and Columbia are
notable outliers in that their
population growth (demand)
exceeds growth in housing
units (supply).
2.3
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
In general, the percentage of renters is on the rise
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 68
Fort Collins Values:
-4.39%, 2.43%
As a group, the percentage of
occupied units by renters is on
the rise amongst the comparison
cities.
Fort Collins has seen both an
absolute and relative increase in
the rate of renters in occupied
units in the modern era.
This dynamic has the potential
to lower rental vacancy rates and
raise the cost of rent, but does
not appear to be unique to Fort
Collins.
2.3
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Change in Fort Collin’s rental vacancy rates appears
average.
Note:Study Data limitations reduce sample by six cities. Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy 69
As in the previous state analysis,
this comparison demonstrates a
general trend in decreasing rental
vacancy rates across markets.
While Fort Collins appears to be
at the center of each distribution,
it is important to remember that
these plots are reporting a
measurement of change. Unlike
population and housing units,
vacancy rates are subject to
ceiling and floor effects. Once
value approaches the floor (0%
rental vacancy rate), change
becomes less likely.
Fort Collins Values:
-0.4% , -3.24%
2.3
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
However, Fort Collins’ vacancy rates are subject to a
“floor effect”
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 70
Comparing the 2007 and 2017
rental vacancy rates demonstrates
that, while the change in these
rates is average for this sample,
the absolute values are toward the
bottom of the distribution.
Again, data show that Fort
Collins rental market has been
extremely tight in recent years
with very few vacant rental units.
Fort Collins Values:
5.96%, 2.72%
Note: Data limitations reduce sample by six cities.
2.3
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Rent continues to grow at a relatively high rate in Fort
Collins
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 71
Fort Collins Values:
As with the state analysis, Fort 5.02% 4.06%
Collins’ rate of rent increase is at
the high end of the distribution
in the modern era. However, this
is not necessarily out of the
ordinary for this sample as the
city was also at the high end of
the distribution in the 1990s.
Overall, the rate of change in
median rent is lower in the
modern era. This trend may be
attributed to the great recession.
2.3
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins’ rent increase is unmatched by comparable
national cities
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 72
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2006 Value
(Three Year Average)
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana Lincoln, Nebraska Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina Winston-Salem North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon Salem, Oregon Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Mesquite, Texas Provo, Utah
The dramatic increase of
rent in Fort Collins
between 2005-2017 is
unique in the sample of
comparable cities.
The previously observed
increase in rent amongst
Colorado cities post 2013
is exhibited by Lakewood
having a significant
increase in rent over the
last few years as well.
2.3
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 73
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
024681012141618
Percent Change in Gross Median Rent
New People Per New Housing Unit
The X axis of this plot Demand/Supply and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
calculates the increase in
population divided by the
increase in housing units
between 2005-2017. During
this time period, Fort Collins
has had 6.6 new individuals for
every new housing unit.
Lakewood is a notable outlier
due to a very small (1%)
increase in housing units.
The trendline demonstrates a
relationship between excess
demand and higher median
rents.
Colorado market analysis cities
are included for reference.
2.3
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Changes in rent appear to be (in part) a product of supply
and demand (removing Lakewood as an outlier)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 74
Fort Collins, Colorado
Joliet, Illinois
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Lincoln, Nebraska
Durham, North Carolina
Greensboro, North
Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Eugene, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Columbia, South Carolina
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Provo, Utah
Pueblo, Colorado
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0123456789
Percent Change in Gross Median Rent
New People Per New Housing Unit
Supply/Demand and Median Gross Rent Change 2005-2017
The main conclusions of the
previous plot are preserved
when Lakewood is removed.
Fort Collins’ 6.6 new
individuals per new housing
unit is significantly higher than
the remaining sample’s average
of 4.4.
However, it is notable that Fort
Collins lies substantially above
the trendline in this plot. This
location suggests that
demand/supply is only one
cause, amongst others, of the
high rents in the city.
2.3
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Increase in rent has been mirrored by home values
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 75
Fort Collins Values:
92%, 60%
In general, the home values in the
modern era increased at a lower
rate than they did in the 1990s.
The lower rate is likely a product
of the 2008 housing crisis and
subsequent recession.
While the rate in Fort Collins
decreased in absolute terms, it
has increased relatively toward
the high end of the distribution.
2.3
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins and Lakewood follow similar trajectories in
home values
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 76
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percent of 2005 Median Home Values
Fort Collins, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Average of 13 other cities
The recent trend of
increasing rent in Colorado
has also been present in
median home values.
While Fort Collins and
Lakewood show a distinct
and drastic increase in
median home values after
2011, they previously lagged
comparable cities.
2.3
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 77
Section 1.3
Rental Market Trends
Recent Trends in Fort Collins
2.3
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Recent Trends in Fort Collins
 Across the last six years, around 12% of rented homes have had four or more occupants.
These households could have related occupants or otherwise not be in violation of the
occupancy ordinance, so this does not indicate that 12% of rented homes are occupancy
ordinance violators.
 Rented homes with four or more bedrooms is relatively uncommon, typically around 12%.
 A typical rented home has about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available
 Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit structures stayed about the same
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 78
2.3
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
occupants hovered around 12%
The proportion of
rented homes with four
or more occupants varied
around 12%, but did not
steadily increase.
79
3,201 4,488
2,440 3,049 3,781 3,180
22,345
23,733
22,182
23,939
24,918 26,572
13%
16%
10% 11%
13%
11%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Occupants Per Household
# rented homes with
1 to 3 people
# rented homes with
4+ people
% rented homes with
4+ people (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The proportion of rented homes with four or more
bedrooms dipped slightly in 2016
The proportion of rented
homes with four or more
bedrooms bounced around
12% but did not steadily
increase. The pattern of
rented home with four or
more bedrooms was
similar to the proportion
of rented homes with four
or more occupants.
80
3,352 3,969 2,963
3,623 3,405 2,493
22,194
24,252
21,659
23,365 25,294 27,259
13% 14%
12% 13%
12%
8%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Number of Bedrooms Per Household
# rented homes with
0 to 3 bedrooms
# rented homes with
4+ bedrooms
% rented homes
with 4+ bedrooms
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The proportion of homes rented by non-families
increased very slightly from 2011
In 2016, about 66% of
rented homes were rented
by nonfamilies, which is
typically defined as no one
in the household is related.
This proportion was
slightly larger than
estimates from 2011 (62%)
and 2012 (63%) but similar
to estimates from 2013 to
2015. Based on 3-year
running averages, there
was a very slight increasing
trend in the percentage of
nonfamily rentals.
81
9,656 10,301
7,697 8,525 9,201
10,203
15,890
17,920
16,925
18,463
19,498
19,549
62% 63%
69% 68% 68%
66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Rentals by Household Family Status
Nonfamily rentals
Family rentals
% nonfamily (right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
There have been about 1.6 to 1.7 cars available per
rented household since 2011
The number of cars
available per rented
household bounced
around 1.6 and 1.7, but it
did not substantially
change in a sustained
pattern between 2011 and
2016.
82
40,568
46,368
42,233 45,155
48,156 48,490
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7 1.7
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cars Available to Renters and Cars Per Rented Household
Total Cars Available to
Renters
Cars Per Rented Household
(right axis)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Over time, the proportion of homes in multi-unit
structures stayed about the same
Since pre-2010, the
proportion of all
homes in multi-unit
structures (e.g.,
apartments, duplexes,
etc.) stayed about the
same throughout Fort
Collins and by region.
83
46% 48%
35%
39%
35% 35%
32% 31%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2005-2009 2008-2012 2012-2016
Proportion of Homes that are Multi-Unit
West of Campus
East of Campus
Fort Collins
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
School children (nursery-12) make up a smaller
percentage of population in the areas around campus
post-ordinance
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 84
Due to changing geographic boundaries, Census tract 2 is treated as
“Away from Campus” in these calculations. It was split into two
areas (one away and one West) in the 2010 census.
17% 16%
11%
8%
14% 12%
20% 19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
Nursery School -12th Grade
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
21% 23%
42%
51%
18%
21%
12% 13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2000 2006-10 2011-15
Percentage of Population Enrolled in
College - Graduate School
Fort Collins
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Enforcement of the ordinance has not particularly changed the composition of neighborhoods
around campus, as measured by the population of children. The areas around campus have seen
a small increase in college students and a small decrease in school children (nursery -12th grade)
over the past 15 years, though most of that change occurred pre-enforcement.
2.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The price of median home sales has been significantly
increasing across neighborhoods in Fort Collins
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 85
The median home in Fort
Collins sold for $155,000
more in 2018 than it did in
2012, a 67% increase.
While home values east of
campus appear to increase
dramatically after 2015,
this is based exclusively on
data available from the
University Park
neighborhood.
Neighborhood data is calculated from the following areas. West of Campus (Avery Park,
Brown Farm, Old Town West, P.O.E.T., Prospect, Rogers Park, and Shields). Away from
Campus (Downtown, English Ranch, Foxstone, Huntington Hills, Miramont, Side Hill,
The Landings, and Troutman Park. East of Campus (University Park).
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Median Home Sale Price in Thousands
Fort Collins West of Campus East of Campus Away from Campus
2.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Renters have been filling occupied units at higher rates
across neighborhoods
Report Name/Customer/Project 86
60%
63%
53%
57%
44% 46%
41% 42%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Occupied Units by Renters
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort Collins
Away from
Campus
While the percentage of
renters in occupied units
has been increasing across
all neighborhoods, the
largest increase has been
seen around campus.
2.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The percentage of four or more person rental households
has decreased around campus
Report Name/Customer/Project 87
15%
10%
14%
6%
13%
13%
12%
13%
0%
25%
50%
2008-2012 2013-2017
Percentage of Renter Occupied Units that are Four or
More Person Households
West of
Campus
East of
Campus
Fort
Collins
Away
from
Campus
While the percentage of
occupied rental households
with four or more people
has remained constant in
the City at large, it has
decreased in the areas
around campus.
The areas around campus
have seen a decrease of
renters in one person
households and an increase
of renters in two person
households.
2.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Section 3. Occupancy Ordinance Violators
2.3
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 89
Section 2.1
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Estimated Number of Violator Households
2.3
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Number of Violator Households
 The number of violator households is estimated at slightly more than 1,200 households. This
is notably higher than the figure estimated in 2009, and approximately the same number that
was estimated in 2005.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 90
2.3
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Estimating the Number of Violator Households
Two approaches were used to estimate the number of households that are living in violation of the
occupancy ordinance. The first estimate examined data reported by respondents in the public survey when
asked how many of the four houses nearest to their home were in violation of the ordinance. The figures
were then multiplied by the current rate at which occupancy violation investigations found such violations.
(In other words, 38% of occupancy ordinance complaints were found to be valid.) A high estimate counted
every home that was reported in the survey (scaled up to the population of homes), and a low estimates
assumed that any reported number greater than one was equal to one.
A second estimate was developed using self-reported data from the census documents. These figures include
a high estimate that assumed that all violator households lived within the city of Fort Collins, and a low
estimate that assumed that violator households were equally likely inside the city and in the rural areas outside
the city. (The particular census source extends beyond the city limits to include much of rural northern
Larimer County.)
The four estimates were then averaged to develop an overall estimate of the number of violator households
at 1,234. See the next page for the figures.)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 91
2.3
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Slightly more than 1,200 households are in violation of
the occupancy ordinance
Using these two methods, the estimated number of violator households is 1,234, with an average household
size of 5.06 people.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 92
Survey Data Census Data
High Range 4,291 x Violator Households
Low Range 2,727 x Violator Households
Substantiation Rate 38% x Occupancy Investigations
High Range 1,630 1,285 Estimated Violator Housholds
Low Range 1,036 986 Estimated Violator Housholds
Estimate 1,234
Average Household Size - 5.06 people
2.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The number of violators has fluctuated over time
In comparing the last three studies
(completed in 2005, 2009, and 2018), the
number of violators has fluctuated.
Prior to active enforcement of the
ordinance, the 2005 study estimated that
slightly more than 1,200 households were in
violation.
After the ordinance enforcement began, the
figures dropped to approximately 650.
However, since that time period, the
number has risen again, back to the pre-
enforcement levels. (Note that the
population has grown, so the overall
incidence rate is lower now.)
As is discussed elsewhere, a strong theory is
that affordability issues may be causing
more households to violate the ordinance.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 93
2.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 94
Section 2.2
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Profile of Violator Households
2.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Profile of Violator Households
 The makeup of residents in violator households has changed notably, going from 71% college
students to 44% college students since 2005. Children under 18 now make up roughly 13%
of these households, despite being a negligible population in 2005.
 The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%). However, 78% say that it has no impact on their
neighborhood.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 95
2.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
A slight majority of violator households are rentals
Violator households are nearly evenly split between single family and multi-family homes. Violators who
own their home are nearly all in single-family homes, while violators who rent their homes are evenly split
between single-family and multi-family units..
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 96
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 560 343
Multi-Family Home 6 326
Owned Home Rented Home
Single-Family Home 45% 28%
Multi-Family Home 1% 26%
2.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households tend to share larger homes
Most violator households live in 4-bedroom units. This implies that most violator households are not living
in overcrowded conditions inside the home.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 97
2.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households tend to live in single family homes
As might be expected from the finding on the previous page about the sizes of violator households’ homes,
most violator households live in single family homes (meaning houses that are detached from other houses).
Among those who live in apartments, most live in smaller developments.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 98
2.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households are higher on the rent spectrum
Because they tend to live in larger housing unit, violator households also tend to pay higher rents. However,
the rent is split between more independent payers.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 99
2.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households tend to have more vehicles.
Violator households have notably more vehicles than other types of households. This is an important
distinction because, as seen elsewhere in this report, inappropriately parked vehicles tend to be a common
complaint by Fort Collins residents with respect to neighborhood quality, and it would be a consistent issue
to observe by residents.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 100
2.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Tenant relationships are generally non-blood
Violator households are usually groups of unrelated people.* Less than 40% consist of groups where at least
two people are related to each other. This would imply that nuances to the definition of the ordinance might
have an impact on some households, but not the majority.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 101
* - Relationships are for the person filling out the census form. Others in the household could possibly be related.
2.3
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Relationships
When there are related people in the household, the related person is often a child. Children are present in
violator households at a very similar rate to their presence in non-violator households (27%). This may
suggest younger families that are bringing in others to help with housing costs.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 102
2.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households generally form quickly or move
frequently
Nearly half of all violator households have lived in their home for less than a year. This is an important item
to consider, because conflicts may be more likely to occur with new residents who haven’t yet integrated into
a neighborhood or who introduce change to a neighborhood.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 103
2.3
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
There is no relationship of household income to violator
status
Violator households fall into three main income groups: one-third fall into lower household income
segments (which is the combined income of all residents of the home), while slightly more than one-third
have combined incomes of $100,000 or more. The remainder fall into the income bank in between.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 104
2.3
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Violator households are often young adults
Forty percent of the residents living in violator households are young adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
Conversely, very few residents of violator households are age 50 or older. As is discussed later in this section
of the report, non-students tend to be older than college students. A new population that is emerging in the
violator population is children under the age of 18, who were negligible in the 2005 study and now represent
1 in 8 violators.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 105
50-50 split
of males
and females
2.3
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
College students represent nearly half the violator
population
A slight majority of residents in violator households are college students, with the bulk being undergraduates.
This represents a notable change from the initial 2005 study, which showed that 71% of residents in violator
households were college students.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 106
Ten percent of
residents are
enrolled in primary
or secondary
school. This figure
is lower than the
number of
children in those
households
because some
children are not yet
of school age.
2.3
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
College students are younger, while non-students are
older
If we examine violator household members by both age and college student status, we see the that most
common segment is college students age 18 to 21. However, the next two largest segments are non-students
over the age of 25, with a particular concentration of non-students between the ages of 25 and 34.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 107
2.3
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Residents of violator households are generally working
This analysis was intended to assess whether significant numbers of residents in violator households were
unable to work. Recognizing that many college students may not be in the work force, we see that a majority
of residents are working, and relatively few are disabled or receiving any type of public assistance.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 108
5% are
disabled
4% receive
SNAP
0% receive
public
assistance
payments
2.3
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 109
Section 2.3
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Investigation Outcomes
• 2.3.1 Citywide Trends
• 2.3.2 Neighborhood Trends
2.3
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Investigation Outcomes
 There was notable year to year variation in the number of over occupancy investigations.
 Citywide, the number of investigations trended upward, while the number of violations
remained about the same; thus, the percentage of investigations with unfounded outcomes
increased.
 The greatest number of violations were in the West of Campus region.
 The highest violation per home ratio was in the West of Campus region.
> Two-thirds of occupancy violations occur in the area west of campus, despite the fact that
the area represents only 23% of homes in the city.
 The proportion of violations increased in the West of Campus region, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of all violations in 2017.
 The greatest number of unfounded cases were in the Away from Campus region.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 110
2.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 111
Section 2.3.1
Citywide Trends
2.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The number of over occupancy investigations increased,
but the number of violations did not change
The number of investigations
varied substantially from year
to year, with a low of 84
investigations in 2011 and a
high of 204 investigations in
2016. Based on a two-year
running average (the average
of the current and prior
years), there was an increase
in the number of
investigations between 2012
and 2017. However, there
was not a trending increase in
violations, based on a two-
year running average, which is
represented in the chart below
with dotted lines.
112
46
88
42
74 62
76
47
38
69
46
73
76
128
84 97
157
88
147
138
204
144
0
50
100
150
200
250
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Over Occupancy Investigations by Outcome
Total
Unfounded
Violation
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Violation)
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The percentage of unfounded investigations increased
Among all investigations, the
proportion of violations
decreased from 55% in 2011
to 33% in 2017.
113
55% 56%
48% 50%
45%
37% 33%
45% 44%
52% 50%
55%
63% 67%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Outcomes from Over Occupancy Investigations
Unfounded
Violation
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 114
Section 2.3.2
Neighborhood Trends
2.3
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Neighborhood Summary
Neighborhood Percentage of occupied
homes that are rented
Percentage of occupied homes that are
multi-unit (more than one unit in
structure)
Away from Campus 35% 31%
East of Campus 57% 39%
West of Campus 70% 48%
Fort Collins 46% 35%
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 115
2.3
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The greatest number of violations were always west of
campus
The neighborhoods west,
north, and south of campus
(labeled as “West of campus”
in this report) consistently had
the highest number of
violations per year since 2011,
with total of 286 violations
since 2011 and an average of
41 violations per year. The
neighborhoods east of
campus had a total 38
violations with an average of 5
per year, while the rest of the
city had a total of 111
violations with an average of
16 per year.
116
17
22
12 14
17 19
10
3
12
3 4 5
6 5
26
54
27
56
40
51
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Violations by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The area west of campus has the highest violation per
home ratio
The area west of campus
comprises about 23% of all
occupied homes within Fort
Collins, but this is where 66%
of violations occurred from
2011 to 2017. Therefore, the
ratio of violations per
household was very high.
The share of violations in the
area east of campus was about
the same as the share of
homes. Violations in the
remainder of the city were less
common than the percentage
of homes in this area.
117
66%
26%
11%
9%
23%
66%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Homes
(2012-2016 avg.)
Violations
(2011 to 2017)
Homes Compared to Violations
West of Campus
East of Campus
Remained of City
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Over time, violations became more likely west of campus
The proportion of violations
increased in the
neighborhoods West of
campus, from 57% of all
violations in 2011 to 68% of
all violations in 2017.
118
37%
25% 29%
19%
27% 25%
21%
7%
14% 7%
5%
8% 8%
11%
57% 61%
64%
76%
65% 67% 68%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Percentage of Violations by Study Area
West of Campus
East of Campus
Away from Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The greatest number of unfounded cases were typically
away from campus
The greatest number of
unfounded cases were in
neighborhoods away from
campus, where there were 229
unfounded cases since 2011
with an average of 33
unfounded cases per year.
There were 214 unfounded
cases west of campus with an
average of 31 per year, and
there were 83 unfounded
cases east of campus, for an
average of 12 per year.
119
18
27
20
28
33
50
53
7
18
88
15
11
16
13
24
18
36
28
67
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unfounded Cases by Study Area
Away from Campus East of Campus West of Campus
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
2.3
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 120
Section 2.4
Occupancy Ordinance Violators
Public Sentiment Towards Occupancy Ordinance
2.3
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
 The public is very aware of the ordinance (89%), and more likely to support the ordinance
than oppose it (42% versus 24%).
 However, 78% say that it has no impact on their neighborhood. Among those impacted by
the ordinance, more residents said it had a positive impact (15%) than a negative impact (8%).
 Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement of the ordinance or didn’t
know enough to have a preference. The remaining 35% were about evenly split, with 17%
preferring enforcement more strict than now and 18% preferring enforcement less strict than
now.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 121
2.3
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Most residents were aware of the occupancy ordinance
Most residents (89%) were aware of the ordinance There was little variation across different segments of the
population, other than slightly more awareness among residents of single-family homes versus multi-family
homes. Nonetheless, awareness is high even among multi-family home dwellers.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 122
Total
Region Dwelling Type
College Student in
Home
Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder of
city
Single
family
Multi-
family Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1323 350 495 478 1029 294 205 1061 620 323 304 43
Weighted 1329 318 142 868 836 493 241 1030 539 394 311 45
Aware of Occupancy
Ordinance
Yes 89% 90% 88% 89% 91% 85% 91% 88% 93% 86% 88% 85%
No 11% 10% 12% 11% 9% 15% 9% 12% 7% 14% 12% 15%
2.3
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Student homes and non-student homes oppose each
other on the ordinance
Overall, residents are more likely to support the ordinance than oppose it, though a significant number are
neutral or undecided. Support outweighs opposition by a level of 42% versus 24%. The largest observed
difference in support is homes containing college students versus those without. Homes with college
students are more than twice as likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, but the opposite is true for
homes without students. We also see that homeowners strongly support the ordinance while renters are
evenly split between support and opposition.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 123
Total
Region Dwelling Type Tenure
College Student in
Home
Aware of
Occupancy
Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
Single
family
Multi-
family Owner Renter Yes No Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1328 355 498 475 1044 284 1049 271 202 1064 1167 123
Opinion of Occupancy
Ordinance
Support 42% 38% 44% 43% 45% 37% 53% 30% 19% 47% 43% 28%
Neutral 31% 34% 26% 31% 29% 34% 25% 38% 31% 31% 29% 40%
Oppose 24% 26% 25% 23% 22% 27% 19% 29% 44% 19% 24% 27%
No opinion 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 5%
2.3
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The ordinance does not impact most residents
Only 23% of residents say that the ordinance impacts their neighborhood. Among these, positive impacts
outweigh negative impacts by a margin to 15% to 8%. Every segment saw more positives than negatives,
other than homes with college students.
The most common reasons cited for positive impacts were simply that the ordinance is effective in its goal,
that the ordinance enhances peace and quiet, and that the ordinance leads to fewer cars nearby. The most
common reasons cited for negative impacts were affordability and general comments about obtaining
housing.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 124
Total
Region Tenure
College Student in
Home
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No
Base
Unweighted 1283 342 477 464 1018 257 196 1029
Weighted 1266 301 128 837 700 560 226 983
Positive impact 15% 23% 17% 11% 15% 14% 11% 15%
No significant impact 78% 61% 76% 84% 79% 77% 72% 79%
Negative impact 8% 16% 7% 5% 7% 9% 17% 6%
2.3
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Support for ordinance changes is split
Two-thirds of residents either wanted no change in enforcement or didn’t know enough to have a preference.
The other 35% was evenly split on preferring more or less enforcement. Residents in homes with college
students preferred less strict enforcement.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 125
Total
Region
College Student in
Home
Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1319 354 491 474 200 1058 640 327 306 42
Weighted 1314 316 139 859 236 1021 554 405 311 41
More strictly than now 17% 20% 18% 15% 8% 19% 33% 4% 5% 5%
Same as now 38% 40% 33% 37% 31% 38% 49% 46% 9% 19%
Less strictly than now 18% 20% 27% 16% 34% 14% 0% 9% 63% 6%
Don’t know 28% 21% 21% 32% 27% 29% 18% 41% 23% 70%
2.3
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Section 3 - Short Term Rentals 126
2.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 127
Section 3.1
Short-Term Rentals
Profile of Units and Revenues
2.3
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Profile of Units and Revenue
 The number of STRs increased strongly between 2015 and 2017. The number is still
growing, though the growth rate has slowed into 2018.
 A majority of STRs are full-time rentals. They are increasingly entire homes, as opposed to
rooms in primary residences.
 Revenues from STRs are growing rapidly, with nearly $10 million in citywide revenues
estimated for 2018.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 128
2.3
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The supply of short-term rentals (STRs) has increased
quickly
The accompanying table shows the number of properties listed each month from late 2014
through mid-2018. The number of properties roughly doubled each year until 2018, when it
rose roughly 10% (through the latest available data).
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 129
Month
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 86 88 100
2015 109 99 103 117 140 148 176 176 185 192 213 241
2016 256 266 277 282 329 343 364 376 414 434 445 465
2017 477 473 501 491 533 524 549 541 525 527 541 562
2018 556 528 524 514
2.3
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
STRs are vacant more often than not
We can calculate an occupancy rate by dividing the number of occupied nights by the number of
nights that the property was available for rent. On average, occupancy rates are 32% on any
given night, but with strong seasonal changes. Occupancy rates in the summer are higher than
occupancy in other seasons, and particularly in the month of July.
Note that not all STRs are available for rent full time. Some are available less often, depending
on the host’s preferences. So the units are occupied less than the formal occupancy rate will
show. However, as seen later in this chapter, most STRs are available full-time or a strong
majority of the time.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 130
Occupancy Rate Month
123456789101112 Total
2014 27% 25% 20% 24%
2015 21% 17% 22% 24% 34% 38% 50% 41% 26% 27% 22% 21% 28%
2016 20% 18% 23% 25% 34% 43% 49% 43% 31% 32% 25% 26% 31%
2017 20% 20% 25% 26% 35% 46% 57% 52% 38% 37% 29% 30% 35%
2018 23% 24% 30% 32% 27%
Total 21% 21% 26% 28% 34% 44% 53% 48% 33% 33% 26% 26% 32%
2.3
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Most STRs are available as full-time rentals
Over half of STRs are for rent
every day, while most of the
remainder are available more than
half of the days in any given
month. As the market has
matured, the number of casual
rentals (less than half time) has
settled into the 10% to 14%
range.
Among those that are available
more than half the time, most are
available for nearly every day of
the month, being pulled off the
market only occasionally.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 131
Availability
12345678910 11 12
2014
Full 58% 64% 61%
Less Than Half 9% 13% 11%
More Than Half 33% 24% 28%
2015
Full 62% 58% 53% 46% 38% 33% 23% 28% 28% 28% 44% 43%
Less Than Half 11% 13% 15% 17% 21% 22% 30% 33% 22% 18% 13% 15%
More Than Half 27% 29% 32% 37% 41% 45% 47% 39% 51% 55% 44% 42%
2016
Full 55% 60% 53% 60% 48% 44% 42% 41% 52% 53% 57% 58%
Less Than Half 16% 14% 14% 12% 13% 14% 13% 14% 10% 12% 12% 14%
More Than Half 30% 26% 32% 28% 39% 42% 46% 45% 37% 34% 31% 29%
2017
Full 62% 65% 54% 60% 48% 48% 47% 46% 51% 51% 55% 60%
Less Than Half 12% 13% 9% 8% 12% 15% 14% 14% 12% 11% 14% 14%
More Than Half 26% 22% 37% 32% 40% 37% 39% 40% 37% 37% 32% 27%
2018
Full 60% 63% 61% 60%
Less Than Half 14% 13% 13% 8%
More Than Half 26% 24% 26% 32%
2.3
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
STR units are dispersed across the city
Roughly half of
STRs were located
near campus in the
past, but rentals are
dispersing over time.
Rentals outside the
two campus
neighborhoods have
risen from roughly
50% to over 60% as
the market has
grown.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 132
East of Campus Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 22% 23% 27%
2015 24% 23% 24% 27% 26% 25% 24% 22% 23% 23% 22% 22%
2016 21% 19% 21% 21% 20% 20% 18% 20% 23% 23% 23% 22%
2017 22% 22% 21% 21% 21% 21% 20% 22% 22% 22% 21% 21%
2018 21% 21% 21% 22%
West of Campus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 24% 27% 26%
2015 24% 24% 21% 21% 21% 22% 21% 23% 20% 20% 23% 23%
2016 25% 24% 21% 24% 26% 24% 24% 22% 20% 20% 20% 22%
2017 21% 21% 21% 20% 21% 19% 19% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%
2018 17% 17% 17% 16%
Remainder of City
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 53% 50% 47%
2015 52% 53% 54% 52% 53% 53% 55% 55% 57% 57% 55% 55%
2016 53% 57% 58% 55% 54% 56% 57% 58% 57% 57% 57% 56%
2017 57% 58% 58% 58% 58% 60% 61% 62% 62% 63% 63% 63%
2018 62% 62% 62% 62%
2.3
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The types of STR units are evolving
Private rooms in homes have historically been the bulk of rentals, but this is changing over time as renting
entire units is becoming more common. Renting entire housing units, generally more of an investment
approach than renting rooms, has risen from 34% of units to 46% of units.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 133
Entire home/apt Private room Shared room
2014 34% 57% 9%
2015 37% 56% 6%
2016 41% 54% 4%
2017 44% 52% 5%
2018 46% 50% 4%
2.3
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Prices are rising over time
Length of stay is relatively consistent over time, but price per night is rising (likely due in part to
full units becoming more common as STRs).
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 134
Average Nights Per Reservation Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 4.3 7.0 6.0 5.5
2015 7.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.3
2016 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.3
2017 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.3
2018 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2
Average Dollars Per Night Reserved Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2014 $82 $89 $81 $84
2015 $90 $94 $86 $86 $88 $91 $89 $87 $92 $89 $86 $100 $90
2016 $88 $86 $84 $90 $99 $103 $106 $101 $99 $102 $99 $102 $99
2017 $92 $96 $104 $105 $119 $120 $120 $118 $123 $123 $130 $124 $117
2018 $108 $107 $112 $114
2.3
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Total revenues are growing rapidly
Revenues are growing on both a per-property basis and on a citywide basis. Over the past three
years, monthly revenues per unit have roughly doubled, and citywide revenues have risen from
less than $1 million to an estimated $9.6 million in 2018.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 135
Revenue Per Property Month Citywide Revenues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Measured
TTotal
Estimated
AAnnnual
Total
2014 $599 $566 $429 $144,297 $489,519
2015 $498 $376 $486 $495 $692 $764 $923 $752 $528 $571 $466 $524 $1,137,225 $1,137,225
2016 $452 $391 $499 $579 $880 $1,120 $1,319 $1,087 $783 $884 $641 $691 $3,398,016 $3,398,016
2017 $479 $461 $696 $718 $1,088 $1,357 $1,748 $1,581 $1,187 $1,201 $960 $990 $6,586,274 $6,586,274
2018 $673 $625 $884 $981 $1,671,493 $9,591,305
2.3
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 136
Section 3.2
Short-Term Rentals
Rental Hosts and Properties
2.3
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Rental Hosts and Properties
 The STR market in Fort Collins is run by individuals and appears to be significantly insulated
from large property management companies.
> 85% of hosts only own and operate a single STR.
> Only 5% of hosts said they owned their STRs with anyone other than their spouse.
> 62% of STRs in Fort Collins are also hosts’ primary residence.
> Only 4% of STR units were managed by professional firms.
 Hosts mention income, culture, and the unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
buying property for this purpose.
 Around 30% of STRs have been pulled from the long-term rental market.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 137
2.3
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The majority of city-licensed hosts operate only one STR
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 138
Only Operates 1 STR
85%
Operates 2 STRs
8%
Operates 3 or More
STRs
7%
Few hosts in Fort Collins How Many Short-Term Rentals do you Operate?
operate more than one
STR. Overall, the STR
market in Fort Collins
appears to be insulated
from large property
management companies.
Only 5% of respondents
said they owned their
property with someone
other than their spouse.
Only one respondent
noted that they operated
five STRs, the highest
value in the survey.
2.3
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
City-licensed STRs in Fort Collins are distributed evenly
across unit type
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 139
Entire house
27%
Entire
condo/apartment/
townhouse
26%
Bedroom(s) in a
house
30%
Bedroom(s) in a
condo/apartment/
townhouse
2%
Other
15%
Type of Short-Term Rentals
Hosts report renting
bedrooms, entire houses, and
entire apartments at similar
rates.
The most frequent responses
within the “Other” category
were “Carriage House” and
“Private Suite, Basement, or
Garage.”
2.3
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Few city-licensed STR hosts have plans to own new
properties
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 140
Host Activity
Please check each statement that applies to you.
I currently own long-term rentals in Fort Collins 38%
I currently own a second, unrented home for personal use 8%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years
10%
I plan on purchasing more properties to use as long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years
13%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently short-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years
4%
I plan on selling properties I own that are currently long-term rentals in Fort
Collins in the next two years
5%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on making some
or all of them short-term rental(s) in the next two years
4%
I currently own long-term rental(s) in Fort Collins and plan on selling some or
all of the property(ies) in the next two years
3%
While a significant
percentage of STR hosts also
report owning long-term
rentals in Fort Collins (38%),
few plan on purchasing new
properties for the purpose
short-term (10%) or long-
term (13%) renting in the
next two years.
Very few (4%) hosts plan on
making long-term rentals into
STRs in the near future.
2.3
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The average city-licensed STR in Fort Collins rents for
$125 a night
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 141
Hosts reported charging an average of $125 per night for their STRs. A majority of
bedroom(s) within a house were rented for less than $65 a night, while a majority of entire
houses were rented for more than $150 a night. The median nightly rent was $100,
indicating the presence of a few very expensive STRs. The most expensive reported average
nightly rent was $450 for an entire house.
Host Reported Nightly Cost by Most Common Unit Types
Average rent per night
Less than $65 $65 - $100 $101 - $150 More than $150
Entire house - 7% 30% 63%
Entire condo/apartment/townhouse 6% 42% 33% 19%
Bedroom(s) in a house 65% 24% 6% 6%
2.3
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Most city-licensed STRs are hosts’ primary residence
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 142
STR is also my primary
residence
62%
STR is not my
primary residence
38%
Residency Status of STRs
The majority of STRs described in
the survey were also hosts’ primary
residence. This pattern is consistent
with previous findings that suggest
the STR market in Fort Collins is
managed more by individuals than
property companies. Hosts
reported only 4% of STRs in the
survey as being managed by
professional firms.
A significant proportion of STRs
that are not primary residences
belong to the few hosts who
happen to operate multiple STRs.
2.3
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
A majority of city-licensed STRs were previously primary
residences
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 143
Long-term
rental
24%
Primary
residence
57%
Second
residence
0%
Other
13%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use Before Ownership
Long-term
rental
20%
Primary
residence
55%
Second
residence
1%
Other
18%
Unsure/don’t
know
6%
Previous use While Owned
When asked to recall the previous use of their STRs before and during ownership, a
majority of hosts said these units used to be primary residences. Hosts recall 24% and 20%
of STRs previously being long-term rental units (with lease agreements 1 month or longer)
before and during ownership, respectively. The most common descriptions of the “Other”
category reference new construction or remodeling.
2.3
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
City-licensed Hosts mention income, culture, and the
unique benefits or appeal of STRs as motivations for
renting
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 144
14%
26%
40%
62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Culture
Competing with LTRs
Unique STR appeal
Income
Percentage of Responses that Mentioned Each of
the Following when asked, "What led to your
decision to purchase this property with the intent
of it being short-term rental?"
The majority of hosts mentioned income when
asked about their decision to purchase a STR
property. 40% of hosts indicated that they
would not have a rental property if it were not
short-term, primarily due to scheduling
flexibility and alternative uses of the property.
26% of hosts noted that they prefer STR
renting to long-term renting due to the quality
of tenants, higher income, and other benefits.
Finally, 14% of hosts highlighted the cultural
experience of short-term renting. Example
quotes can be found below.
Income: “For extra income so I can pay my mortgage and HOA fees.”
Unique STR appeal: “The amount of time I spend away from home for both work and personal travel, might as well let someone else use
the space while it sits there empty.”
Competing with LTRs: “Too much wear and tear on the property from long term tenants.”
Culture: “There is something really special and unique about staying in a home where you can share a cup of coffee with your host, share
stories, and learn about the town you're visiting.”
2.3
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 145
Estimation Strategies to Calculate Percentage of STRs that Came from the LTR Market
Units Bedrooms
Switched STRs Total STRs Percent Switched Rooms Total Rooms Percent
Q7: Previous Use While Owned was LTR 26 123 21% 57 236 24%
Q8: Original Intent at Purchase was LTR 20 122 16% 45 236 19%
Q10: Decision Process Considered LTR 23 122 19% 50 232 22%
Q12: Recall Previous Owner LTR 31 122 25% 71 235 30%
Average 25 122 20% 56 235 24%
Any Switch Indicator 52 122 43% 107 236 45%
Q7, Q8, or Q10 36 122 30% 80 236 34%
The table above details a series of strategies to estimate the percentage of STRs that came
from the LTR market. The number of bedrooms switched is calculated by multiplying the
various switch data by the number of bedrooms hosts reported for each switched STR unit.
The most conservative estimate is the average of all potential switch indicators (20% of
STRs). Relying on hosts to report only their own past actions (questions 7, 8, and 10), and
not their recollection of previous owners (question 10), provides a higher estimate of 30%
of STR units that were converted from long-term rentals.
Approximately 30% of city-licensed STRs were once long-
term rentals
2.3
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 146
Section 3.3
Short-Term Rentals
Public Sentiment Toward Short-Term Rental Rules
2.3
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Public Sentiment
 About one-third of residents are aware of STR licensing rules.
 Support for STR rules outweighs opposition by a margin of 38% to 20% (with the remainder
being neutral).
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 147
2.3
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Most residents are not aware of STR licensing rules
About one-third of residents were aware of STR licensing rules. The highest awareness was
seen east of campus, while the lowest awareness was in areas where only primary STRs are
allowed.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 148
Total
Region STR Zone
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city
No STRs
allowed
Primary STRs
only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed
Base
Unweighted 1366 361 513 492 851 468 47
Weighted 1362 323 145 894 640 622 101
Missing
No reply 5% 5% 4% 5% 2% 7% 7%
Aware of STR Licensing
Yes 31% 29% 39% 31% 34% 27% 37%
No 64% 67% 57% 65% 64% 66% 56%
2.3
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The public generally supports STR rules
While a large proportion of residents were not aware of STR rules, those people still generally
supported such rules when informed about them. Nonetheless roughly 20% still opposed them.
Support for the rules was higher among residents who were already aware of the rules.
Residents with higher incomes were slightly more likely to support rules than those with lower
incomes.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 149
Total
Region
Aware of STR
Licensing
Impact of STRs on Neighborhood Household Income
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Yes No
Positive
impact
No
significant
impact
Negative
impact
Not
applicable
Less
than
$50,000
$50,000
or more
Decline
to
specify
Base
Unweighted 1344 354 506 484 487 817 31 673 144 438 287 777 215
Weighted 1337 316 144 877 422 863 23 647 170 439 401 661 213
Opinion of STR Rules
Support 41% 38% 41% 42% 50% 37% 31% 38% 61% 38% 35% 44% 43%
Neutral or no opinion 39% 42% 41% 38% 34% 42% 39% 43% 23% 42% 44% 36% 40%
Oppose 19% 20% 18% 20% 16% 21% 31% 19% 16% 20% 21% 20% 17%
2.3
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Section 4 - Neighborhood Quality 150
2.3
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 151
Section 4.1
Neighborhood Quality
Citywide
2.3
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Citywide Neighborhood Quality
 Residents give generally high ratings to neighborhood quality, though ratings have decline
over the past 15 years.
 Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common
neighborhood issues citywide.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 152
2.3
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Neighborhood quality was generally high
On a citywide basis, residents had positive perceptions of their neighborhood, particularly in
terms of peace and quiet, and maintenance of lawns and homes. Sense of community had lower
scores, but still positive.
However, opinions were not uniform. The neighborhoods west of the campus rated all of these
attributes considerably lower than did the other areas of the city, though all attributes were still
rated positively. Additionally, homeowners tended to rate all elements higher than renters,
particularly sense of community.
Interestingly, residents who opposed ordinance generally gave higher neighborhood ratings than
those who supported the ordinance.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 153
Total
Region Tenure
College Student in
Home
Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Peace and quiet 1.12 0.80 1.14 1.24 1.27 0.94 1.17 1.11 1.06 1.11 1.21 1.40
Maintenance of lawns 1.05 0.77 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.99 1.13 1.04 0.99 1.01 1.25 1.19
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.78 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.89 1.10 1.04 1.04 1.12 1.28
Sense of community 0.48 0.25 0.56 0.55 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.52 0.69
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
2.3
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Some neighborhood problems have increased over the
last decade
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 154
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
41%
16%
20%
24%
30%
34%
25%
21%
35%
13% 13%
18% 16%
28%
22% 20%
34%
14%
21%
29%
16%
39%
30% 28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled
pets running
loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive
parties
Loud noise other
than parties, such
as stereos or
yelling
More than three
unrelated people
living in a house
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in
the yard
Poorly
maintained house
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems
2004 2008 2018
While neighborhood problems decreased between 2004 and 2008, a higher percentage of
residents in 2018 reported observing at least one of their four nearest residences having
disruptive parties, loud noise, parking vehicles inappropriately, trash or junk in the yard, and
While neighborhood ratings are high, the percentage of
residents rating their neighborhood good or very good
has reverted to, or dropped below, pre-ordinance levels
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 155
84%
81%
87%
58%
89%
85%
90%
68%
85%
75%
82%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Percentage of Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good
or Very Good
2004 2008 2018
While the 2008 survey saw
universal increases in
neighborhood ratings
compared to 2004, the
change between 2008 and
2018 saw the percentage of
residents rating their
neighborhood good or very
good decrease across the
board.
Nonetheless, substantial
majorities rate their
neighborhood as good or
very good on these
measures.
2.3
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Inappropriately parked vehicles are the most common
neighborhood issue
Parking vehicles inappropriately and loud noises (other than parties) were most common issues,
particularly in the neighborhoods west of campus. This area was more likely to see every one of
the tested issues. Similarly, renters were more likely to see every tested issue in comparison to
owners.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 156
Total
Region Tenure Opinion of Occupancy Ordinance
West of
campus
East of
campus
Remainder
of city Owner Renter Support Neutral Oppose
Uncontrolled pets running
loose
0.51 0.69 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.6 0.58 0.53 0.39
Criminal activity 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.27
Disruptive parties 0.36 0.74 0.3 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.35 0.45 0.3
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.59 1.12 0.55 0.4 0.37 0.86 0.56 0.66 0.59
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.74 0.71 0.66 0.59
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.54 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.6 0.36
Trash or junk in the yard 0.49 0.91 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.39
Poorly maintained house 0.36 0.6 0.54 0.25 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.28
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
2.3
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 157
Section 4.2
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Ordinance Violators
2.3
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Proximity to Ordinance Violators
 Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are strongly correlated
with being neighbors to a suspected ordinance-violating household.
 However, the overall negative trend is neighborhood quality and long-term increases in
negative neighborhood issues are also seen when no ordinance-violating neighbors are
present.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 158
2.3
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Neighborhood impacts were linked to perceptions of a
violating neighbor
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city- Neighbor(s)
violating occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 0.52 0.92 0.78 1.24 0.85 1.3
Maintenance of lawns 1.08 0.51 0.97 0.57 0.93 0.72 1.28
Maintenance of houses 1.08 0.5 0.96 0.83 0.95 0.49 1.31
Sense of community 0.49 -0.11 0.44 0.45 0.58 0.03 0.65
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 159
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
Residents who reported having at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report
lower neighborhood quality, especially for maintenance of houses in the remainder of the city.
2.3
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Within neighborhoods, proximity to violator households
led to differences in neighborhood issues
160
Total
West of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
East of campus-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Remainder of city-
Neighbor(s) violating
occupancy ordinance
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 1.02 0.54 0.66 0.42 0.77 0.4
Criminal activity 0.31 1.07 0.45 0.93 0.23 0.54 0.14
Disruptive parties 0.36 1.42 0.44 0.7 0.19 0.6 0.18
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.59 1.75 0.84 1.49 0.39 0.76 0.35
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 1.78 0.67 1.47 0.49 0.86 0.44
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.53 1.55 0.47 1.35 0.5 0.87 0.35
Trash or junk in the yard 0.48 1.53 0.58 1.53 0.32 0.91 0.25
Poorly maintained house 0.35 1.07 0.33 1.19 0.42 0.89 0.15
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study
Residents reporting at least one violating neighbor were much more likely to report a higher
number of neighbor issues, especially for trash or junk in the yard in the East region and
parking vehicles in the West region.
2.3
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
39% 39%
30%
39%
56%
39%
27%
51%
29%
44%
39%
66%
61%
56%
33%
19%
37%
43%
61%
49%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
One Observed Violator
The presence of violators in 2018 increased reported
neighborhood problems, but often at a lower rate than
2008
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 161
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
53%
31%
72%
56%
72%
61% 58%
52% 48%
57%
71%
90%
67%
76%
59%
43%
63% 66%
81% 79%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Decreases in neighborhood ratings were observed in the
absence of violator households
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 162
91% 91%
94%
64%
92% 90%
94%
72%
88%
81%
88%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or
Very Good with no Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
While residents who
observed no violators in their
four neighboring households
rated their neighborhood
good or very good at higher
rates than those who did,
they did so at a lower rate
than they have in the past.
This suggests something
beyond, or in addition to,
ordinance violators is causing
the observed decrease in
neighborhood quality.
2.3
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Increases in neighborhood problems were observed in
the absence of violator households
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 163
* “Uncontrolled pets running loose” was the
question text from 2018 while “Animals running
loose” was the wording in 2008 and 2004.
40%
13% 10%
16%
22%
16% 14%
32%
9% 7%
12%
19%
14% 12%
33%
11% 15%
24%
32%
24% 21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Single Family Homes that Observed Neighborhood Problems:
No Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
The above graph plots the percentage of neighborhood issues reported by residents who
said none of their four nearest homes had more than three unrelated people living in them.
While the number of problems reported by this group is significantly lower than those who
observe neighbors violating the ordinance, this group was more likely to report problems in
2018 than they were in 2008.
2.3
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The presence of violating households decreases the
percentage of good or very good neighborhood ratings
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 164
72%
62%
78%
46%
83%
68%
74%
54%
67%
54%
62%
46%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
One Observed Violator
2004 2008 2018
64%
56% 55%
39%
48%
38%
58%
48%
68%
31%
45%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Peace and quiet Maintenance of lawns Maintenance of houses Sense of community
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
Living next to violators decreases good and very good neighborhood ratings across all
surveys and indicators. As with residents who observed zero violating households, these
percentages decreased in between 2008 and 2018 for those who reported one or multiple
violating neighbor.
Single Family Homes that Rated Their Neighborhood Good or Very Good
2.3
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 165
Section 4.3
Neighborhood Quality
Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
2.3
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Key Findings: Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
 Lower neighborhood quality and more negative neighborhood issues are also correlated with
being neighbors to an STR property.
 However, the impact is smaller than proximity to a suspected ordinance-violating property,
and the negative impacts are notably smaller in areas where STRs are allowed, compared to
areas where they are not allowed.
A description of the methodology is found in the appendix.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 166
2.3
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
STR presence correlates with lower neighborhood quality
 Residents report somewhat lower neighborhood quality when they live near an STR, with the
largest impact being on sense of community.
 While the sample sizes are too small to draw confident conclusions, it appears that the
negative impact is primarily when STRs operate in areas where they’re not allowed. An STR
operating in a zone where STRs are allowed did not appear to impact quality of life (with
results even leaning very slightly positive).
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 167
Total
Neighbor(s)
operate STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Peace and quiet 1.13 1.07 1.14 1.1 1.27 1.17 1.08
Maintenance of lawns 1.07 0.91 1.09 0.71 1.14 1.15 1.09
Maintenance of houses 1.07 0.93 1.09 0.90 1.18 0.96 0.98
Sense of community 0.5 0.36 0.52 0.37 0.68 0.40 0.38
Small sample sizes
Very good = 2, Fair = 0, Very bad = -2,
Not applicable = excluded
2.3
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Neighborhood issues are correlated with STR presence
Residents report more neighborhood issues when neighbor(s) operate(s) an STR. The impact is
larger when STRs are operating in areas where they are not allowed, particularly having snow on
sidewalks, parking, and loud noises.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 168
Total
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
No STRs allowed-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Primary STRs only-
Neighbor(s) operate
STRs
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Uncontrolled pets running loose 0.51 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.47 0.78 0.46
Criminal activity 0.3 0.56 0.26 0.52 0.15 0.68 0.35
Disruptive parties 0.35 0.56 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.55 0.37
Loud noise other than parties,
such as stereos or yelling
0.57 0.84 0.54 0.88 0.39 0.91 0.63
Parking vehicles inappropriately 0.63 0.87 0.60 1.03 0.52 0.8 0.66
Snow on sidewalks (snow not
shoveled)
0.53 0.77 0.50 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.54
Trash or junk in the yard 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.45
Poorly maintained house 0.35 0.64 0.32 0.71 0.33 0.63 0.32
Averages exclude “not applicable” responses
2.3
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
The impact of STRs is narrow
STRs impact the neighborhood of about 15% of residents, showing that they are not yet
widespread and/or that their impact is narrow within a neighborhood. Of impacted residents,
more cited a negative impact than a positive impact (13% versus 2%). The impact goes up if
they have a neighbor operating an STR, as does the support of STR rules. The most commonly
cited reasons for negative impacts were strangers coming and going, trash/lack of maintenance,
parking, and partying/noise.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 169
Total
Neighbor(s)
Operate STRs
STR Zone
Aware of STR
Licensing
Opinion of STR Rules
Yes No
No STRs
allowed
Primary
STRs only
Primary and
non-primary
STRs allowed Yes No Support Neutral Oppose
No
opinion
Base
Unweighted 1366 147 1152 851 468 47 491 825 558 388 274 124
Weighted 1362 145 1134 640 622 101 423 877 547 391 260 138
Missing
No reply 7% 3% 3% 5% 7% 15% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 4%
Positive impact 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 6%
No significant impact 47% 61% 49% 45% 50% 50% 57% 45% 45% 56% 47% 42%
Negative impact 13% 31% 10% 12% 14% 8% 14% 13% 19% 9% 10% 2%
Not applicable 33% 4% 38% 37% 29% 25% 24% 38% 30% 31% 34% 46%
2.3
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Appendix - Methodology
2.3
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 171
Methodology
Rental Market Trends
• Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
• Comparison to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
2.3
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas
In order to assess changes to the overall rental market in Fort Collins, Corona Insights employed data from
current and archived reports from the Colorado Department of Housing. These data allow for an analysis of
trends in vacancy and rental rates by unit type and offer the chance to make two important comparisons.
First, we replicate analysis from our 2009 report and include trends from similar Colorado cities including,
Colorado Springs, Greeley, Grand Junction, and Pueblo. By observing these similar metro areas we can start
to distinguish what separates Fort Collins’ rental market from broader trends in the state. Second, these data
often allow for comparisons overtime spanning multiple decades. Comparing trends pre and post-ordinance
provides insights into the law’s potential effect.
It is important to note that the Colorado Division of Housing only collects data on multifamily homes. While
this accounts for a majority of the rental market in Fort Collins, these data were supplemented with data
from the US Census’ American Community Survey to account for the entire scope of the market. Population
data was collected from the State Demographer and the US Census.
Finally, Corona Insights collected supplemental data from Redfin and the Census’ Building Permits Survey in
order to assess the broader housing market in Fort Collins. While the Colorado Division of Housing often
reports data for the combined Fort Collins/Loveland market, these cities are reported independently when
possible. Cities and years are included/excluded in analysis based on data availability.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 172
2.3
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Comparisons to a Selection of Nationwide Cities
The Comparisons to Other Colorado Metro Areas section of this report identified how the Fort Collins
rental market has compared to similar metro areas within the state of Colorado. While that analysis allowed
for the ability to account for broader trends within the state, it could not rule out the possibility that the
patterns observed in Fort Collins were common to similar cities across the country. Specifically, Fort Collins’
household growth and composition have historically been filled by younger individuals (aged 15-24) at higher
rates than other cities in the state. As such, a comparison of similar cities nationwide is needed to supplement
the assessment of the previous section.
This section replicates analysis conducted in Corona Insights’ 2005 report to compare trends in the rental
markets across 15 similar case study cities. This national analysis allows for an additional assessment of how
the Fort Collins housing market has fared in the pre and post-ordinance era. Data in this section comes from
the US Census’ American Community Survey. Two main time periods will be compared. The first is the era
between 1990 and 2000. This provides a baseline for how the Fort Collins rental market compared to similar
cities. The second era is between 2005 and 2017. Here, comparisons demonstrate what trends emerge post-
ordinance. Data have been annualized to account for the difference in each era’s length.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 173
2.3
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Rental Market Trends
Case Selection for National Market Analysis
 This section details the case selection process for the national market analysis.
 As of the Year 2000, there were 243 cities in the United States and its protectorates with population of
100,000 or more, which made up the initial population of eligible comparable cities. From that initial list,
Corona pared down the candidates as follows:
> Corona eliminated from consideration 41 cities that had population over 400,000.
> Corona eliminated two cities that radically changed their boundaries between 1990 and 2000, and
thus acquired large pre-existing populations and housing stocks.
> Corona eliminated 34 cities that experienced declines in population from 1990 through 2000.
> Corona eliminated 7 cities that experienced phenomenal growth from 1990 through 2000, with rates
of over 6.8% per year.
> Corona eliminated two cities in Puerto Rico for which standard data were not available.
 These cuts pared the list from 243 cities to 157 cities. Data was then gathered on those cities to identify
specific growth patterns between 1990 and 2000. From that list, 16 cities were identified to have
exhibited highly similar household growth patterns to those projected for Fort Collins, based on total
household growth, household growth among traditional college-age students, and a higher
growth rate among the second group than the first.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 174
2.3
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
2005 Report Case Study Cities
*Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky is excluded from all subsequent analysis as the US
Census no longer collects annual data for the city.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 175
Similar Growth Cities Annual Household Growth Annual Household Growth,
Ages 15-24
Ratio of Young/Total
HHousehold Growth
Columbia, South Carolina 2.19% 4.14% 1.89
Durham, North Carolina 2.95% 3.33% 1.13
Eugene, Oregon 2.26% 3.68% 1.63
Fort Collins, Colorado 3.07% 3.34% 1.08
Fort Wayne, Indiana 1.86% 3.20% 1.72
Greensboro, North Carolina 2.12% 3.34% 1.58
Joliet, Illinois 3.06% 3.10% 1.01
Lakewood, Colorado 1.59% 2.74% 1.73
Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky* 1.93% 3.73% 1.93
Lincoln, Nebraska 1.83% 2.73% 1.49
Mesquite, Texas 2.03% 2.52% 1.24
Provo, Utah 2.13% 3.06% 1.44
Raleigh, North Carolina 2.77% 2.69% 0.97
Salem, Oregon 2.09% 3.39% 1.63
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 2.22% 2.93% 1.32
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 2.49% 2.94% 1.18
2.3
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
2005 Report Case Studies: Cities with Large Universities
*These cities contain colleges or universities with more than 15,000 undergraduates. The
sample of case studies shows effective diversity between college towns and comparable
cities that have experienced historically similar household growth and composition to Fort
Collins.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 176
Similar Growth Cities Largest University Number of Undergraduates
Columbia, South Carolina* University of South Carolina 24,941
Durham, North Carolina Duke 6,501
Eugene, Oregon* University of Oregon 20,220
Fort Collins, Colorado* Colorado State University 22,727
Fort Wayne, Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne 8,746
Greensboro, North Carolina* The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 15,158
Joliet, Illinois NA
Lakewood, Colorado Colorado Christian University 3,885
Lincoln, Nebraska* University of Nebraska Lincoln 20,182
Mesquite, Texas NA
Provo, Utah* Brigham Young University 30,221
Raleigh, North Carolina* North Carolina State University 22,458
Salem, Oregon Willamette University 1,925
Sioux Falls, South Dakota University of Sioux Falls 1,185
Winston-Salem, North Carolina Wake Forest Unversity 4,866
2.3
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 177
Methodology
Ordinance Violators
• Estimated Number
• Profile of Violators
• Investigation Outcomes
2.3
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Violator Estimates and Profiles
Estimates of the number of violators were developed via two means. First, the study team examined
specialized census data on a sample of the population, where individual (anonymized) records are made
available to the public. This has emerged as the predominant means of developing estimates. As a second
check, the public survey was used to develop estimates, in conjunction with complaint data to estimate the
accuracy with which residents identify violator households. These are the same two methods used in the
past, though specific methodologies have evolved over time.
The profiles of violator households are drawn specifically from the specialized census records referenced
above. These microdata records are deemed to be accurate since they are gathered for other purposes, but
also contain information about household makeup.
One limitation of the microdata sample is that relationships within a household are always measured from
the perspective of the person who filled out the census form. If that person is not related to others in the
household, then it is not possible to identify whether those others are related. The research team took a
conservative approach that they were not related, which in most cases is the likely scenario (for example,
when all residents are labeled as roommates or boarders relative to the householder). However, some of
these may be related in which case some households that are not violators could be labeled as violators. This
is unlikely to have a large enough effect on the conclusions to change any findings, though.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 178
2.3
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Investigation Outcomes
Over occupancy investigation outcome results were calculated from complaint, investigation, and outcome
records provided by City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services. These data included the case year (based
on investigation start date), the address of the investigated residence, and the outcome determined as either
violation or unfounded. Additionally, each residence was assigned to a study area region that aligned with the
regions from the resident survey in this report. The dataset analyzed spanned the years 2011 to 2017.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 179
2.3
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 180
Methodology
Short-Term Rentals
• Profile of Units and Revenues
• Rental Host Survey
2.3
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Profile of Units and Revenue
For the short-term rental market analysis, the research team purchased data that had been scraped from the
AirBnB web site by a third-party vendor. (We recognize that other sites exist for short-term rentals, but the
STR survey conducted on this project showed a large overlap in advertising across sites.) The data included
information on specific properties, including nights available, nights rented, asking price, type of unit, and
location.
The research team used GIS software to assign the STRs to specific zones relative to STR licensing rules.
This also allowed the team to eliminate any properties that were outside the Fort Collins city limits, even if
they were in the general Fort Collins market area. Therefore, the figures relates specifically to units inside the
city limits.
Data were available beginning in October of 2014, and Corona Insights purchased all available data, which at
the time of purchase extended through April of 2018.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 181
2.3
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Short-Term Rental Host Survey
The survey of short-term rental hosts was conducted by using the contact list for licensed STR units that is
gathered during the licensing process. Corona Insights designed an 10-minute online survey and sent an
invitation to complete the survey to every available STR host. We sent 255 survey invitations and received
143 useable responses, constituting a very strong response rate of 56%.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 182
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Residency
Total
Residency
Primary Non-Primary
Non-Response 111 67% 33%
In Survey 143 68% 32%
Comparing Response and Non-Response by Title Registered
Total
Title Registered
Business Personal Address Other
Non-Response 111 32% 48% 6% 14%
In Survey 143 36% 50% 5% 8%
One way to check the representativeness of a
sample is to compare demographic breakdowns
within a survey to available data from the
population (like a census). While there is no
broader demographic data for STR hosts in
Fort Collins, comparing available information
(residency status and the title of the registered
STR) from the total recruited population
(registered STR hosts) offers an opportunity to
assess representativeness.
The similar percentages amongst the two
samples provides evidence in favor of the STR
survey sample being representative of the
population.
2.3
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 183
Methodology
Resident Survey
• Public Sentiment Toward Occupancy Ordinance
• Public Sentiment Toward STR Rules
• Citywide Quality Measures
• Proximity to Ordinance Violators
• Proximity to Short-Term Rentals
2.3
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Instrument
To facilitate comparability to previous results, many of the survey questions were asked in the same way
as they were asked in the previous community surveys, with some updates where applicable.
The final survey instrument was six pages long, printed in black and white, with a cover letter on the first
page. The cover letter instructed that any adult resident of the household could complete the
questionnaire. It also assured residents that their responses would remain confidential and would not be
used for enforcement.
To further encourage residents to complete and return the questionnaire, an incentive was offered, which
was a chance to win one of two $500 grand prizes or one of ten separate $100 prizes. Lastly, a pre-
stamped and pre-addressed return envelope was included to make it easy for residents to return their
completed questionnaire.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 184
2.3
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Resident Survey
Sampling
Selecting a subset of home addresses to send a survey
packet is called sampling. We used a stratified random
address-based sampling technique to draw a list of 6,450
home addresses in Fort Collins that each received one
survey packet in the mail. We used a stratified approach to
send disproportionally more questionnaires to homes in the
regions immediately east and west of campus with the goal
of collecting enough responses from each region to report
results by those segments. The list of home addresses was
purchased from MSG, a commercial address-based sampling
vendor.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 185
Region % of Homes % of Sample
Away from Campus 66% 34%
East of Campus 11% 33%
West of Campus 23% 33%
Fort Collins 100% 100%
2.3
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Resident Survey
Survey Administration
Survey packets were mailed in mid-September of 2018. About ten days after mailing the initial survey
packet, a postcard was sent to each household to remind and encourage residents to complete and return
the questionnaire.
Response Rate
1,053 survey packets were returned as non-deliverable. We received and entered 1,366 useable responses,
for a final adjusted response rate of 25%. A typical response rate for a community-issue mail-based
survey is around 15%.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 186
Region
% of Delivered
Surveys
% of Returned
Surveys
Adjusted
Response Rate
Away from Campus 35% 36% 26%
East of Campus 33% 38% 29%
West of Campus 32% 26% 21%
Fort Collins 100% 100% 25%
2.3
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Resident Survey
Weighting
In a community survey, it is common for certain demographics to be over or under-represented. For
example, mail survey respondents are often older. Additionally, because the sample was originally
stratified, it was necessary to check the balance of responses between the three strata.
To check and correct for potential skew and response biases, we calculated corrective weights based on
the known demographic estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Three dimensions were used for
weighting: region (west, east, or away from campus), owner/renter status, and years lived at current
residence (more than two years or no more than two years). The corrective weights were applied to the
data so that the results would more closely reflect the community as a whole. All results in this report,
including demographic tables, are based on the weighted data.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 187
2.3
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
Methodology: Resident Survey
Margin of Error
The corrected top-level margin of error was +/-4.6% at the 95% confidence level. If we were to
conduct this survey 200 times, drawing a new random sample each time, we would expect that our
estimates would be within the margin-of-error in 19 of those 20 surveys. The margin of error accounts
for the study’s design and weighting effects, which increased the margin of error relative to the size of
the weights.
The corrected margin of error for each region is shown below.
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 188
Region Corrected Margin of Error
Away from Campus ±6.1%
East of Campus ±8.0%
West of Campus ±9.1%
Fort Collins ±4.6%
2.3
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
About Corona Insights
Fort Collins Rental and Occupancy Study 189
Our founder named the company
Corona because the word means “light.”
It’s the knowledge that surrounds and
illuminates an issue; exactly what we
provide. Our firm’s mission is to provide
accurate and unbiased information and
counsel to decision makers. We provide
market research, evaluation, and strategic
consulting for organizations both small
and large.
Learn more at www.CoronaInsights.com
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 510
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.894.8246
2.3
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
DATE:
STAFF:
January 22, 2019
Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Outdoor Residential Wood Burning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss a regulatory option to support a goal of allowing wood burning fires in
residential areas that do not negatively impact neighbors. Periodically, the City and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA)
are contacted regarding nuisance, health and safety concerns from wood smoke in residential areas. This item
was identified as a Council priority May 2017, and staff received direction October 2018 to develop a regulatory
option that did not ban residential wood fires, but still addressed fires that negatively impact neighbors. Additional
direction will be sought regarding adoption of a permit system that allows outdoor residential wood burning with a
permit, where permit conditions are designed to mitigate potential smoke impacts on neighbors.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council want to proceed with consideration to:
• Allow outdoor residential wood burning fires with a permit?
• Provide resources to support implementation and enforcement?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
While many consider the ability to have a wood fire at home an important recreational and social activity, smoke
and particles from a wood burning fire can impact the health or well-being of a neighbor who is outdoors, has a
window open, or has a poor ventilation system in their home. At the May 2017 Council retreat, outdoor burning
was identified as a Council priority and a 2018 budget revision offer was approved by Council to support
additional work.
Staff received direction at a February 2018 Work Session to facilitate a public engagement effort with the
following objective:
• Develop recommendations regarding options to better protect human health and reduce nuisance from
outdoor wood smoke
During the Summer and Fall of 2018, staff conducted research, and facilitated a public engagement effort, and
presented results of public engagement at an October 2018 Work Session. Some key findings included:
• Wood smoke contributes to particle pollution and breathing wood smoke can be a nuisance or a health
concern. At special risk are sensitive populations such as people with heart and lung disease, children and
older adults
• Smoke from wood fires may travel from one property to another and potentially impact indoor air
environments
• The ability to have an outdoor wood fire at home for recreational or aesthetic purposes is a desirable amenity
for some
3
Packet Pg. 243
January 22, 2019 Page 2
At the October Work Session, Council provided further direction to focus efforts on a regulatory option that only
addresses fires that negatively impact neighbors.
Strategic Alignment
This work is aligned with City plans, principles and objectives, including:
• 2011 City Plan
o Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality
• 2015-16 Strategic Plan
o Neighborhood Livability and Social Health, Objective 1.6, Protect and preserve the quality of life in
neighborhoods
o Environmental Health, Objective 4.4, Implement indoor and outdoor air quality improvement initiatives
Current Regulations
Currently, International Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Fort Collins, requires that:
• Open burning, or fires with a fuel size greater than 3 feet wide by 2 feet high, require a permit obtained from
the fire code official
• Outdoor fireplaces, with the exception of 1- and 2- family dwelling, must be gas- or liquid- fueled
• Outdoor fireplaces at 1- and 2- family dwellings may use approved solid-fuel (e.g., clean, dry wood) provided
that:
o The fuel size (e.g., wood pile) is less than 3 feet wide by 2 feet high
o The fire is located at least 15 feet from combustible material (e.g., wood decks and fences)
o The fire is continuously attended until the fire is extinguished
o A fire extinguisher or other fire extinguishing equipment (e.g., a hose) is available for immediate utilization
Additionally, City Code section 20-1 prohibits smoke that endangers the health, safety, and comfort of the public.
Limitation of using this code for impacts from small residential wood fires include:
• Enforcement would require demonstrated proof of impact to the public
• A violation of this code would be considered a criminal offense, and a citation would require testimony and
evidence of nuisance impacts from the affected party
Proposed New Requirements
At the October 23, 2018 Work Session, Council directed staff to develop a regulatory option that addresses
negative impacts from fires, without fully prohibiting residential wood fires. Fundamentally, this creates
complexities in how to implement and enforce a policy that allowed some fires, but not others. Through policy
research and stakeholder discussions, a permit system was identified as a preferred mechanism that could
support middle-ground regulations that were short of a full ban.
For a permit system to work, fires themselves must first be disallowed unless permission (i.e., a permit) is
granted. Permit systems for open burning (fires larger than 3’x2’) are already administered at the County level
(per State requirements), and approved by the PFA. Other jurisdictions in Colorado (e.g., Steamboat Springs),
and many others in the US, additionally implement permit systems for smaller, residential wood burning fires
(Attachment 1).
Phased implementation would be proposed for a permit system, which would be dependent on allocation of
resources for implementation and enforcement. Initial proposed conditions would include:
• Require a permit be obtained for use of outdoor solid-fuel burning fireplaces at 1- and 2- family dwellings
• Provide proactive, targeted outreach regarding safety requirements and considerate burning practices
• Require that the permit is renewed annually
3
Packet Pg. 244
January 22, 2019 Page 3
• Establish authority to require that fire is extinguished, or a permit suspended or revoked, if negative impacts
are reported
• Establish authority to access and inspect an outdoor fireplace
• Exempt fires used exclusively for cooking food for human consumption
A permit system would have the ability to evolve, as the program is implemented and evaluated over time.
Considerations that could be evaluated for potential future implementation might include:
• A permit application fee (initially proposed to have no fee)
• Fireplace inspections required for permit approvals
• Prohibitions of fires on high particle pollution advisory days
• Tolerance limits, such as a limit on the number of fires, number of days or specific times of day (i.e., a curfew)
• Limit in certain locations based on proximity/density
• Increased active fire response (e.g., non-emergency compliance resources available after hours and
weekends)
Determination of Impacts
An important consideration of a regulatory system to mitigate negative smoke impacts is the characterization of a
negative impact. Survey results (as reported previously) indicated that respondents would support policies that
require a fire is extinguished when a concern is expressed by multiple neighbors (77%), but there was less
support if only one person expressed concern (35%).
During Council discussion, concerns were expressed about the concept of multiple complaints, as this could
potentially discount impacts to a single, potentially sensitive, individual. A potential enforcement mechanism
would be authorization for enforcement officials to make a determination of impacts, supported by policy guidance
(to be developed, based on factors used for “unreasonable noise”). Discretion could include, but need not be
limited to, consideration of factors such as:
• The time of day
• Location and proximately of burning to negatively impacted property or person
• Whether the burning has a purpose other than aesthetic
• Weather conditions
• Any other factors tending to show the magnitude, duration and/or disruptive effect of the smoke
Per permit conditions, complaints from neighbors regarding negative impacts may be cause to:
• Order extinguishment of the fire if the fire is active
• Revoke or suspend a permit
• Issue a citation for a use of a solid-fuel burning fireplace without a permit
Implementation Timeline and Initial Resource Needs
For the first phase of implementation (2019), anticipated resource needs would include:
• Development of an online, self-certified permitting system
o Additional Resources: Staff is currently exploring leveraging existing permitting systems, such as the
Special Events permitting system available at (<https://specialevents.fcgov.com/login/>)
o Cost: Estimated $5,000 for software and consultant fees (one-time)
• Administration, implementation and enforcement of the new permitting system
o Additional Resources: Staff time, estimated at 0.25 FTE (average of 10 hrs/week), which would support:
▪ Development and maintenance of new outreach materials
▪ Permit system administration
3
Packet Pg. 245
January 22, 2019 Page 4
▪ Complaint based permit investigation and response (in-office)
▪ Coordination of limited field-based environmental compliance response, as needed for escalated
complaints
o Cost: Estimated $18K/year to convert an existing classified 0.75 FTE environmental services
compliance support position to 1.0 FTE (additional 0.25 FTE, ongoing)
A proposed timeline to develop and implement a new permitting and enforcement process is summarized below:
2018
• February; Additional Outreach
o Additional outreach regarding proposed permit process, to include Boards, OurCity e-forum,
NextDoor
• March; Adoption of new requirements and resources
o Council consideration of code updates, and additional resource allocations
• April - May; Process development and outreach
o Development of permit system and outreach to promote awareness of new requirements
• June - December; Year 1 Implementation
o Implementation of complaint-based enforcement of permit conditions
2019
• January - March; Evaluation of Year 1
o Evaluation of first year of implementation, including:
▪ Number of complaints
▪ Nature of complaints (e.g., health, nuisance, safety)
▪ Ability to address complaints with voluntary compliance
▪ Permit suspensions or revocations, code violations and any enforcement action
▪ Resources allocated
• April - May; Consideration of impacts
o Provide a written review to Council summarizing effectiveness of first year of implementation
• June - December; Year 2 Implementation
o Ongoing implementation, including program/process updates if necessary
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
A public engagement plan was implemented in the Summer and Fall of 2018, and a summary was presented at
the October 23 Council Work Session. Additional outreach conducted since the October Work Session included:
• Continued working group meetings, including staff from the Environmental Services Department, Community
Development and Neighborhood Services and Poudre Fire Authority
• Correspondence with the Larimer County Health District (Attachment 2)
o The Health District provided an assessment of the issue, but did not take an official position
• Correspondence with Larimer County Public Health and the Environment (Attachment 3)
o A representative from the Department of Health indicated that the Department had no opinion on what the
City should adopt, and clarified that the County would not have an enforcement role
• Presentation to the Air Quality Advisory Board (Attachment 4)
• A Triple Bottom Line Scan (TBL-S), conducted by an internal inter-Department Sustainability Leadership
Class, which consisted of discussion of questions related to environmental, economic and social impacts
(Attachment 5)
Proposed Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction regarding potential implementation of a new regulatory program which establishes a
permitting requirement, and mitigation of nuisance impacts, for outdoor residential wood fires. Depending on
direction, staff will proceed to develop code update recommendations. A Council regular meeting would be
3
Packet Pg. 246
January 22, 2019 Page 5
necessary to consider adoption of code changes, and allocation of resources for implementation and
enforcement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Permit Examples (PDF)
2. Health District Opinion (PDF)
3. Larimer County Health Director Email (PDF)
4. Air Quality Advisory Board Minutes December 17, 2018 (PDF)
5. Triple Bottom Line Scan Summary (PDF)
6. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 247
Example Permit Conditions for Residential Fires
City, State Fee Valid Curfew Notes from permit conditions
Elizabeth,
CO
$0 60 days Permittee shall extinguish the burn immediately if any of the
following situations occur: Neighbors complain regarding the smell
of smoke travel off the permitee property, winds begin to be too
strong or gusty, permitee can no longer monitor the burn, permitee
is instructed to do so by EFPD personnel
Steamboat
Springs, CO
$25 6mo 12am The authorities are authorized to require that any open burn or
recreational fire be immediately discontinued if they determine that
the smoke emissions are offensive to occupants of surrounding
property or if the open burn or recreational fire is determined to
constitute a hazardous condition.
Pagosa, CO $10 annual The District is authorized to require the immediate extinguishment
by the permit holder or other person responsible for open burning if
the District determines that open burning constitutes or adds to a
hazardous or dangerous condition or is offensive or objectionable.
Larkspur, CO $0 per
burn
Permits may be revoked and future permit privileges suspended if
the permit holder violates any conditions.
Fenwick/Old
Saybrook,
CT
$0 annual If a backyard campfire is bothering a neighbor, the neighbor has the
right to contact local authorities to request the campfire to be
extinguished.
Olathe, KS $25/day 3 day All complaints (smoke, odor emissions, falling ash, etc.) regarding
burning will be investigated by the Olathe Fire Department (OFD).
The OFD may order the burning be extinguished, if necessary.
South
Portland,
ME
annual
Upon a written complaint of the fire and/or smoke from the fire, the
Fire Department shall request the extinguishment of the fire by the
permit holder. The fire shall be immediately extinguished.
Grand
Rapids, MI
$50 annual 10pm Check with your neighbors within 100 feet first. If they object, we
have to deny your application.
Burnsville,
MN
per
burn
11pm The Fire Marshal is authorized to require that the burning be
discontinued if it is determined that he smoke emissions are
offensive to occupants of surrounding property.
Edina, MN
annual 10pm Notify your neighbors about your recreational fire. Fires may be
ordered extinguished and this permit revoked by the fire department
if: Any recreational fire requirement is violated, A fire hazard exists
or develops, we receive valid complaints from your neighbors
regarding the fire, smoke or other violations
Grand
Chute, MN
$0 annual 1am All fires shall not create smoke that causes a public nuisance,
1/10/2019
STAFF: BRUCE COOPER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR ISSUE: OUTDOOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD BURNING
The Health District of Northern Larimer County has conducted an overview as it pertains to outdoor residential
wood burning. Although the area of environmental health is not one of the Health District’s areas of expertise,
staff have organized a brief synopsis of prevalent research on the issue of wood smoke in regards to health as
a resource in this discussion.
Some may believe that because it is a natural substance, that wood smoke from fireplaces, wood stoves, or
backyard burning is not harmful. However, wood smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which have
documented adverse health effects. It has been established that the small particulate matter and noxious
gases contained in wood smoke may have serious health effects when inhaled. Epidemiological studies have
found that acute exposure to the components of residential wood smoke is linked to not just an increase in
respiratory symptoms, but also to decreases in lung function and exacerbations of respiratory illnesses such as
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Controlled studies of acute wood smoke exposure
in healthy volunteers have found increases in markers of systemic inflammation and blood coagulation as well
as the stiffening of arteries and reductions in heart rate variability. These physiological changes aid in
explaining how wood smoke exposure could increase the risk of heart attacks or strokes in susceptible
individuals.
Certain populations have been demonstrated to be particularly vulnerable to the respiratory effects of wood
smoke —people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and infants. According to the Health
District’s 2016 Community Health Survey, 16% of adults living in Fort Collins had been diagnosed with asthma
and 10% reported currently having it. Respiratory events can lead to increased visits to emergency
departments and hospital admissions.
At current rates of backyard recreational wood burning in the summer it is unlikely that regional ambient air
pollution levels would be affected, but levels at the neighborhood or household level could be much higher
under certain conditions. Studies have shown that outdoor wood smoke particles can infiltrate into
neighboring residences, even with the windows closed, although air‐conditioning may mitigate this effect to
some degree. We were unable to find peer‐reviewed studies measuring wood smoke exposure or its health
effects from backyard recreational burning. There are many variables in these situations including wind, size
of the fire, distance from neighbors, and other factors that could affect exposure. It appears that there may be
circumstances where significant wood smoke exposures may occur and individuals with conditions like asthma
or cardiac disease, both common, could be impacted.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Health District Opinion (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
1
Cassie Archuleta
From: Averil G Strand <strandaa@co.larimer.co.us>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:30 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta
Subject: Re: Connecting regarding outdoor recreational wood fires
Yes. Thanks for your die diligence
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 28, 2018, at 1:05 PM, Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Avie‐
Sorry for the slow response, but thanks for this!
I will represent to Fort Collins City Council that:
We reached out to the Larimer County Department of Health
You reviewed some of our materials
The Department believes we have done a good analysis of existing regulation
The Department has no opinion on what the City should adopt, and would not have a role in
enforcement
Would that be an accurate summary from your perspective?
Appreciate your time on this!
Cassie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASSIE ARCHULETA
Environmental Program Manager – Air Quality
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2648 office
From: Avie Strand <strandaa@co.larimer.co.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:44 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Subject: Fwd: Connecting regarding outdoor recreational wood fires
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Avie Strand <strandaa@co.larimer.co.us>
Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Connecting regarding outdoor recreational wood fires
To: <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Cc: Myrna Hansen <hansenml@co.larimer.co.us>, Lea Schneider <schneils@co.larimer.co.us>, Thomas
Butts <TButts@larimer.org>
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Larimer County Health Director Email (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
2
You have done a good analysis of existing regulation ‐ so it seems like you are close to a policy decision
at this point if you want to join Denver and Boulder with a ban or if you prefer one of the other
alternatives.
Word burning in the 7 county metro area is regulated from a health/air quality perspective as described
on this web page with exception as listed
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/indoor‐burning‐restrictions
Most fire limiting regulations are based on fireplaces/ fireplace inserts in areas like the 7 county metro
and Aspen areas.
A number of other cities ‐ Fire districts regulate these as well (from a fire safety perspective NOT a
health or nuisance perspective)
Colorado Springs, https://coloradosprings.gov/fire‐department/page/outdoor‐burning‐guidelines
West Metro Fire, https://www.westmetrofire.org/968/BBQ‐Fire‐Pit‐Regulations
One local retailer provided the following info
https://patio.christysports.com/backyard‐fire‐pit‐laws‐colorado
Since Air Quality can affect those with Asthma, we looked at Asthma information and found that in Fort
Collins 9.6% of the population has ever been told by a medical professional that they have asthma AND
currently report asthma.
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment would not be involved in enforcement of any
Fort Collins regulation relating to backyard burning.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Avril‐
We have not met yet, but I’m pleased Beth ran into you last night and helped with introductions!
As she may have mentioned, I am working on a policy project looking at outdoor residential burning, at
the direction of City Council. This is related to neighborhood smoke concerns from outdoor wood
fires. They have asked us to be more engaged with Larimer County Public Health – and would
specifically be interested in the County’s opinions (if any) on our direction.
Attached is a summary of a Council Work Session we had in October, and the follow‐up memo with the
direction we received. They have asked us to propose a regulatory option to require that a wood
burning fire is extinguished if it is bothering a neighbor. This was considered as an alternative to a full
ban (which is how Denver and Boulder approach this issue).
3.3
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Larimer County Health Director Email (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
3
I did meet with Myrna last week to discuss, and also sent an email to Shelley De Volo to see if this topic
may be of interest to the Environment and Science Advisory Board.
Do you have any other suggestions on how best to engage the County?
Thanks!
Cassie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASSIE ARCHULETA
Environmental Program Manager – Air Quality
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2648 office
970-407-1203 mobile
carchuleta@fcgov.com
www.fcgov.com/airquality
‐‐
Averil Strand, RN, MSN
Community Health Services Director
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
1525 Blue Spruce
Fort Collins, CO
80524
(970) 498‐6760
‐‐
Averil Strand, RN, MSN
Community Health Services Director
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
1525 Blue Spruce
3.3
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Larimer County Health Director Email (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
4
Fort Collins, CO
80524
(970) 498‐6760
3.3
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Larimer County Health Director Email (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
12/17/2018 – MINUTES Page 7
b. Outdoor Wood Burning Update
Cassie Archuleta, Air Quality Program Manager, provided an update regarding recent
Council direction on outdoor burning, and proposed regulatory options that will be
presented to Council at a January 22, 2019 Work Session.
Background and Community Engagement Outcomes
Project Goal: To develop recommendations regarding options to better protect
human health and reduce nuisance from outdoor wood smoke.
Additional Identified Opportunities: To increase safety awareness, health impact
awareness and cognizance of regional environmental issues.
Over the past summer, City staff focused on public engagement related to outdoor
wood burning. Over the course of this engagement, it became clear that the
community is polarized on the issue. Cassie reviewed the available regulatory
options and stated that, per Council direction, which is aligned with the AQAB
recommendation, staff is developing a recommendation for the middle ground
option.
The objective of the middle ground approach is to prohibit recreational wood fires
that negatively impact neighbors while encouraging neighborhood dialogue,
promoting awareness of safety regulations and potential nuisance concerns, and
avoiding the use of first-responder resources.
Potential Code Updates: Prohibiting and Permitting
City staff is considering the proposal of two potential code changes to Council. The
first would be to define and prohibit unreasonable smoke and the second would be
to require a permit for outdoor burning. Cassie would like Board feedback on each
of these.
Defining and prohibiting unreasonable smoke could be accomplished with a simple
update to the current code. The definition of prohibition of “unreasonable noise”
could be used as a model for a new code defining nuisance related to outdoor
burning. On its own, the code would only be applicable when a fire is active.
In addition to this, the City could prohibit recreational wood fires without a permit.
This would likely by similar to the permit requirements for solid-fuel burning
appliances and open burning.
Staff will present the potential code updates, new system implementations and resource
expenditures to Council on January 22, 2019. Cassie enquired if the AQAB supports the
presented code updates.
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Minutes December 17, 2018 (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
12/17/2018 – MINUTES Page 8
Discussion
Karen asked about restrictions on wood-burning in permanent structures and what
distinguishes them.
Cassie stated that the EPA does not certify permanent outdoor burning structures,
but City Code requires that new (permanent) indoor burning devices be EPA-
certified. This leaves questions about how to enforce this issue of existing
permanent outdoor burning structures.
Mark asked how this new system would be better than the existing.
Cassie replied that one important benefit to the new system would be the
permitting process, which would allow for more education opportunities. For
example, if a complaint is made, the City can check to see if the person burning
has a permit. If not, they could follow up with that person to let them know that a
permit is required. If a complaint is made against someone with a permit, there
could be a potential to revoke the permit, negotiate with the citizen, or remind them
of the code.
Karen asked if permits would be seasonal and if a violation would be a criminal
offense.
Cassie responded that the recommendation is that permits are renewed annually.
Air quality staff are currently looking into the permitting process in other
communities.
Greg asked why the City would not charge to obtain a permit.
Cassie responded that keeping the permit free may make its implementation more
palatable to start. If the services associated with it require more resources in the
future, then the potential for a fee may be evaluated.
Vara stated that the code implies that all residents have at least 15 feet between
property lines, which is not the case for everyone in the City. This causes an equity
issue; those who can afford larger yards will have the right to burn in their yards,
while those who cannot lose the right.
Cassie replied that the 15-foot rule is part of the current fire code. The rule exists
as a precaution as it states that the fire must be 15 feet from combustible
materials. That having been said, it could be considered an equity issue as those
with smaller yards may not have the option to burn.
Chris asked if cooking fires would require a permit
Cassie responded that the purpose of the fire will be considered and that cooking
fires will be exempt.
3.4
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Minutes December 17, 2018 (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
12/17/2018 – MINUTES Page 9
Arsineh stated that it may be useful if the permitting/education process allows for a
log of activities to see history of infractions.
Karen believes that the proposed process is reasonable, but urged staff to clarify
any EPA requirements for permanent outdoor burning structures.
Cassie responded that that the City will not seek out infractions, but rather, a
complaint will have to be made by a citizen to initiate the process.
Vara noted that the proposed process relies on initiation of a complaint. She asked
how the City will ensure that its citizens are aware that they have the right to
complain. She’s concerned that messaging about how and where to log a complaint
may not reach underserved citizens and believes that a full ban would protect them
better.
Cassie noted that educating the public would be a priority, and staff would do their
best to reach out to underserved, and translations would be offered.
Arsineh enquired about the website that the City is setting up for permits. She asked
if it would also include a place to log complaints.
Cassie stated that this would depend on the resources allocated to set the website
up. The first priority will be to get the permitting system in place so that citizens
can maintain compliance with code. Currently, complaints can be called in, but in
the future an automated intake system may be developed so that people can input
complaints on their own and responses can be prioritized.
Mark asked how City staff will judge the success of the proposed process.
Cassie stated that staff would follow up after a year of implementation by providing
the Board and Council with a report summarizing effectiveness, similar to the
process to implement the fugitive dust requirements.
Mark noted that the option to complain may bring up grievances that would not have
existed otherwise.
Arsineh noted that people can have fires and not be bothersome and emphasized
the importance of clarifying the intent of this process to lessen potential reaction
from those with existing fire pits.
Chris noted that administration burden of a permit system would serve as a
disincentive, which may help with the issue.
In Summary:
There was general support, as the proposed permit system was aligned with the
Board’s previous recommendation.
3.4
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Minutes December 17, 2018 (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Outdoor Residential Fires – Wood Burning Permit Program
New regulatory program where residential wood fires require permits, and permit conditions prohibit
negative smoke impacts.
Positive
Impacts to outdoor and
indoor air quality
Opportunities for education
and support of environmental
stewardship principles
Negative
New staff requirements for
environmental tracking and
reporting
Tensions
N/A
Positive
Entrepreneurship and
innovation could benefit from
development lower smoke
fireplace options (e.g., CSU
energy lab)
Negative
N/A
Tensions
Business impacts for sale of
gas-burning appliances
(positive) vs. sale of wood
and wood burning
appliances (negative)
Health impact savings
(positive) vs. cost of
permitting (negative)
Community brand of
environmental/human health
(positive) vs. over-regulation
(negative)
Positive
• Access to healthy indoor air
environments
• Increase sense of belonging
for sensitive populations (e.g.,
sessions and those with
health concerns)
Negative
Permitting adds a new
process, which may not be
accessible to all
Tensions
Potential for poor neighbor-to-
neighbor interactions
(negative) vs. potential
promotion of more positive
interactions (positive)
In promoting a welcome and
diverse community, tensions
between those who value
wood fires (negative), vs.
those that feel impacted
(positive)
Tradeoffs
Results from the Scan highlight that impacts from allowing residential outdoor fires with a permit are
mostly positive or neutral. For many of the questions across the three areas, a permitting program will
not have a direct or indirect impact.
The Triple Bottom Line Scan also highlights that there are many tensions, where impacts from
implementing a permitting system can have both positive and negative implications. For example, the
scan highlights that a permitting system has both the potential to increase neighbor-to neighbor
tensions, but could also lead to greater communication and less conflict among neighbors. To address
these tensions, the permitting process would include increased education and outreach efforts.
3.5
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Triple Bottom Line Scan Summary (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
1
Outdoor Residential Wood Burning
1-22-2019
ATTACHMENT 5
3.6
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Direction Sought
Does Council want to proceed with
considerations to:
• Allow outdoor residential wood burning fires
with a permit?
• Provide resources to support
implementation and enforcement?
2
3.6
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Neighborhood Livability
• 1.6 Quality of Life
Environmental Health
• 4.4 Air Quality
BUDGET
• ESD 2017-18 Ongoing
Offer
• 2018 revision: $20K
Why We Are Here
3
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Air Quality
• Residential Wood
Fires
3.6
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Project Goal
4
• Develop recommendations regarding options to better protect
human health and reduce nuisance from outdoor wood
smoke
Project Goal
Feb 2018
• Work Session #1
• Public Engagement
Plan
Mar – Sep
2018
• Public Engagement
Oct 2018
• Work Session #2
• Type of regulatory
option
Jan 2019
• Work Session #3
• Regulatory
mechanism
3.6
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Findings
• Smoke and particle pollution
• Nuisance and/or health
concerns
• Sensitive populations
• Smoke can travel
• Recreational amenity
5
3.6
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Range of Policy Options
Status Quo
• Safety response,
education, outreach,
neighborhood mediation
services
Middle Ground
• Regulatory option to
address only fires that
impact neighbors
Ban
• Prohibit residential wood
fires
6
Policy Research
Less regulatory More regulatory
3.6
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Proposed Regulatory Framework
Objective
• Prohibit residential wood fires that negatively impact
neighbors
Recommendation
• Allow outdoor residential wood fires with permit
• Permit conditions establish:
• Discretion to require a fire is extinguished based on
complaints
• Ability to revoke permit for continued complaints
7
3.6
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Permit Application
8
Conditions
• Required for outdoor wood
burning
• No fee (initially)
• Annual renewal
Acknowledgments
Safety requirements
Property owner permission
Restriction on high pollution
advisory days
Subject to extinguishment
and/or permit revocation
based on smoke complaints
Recommendations
• Notify neighbors prior to
burning
• Low smoke wood burning
practices
Exemptions
• Electric, liquid-fuel or gas-
fueled appliances
• Non-commercial cooking
appliances (e.g., BBQs and
smokers)
3.6
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Smoke Complaint
9
Enforcement Discretion
Health/
nuisance
concern
Location/
Proximity
Time of
day Purpose
Frequency
/Duration
Evaluation of factors
3.6
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Complaint Response Process
10
Complaint
Received
• Nature of concern
• Source
location/proximity
• Weather
conditions
• Time of day
• Frequency
Permit
Research
• Source location
known?
• Permit obtained?
• History of
complaints?
Permit
Enforcement
• Notify of
requirements?
• Citation for
burning without
permit?
• Suspend or
revoke permit?
3.6
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
11
Triple Bottom Line Scan (TBL-S) Results
Environmental
• Positive
• Indoor and
outdoor air quality
• Education and
outreach
opportunity
• Negative
• Resources needs
Economic
• Positive
• Innovation (e.g.,
CSU Energy labs)
• Tensions
• Gas appliance vs.
wood appliance
sales
• Community brand
of environmental/
health vs. over-
regulation
Social
• Positive
• Access to healthy
indoor air
• Negative
• Accessibility of
process
• Tensions
• Better vs. worse
neighbor relations
3.6
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Implementation and Enforcement
Resource Needs
• Permitting system (software updates): ~$5,000 (one-time)
• Implementation and enforcement (Environmental Services): 0.25 FTE; $18K/year
(ongoing)
12
Timeline and Resources
Outreach/Adoption
Feb – Mar 2019
• Additional
outreach (Boards,
OurCity e-forum,
NextDoor)
• Council
consideration/
adoption
Initialization
April - May 2019
• Develop self-
administered
permit system
• Develop initial
outreach
Year 1
June – Dec 2019
• Permit system
administration
• Complaint driven
permit
investigation
• Limited field
response
Evaluate Year 1
2020
• Evaluate
effectiveness
• Recommend
updates/changes
3.6
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Direction Sought
Does Council want to proceed with
considerations to:
• Allow outdoor residential wood burning fires
with a permit?
• Provide resources to support
implementation and enforcement?
13
3.6
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
Additional of process and increases resources vs. ability to address negative impacts from wood smoke in
neighborhoods
Mitigations
Leveraging existing resources for new program implementation to extent policies
Make permitting process accessible
Provide resources to facilitate more productive neighborhood conversations
IMPACTS
ATTACHMENT 5
3.5
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Triple Bottom Line Scan Summary (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
complaints from neighbors, or a visibility hazard on any form of
transportation route.
Columbus,
OH
$75 per
burn
If there are ANY complaints from neighbors, immediate
extinguishment must be done. Complaints might include, but are not
limited to, smoke drifting into their house, embers drifting to their
property and/or fire getting out of control.
Appleton,
WI
$15/$30 day/
season
10pm Applicants are encouraged to speak with surrounding neighbors
regarding outdoor fire usage to reduce the possibility of nuisance
complaints and discontinued outdoor fire use.
Laramie, WY
If it is determined by the fire chief (or their designee) that smoke
emitting from the burn is offensive to occupants of surrounding
properties, or constitutes a hazardous condition, they may require
the burning be discontinued.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Permit Examples (7566 : Outdoor Residential Wood Burning)
80%
90%
100%
Uncontrolled pets
running loose*
Criminal activity Disruptive parties Loud noise other than
parties, such as stereos
or yelling
Parking vehicles
inappropriately
Trash or junk in the
yard
Poorly maintained
house
Two or More Observed Violators
2004 2008 2018
2.3
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
a poorly maintained house.
2.3
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Corona Insights Rental Market Report to Fort Collins (7567 : Occupancy Study)
22 44.1 - Sustainability Services Admin O 501,633 439,133 0 0 62,500 0 0
23 5.3 - Citywide Volunteer Services Program O 186,417 0 0 0 186,417 0 0
25 50.2 - Facilities Operations O 9,639,547 9,526,230 0 0 0 0 113,317 Equipment Fund
26 68.1 - Special Event Coordinator O 132,846 132,846 0 0 0 0 0
28 50.4 - Required Building Modifications O 600,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0
30 52.2 - Performance & Program Evaluation (P&PE) O 108,123 108,123 0 0 0 0 0 108,123 0 108,123
31 52.5 - FC Lean - City of Fort Collins Continuous Improvement Program O 93,081 93,081 0 0 0 0 0 93,081 0 93,081
1/9/2019 Page 4 of 5
1.1
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Dispatcher
1.00 E 74,819 0 0 74,819 0 0 KFCG dedicated to Fire
Funded Subtotal 12.70 $78,455,458 $67,333,133 $1,730,522 $9,077,547 $71,752 $242,504 $0 $180,438 $20,000 $200,438
TRANSPORTATION
1 1.2 - Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program O 3,303,437 248,739 0 0 0 3,054,698 TCEF
2 34.1 - Traffic Operations O 3,324,079 0 0 0 344,151 2,979,928 Transportation Fund
3 34.2 - Traffic Operations Equipment O 238,715 0 0 0 238,715 0
5 1.1 - Engineering Core Offer O 2,142,700 383,193 0 0 0 1,759,507 Transportation Fund
6 6.1 - Transportation Planning Services O 485,315 0 0 0 86,438 398,877 Transportation Fund
7 45.1 - Transit Local Fixed Route Network O 17,837,194 7,341,750 148,988 0 2,177,516 8,168,940 Transit Fund
8 45.3 - Dial-A-Ride Service O 2,088,000 860,080 0 0 0 1,227,920 Transportation Fund 250,000 0 250,000
1/9/2019 Page 3 of 5
1.1
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
51 43.6 - ENHANCEMENT: Accelerated Municipal Electric Lawn and Garden
Equipment Fund
20,000 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 20,000
Funded Subtotal 0.00 $5,688,061 $1,600,759 $306,500 $0 $614,801 $3,166,001 $454,355 $161,000 $615,355
SAFE COMMUNITY
1/9/2019 Page 2 of 5
1.1
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Maintenance of New Parks and Trails
2.00 E 172,090 0 0 172,090 0 0
22 58.5 - ENHANCEMENT: 4.5 FTE (Multiple positions) - Gardens on Spring Creek
Expanded Programming and Operations
4.50 E 233,985 233,985 0 0 0 0 233,985 0 233,985
23 47.7 - KFCG ENHANCEMENT: 0.25 FTE Increase - Adaptive Recreation
Coordinator
0.25 E 14,867 0 0 14,867 0 0 KFCG dedicated to Culture &
Recreation
25 26.3 - ENHANCEMENT: Design and Cost Estimates for Irrigation System
Replacement at SouthRidge and City Park Nine.
E 125,000 0 125,000 0 0 0 Skipped due to needing ongoing
28 57.4 - ENHANCEMENT: Increased Contractual Pruning of Larger Trees E 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 Skipped due to needing ongoing
TARGET REDUCTION
1/9/2019 Page 1 of 5
1.1
Attachment: January 2, 2019 Work Session Summary (7570 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)