HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 12/8/2020 - City Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee Agenda - December 10, 2020AGENDA
City Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee
Thursday, December 10, 2020, 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual
Public is encouraged to listen through Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/98351510422
Or Telephone: Dial: (253) 215-8782 or (346) 248-7799 Webinar ID: 983 5151 0422
Committee Members: Kristin Stephens (Mayor Pro Tem), District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5
Emily Gorgol, District 6
Committee Contact: Lindsay Ex, lex@fcgov.com
Note: Per Ord. No 079, the Committee Chair, may in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, determine
that meeting in person would not be prudent for some or all persons due to a public health emergency or other
unforeseen circumstance affecting the city. Committee Chair Emily Gorgol has conferred with the City Manager and the
City Attorney and has determined that the Committee will conduct this meeting remotely pursuant to Ord. No. 079. As
well, an individual Committee member may request to participate remotely even if the rest of the Committee will be
there if the member has a concern about their or others’ health or safety by notifying the Clerk at least three hours in
advance of the meeting.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of November 12, 2020 minutes
3. Agenda Review
4. Discussion Items
a. Review: Anti-displacement and Housing Stability (Clay Frickey, Redevelopment
Manager)
• Review the November meeting discussion and staff work since then
• Committee discussion around strategies and solutions
b. Explore:
• Topic 1: Funding and Financing Strategies (Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Housing Policy
and Program Manager; Victoria Shaw, Sr Financial Analyst)
o Staff review of funding sources available, gap needed to achieve current
goal, and an overview of options and strategies
o Committee discussion
• Topic 2: Occupancy and Rental Regulations (Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood
Services Manager; Justin Moore, Code Compliance Lead Inspector)
o Overview of existing occupancy regulations in Fort Collins
o Guest presentation (Shelby Sommer, CU Denver Masters Student)
o Committee discussion
5. Next Meeting Focus and Process Check-in
There are three or more members of City Council that may attend this meeting. While no formal action will be
taken by the Council at this meeting, the discussion of public business will occur and the meeting is open to the
public via Zoom.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Meeting Pre-Work to Prepare for the December 10, 2020 Meeting
2. November 12, 2020 Draft Minutes
3. Pre-Work Item #3: Additional background on Fort Collins’ occupancy program
4. Pre-Work Item #3: Shelby Sommer’s Capstone Paper on Rental Regulations and Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 1: MEETING PRE-WORK
Pre-Work Item #1: Options for moving the Anti-Displacement and Housing Stability
Conversation forward
Description: At the November Ad Hoc Housing Committee
meeting, Councilmembers discussed anti-displacement and housing
stability and asked for additional information on the following
strategies as potential quick(er) wins:
• Support for legal defense fund to prevent evictions
• Support for financial literacy programs
• Develop maps showing neighborhoods assessing risk of
displacement and gentrification
Staff spent the past month assessing the feasibility of each anti-displacement strategy. What follows is
a brief overview of how the City could act on each of these strategies on the short term.
Legal Defense Fund
Overview: Evictions have been minimal due to the federal moratorium on evictions. This moratorium
lasts until the end of 2020. Once this moratorium expires, staff anticipates a sharp increase in evictions
and thus a greater need for legal defense for households under threat of illegal evictions. In speaking
with service providers, there is also an opportunity to provide education and address other housing
security issues that come up during consultations on eviction cases.
Potential Action: Colorado Legal Services estimated an annual cost of a dedicated attorney and
bilingual paralegal at $125,000. This would cover direct representation in court, education and outreach
for tenants and landlords, training specialized mediation volunteers to assist tenants on the day of a
hearing (for previously unrepresented tenants) and with Conflict Mediation prior to court hearings, legal
clinic/Ask A Lawyer days, “walk-in” assistance, and working with the court to get eviction avoidance
resources printed in the packet for service on tenants facing eviction.
Financial Literacy Programs
Overview: The City currently provides financial support for financial literacy programs through the
competitive process. Other community organizations offer financial literacy programs and have not
sought funding through the competitive process in the past.
Potential Action: The City could allocate additional funds to the competitive process and encourage
organizations that provide financial literacy programs to apply for funding through the competitive
process. The CDBG Commission has full discretion on how to apply funds in the competitive process,
however. This means the CDBG Commission could end up allocating additional funds to other
priorities. Staff could also pursue supporting financial literacy programs offered by local banks. This
would be outside the competitive process and further this objective.
Gentrification/Displacement Mapping
Overview: Other communities have created indices and maps showing the threat of displacement and
gentrification at the neighborhood level.
Potential Action: In discussing this concept with GIS staff, this type of project is feasible, and its
implementation is dependent on the complexity of the map. If the map uses readily available data from
the City, County, and Census, the map could take a few months to develop and implement using only
staff resources. Additional data sources increase the complexity of the map and the time it would take
for staff to implement. An option for moving forward would be to create a simplified version of the map,
test it, and then refine over time. Staff can complete this project without any additional resources.
Discussion Question: Would Committee members like to see any of these three quick(er) wins move
forward now or be evaluated and considered within the full planning process?
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #6: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing
stability and healthy housing,
especially for people who rent.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 3
Pre-Work Item #2: Explore Topic 1: Funding and Financing Solutions
Description: At the November meeting, Councilmembers
expressed the desire to dive in more deeply on funding and
financing solutions for affordable housing. This section includes the
following:
• A review of existing financing mechanisms and incentives
• A deeper dive into the scale of the gap ($8.8M/year) and
associated assumptions
• current occupancy ordinance; and
• Opportunities to increase funding available for direct subsidy
from City resources as well as opportunities beyond direct City funding
Analysis of Existing Financing Mechanisms & Incentives: The City of Fort Collins maintains a
portfolio of mechanisms to incentivize Affordable housing. The below table illustrates how the current
mechanisms support different housing needs:
The median level of City contributions in new construction & renovation of affordable housing projects
from 2015-2020 was $38,970 per unit. The City also provides other incentives to support affordable
housing beyond direct subsidy.
The City has two direct funding sources which have contributed to Affordable housing developments:
• Competitive Process funding - The City distributes federal and local funds through an annual
competitive process. Federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME
program combine with the City Affordable Housing Fund to distribute between $1.5- $3M
annually. At median subsidy, this could yield 38-77 units per year.
• Affordable Housing Capital Fund - The Affordable Housing Capital Fund is part of a dedicated
sales tax. $500K per year is expected for this fund from 2020-2025. The language requires that
these funds be used for the capital needs of one or more affordable housing developments. At
median subsidy, this could yield 12 units per year.
Over the past 5 years, 884 units have been incentivized through the existing mechanisms. An
additional 245 units are also under construction.
Scale of Gap & Assumptions behind $8.8M/year: A gap of $8.8M would represent the median level
of City contribution of $38,970 per unit extended across 228 units. This is a simple figure which
illuminates the scale of the gap, but does not account for additional complexities such as:
• Median figures are a common way to express housing costs and avoid skewing the data
towards outliers. It means that half of projects have exceed this figure and half have required
less. Many projects which required less leveraged one-time funding opportunities. Although we
seek to maximize leverage of City funds, we cannot depend on those external funding sources
to reoccur.
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #3: The City does have
some tools to encourage affordable
housing, but the current amount of
funding and incentives for
affordable housing are
not enough to meet our goals.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 4
• 228 units/year was the need identified in the last plan; this may be revised in the next plan.
• Recently, there have been increases to raw material costs. Land and/or labor costs are also
market driven and outside of our control. Changes in those costs could change the per unit gap.
• Many non-City funding mechanisms that contributed to these developments are being maxed
out. This means that the leverage ratio realized vs. the direct City funding may not be
sustainable if the volume of units per year is significantly increased. This could also increase the
subsidy amount needed from the City.
Opportunities to Increase Funding Available for Direct Subsidy: There are multiple approaches the
City could take to invest more direct subsidy in affordable housing. It is likely multiple mechanisms
would need to be implemented to reach $8.8M.
1. Options to Expand Existing Funding Pools:
• Increase funding to the Affordable Housing Fund – Additional allocation from the General Fund
during the Budgeting for Outcomes process would allow for more investment in affordable housing.
o While this in City Council’s control, it requires balancing against competing budget needs.
o The amount committed has been about $535K for the past two years.
• New dedicated sales tax – Currently, the Affordable Housing Capital Fund is funded through 2025
at $500K per year. A new tax could substantially add to the funds in the Affordable Housing Capital
Fund or the Affordable Housing Fund.
o A sales tax of .25% would yield about $9M annually.
o A sales tax of .10% would yield about $3.5M annually.
o This would require an election and would need to be balanced with other City priorities.
2. New Funding Opportunities:
• Commercial and/or Residential Linkage Fees - Linkage fees are policy tools that generate
revenue by charging a fee on new development. It can be assessed on new commercial or market
and/or luxury rate residential developments. All proceeds from these fees would be dedicated for
investments in affordable housing development.
o The City’s Feasibility Study for Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fees
(May 2020) found that Residential and Commercial linkage fees could be justified at levels
that exceed what the market could accommodate.
o The study suggested that potential annual yields span a wide range:
• General obligation bonds - General obligation bonds are government issued bonds that are
repaid from general funds or a dedicated tax. While securing general obligation bonds can be
challenging, once issued the proceeds can be used flexibly.
• Urban Renewal Authority and Tax increment financing - Tax increment financing (TIF) is a
vehicle for issuing bonds which fund the redevelopment of designated plan areas. The plan areas
capture incremental tax revenue generated by development in the district.
Opportunity Potential Yield Difficulty
Expand Affordable Housing Fund during BFO Medium to High High
Implement New Dedicated Sales Tax Medium to High High
Opportunity Potential Yield Difficulty Examples
Residential & Commercial linkage fees Medium to High Medium Boston; Chicago
General Obligation Bond for Affordable Housing Medium (One-Time)High Portland, OR
Tax Increment Financing in new URA areas Minimal Low Minnesota; Texas
Demolition Tax or Fee Low Medium Lake Forest, IL
Residential Commercial
5% of Max Justifiable $700K 50% of Max Justifiable $74K
50% of Max Justifiable $7M 75% of Max Justifiable $111K
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 5
• Demolition taxes - Demolition taxes are levied on property owners when they tear down residential
buildings. Demolition can result in the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing if the
replacement unit is of a higher cost. This type of tax helps compensate for that loss.
3. Opportunities beyond direct City funding
The City is just one player in the landscape of affordable housing and relies on many partners. The City
could also influence availability of affordable housing through continued advocacy and partnerships.
Opportunities for Advocacy:
• Private Activity Bonds – Every year the City gets an allocation of federal PAB based on
population. The competition for this bond capacity has overwhelmed supply across the state. The
program is being examined at the federal level to consider fixing the yield of these bonds and/or
requiring less bond per project. Either of these changes would be beneficial locally.
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits – LIHTC are available at both the State and Federal level. More
tax credits could be made available for both these programs.
• Employer-assisted housing (EAH) programs – EAH programs provide a channel for employers
to help their employees with housing costs. Assistance may be provided in a variety of ways,
including direct funding and education. CSU is working on a project to develop new rental housing
and discount rent for their employees based on their income. Currently, Fort Collins facilitates
conversations about employer sponsored housing, but we could advocate more or begin partnering.
Opportunities for Increased Partnership:
• Community Land Trusts (CLT) – CLTs are mechanisms for creating permanently affordable for
sale housing and maintaining the homes as affordable over the long-term. The City’s partnership
with Elevations Community Land Trust not only brings a development and acquisitions partner who
will act as long-term stewards, but they also bring subsidy to match what the community invests.
• Community Down payment Opportunities - The City discontinued offering homebuyers down
payment assistance (DPA) because that assistance is available from other sources such as
Colorado Housing Finance Authority and Impact Development Fund. A new partner could be the
Metro DPA program, which is a potential quick(er) win the Committee could consider. This program
is expanding and can serve borrowers with lower credit scores and those with low or very low-
income. It can also serve borrowers with incomes up to $150,000. While a City Council Resolution
is required to offer this program in the City, there is no risk or cost for the City to participate.
• Development projects that do not need public support – Some affordable housing
developments need little or no monetary support from the City but can benefit from City incentives.
For instance, Lakeview on the Rise is a 180-unit development under construction in south Fort
Collins. While they are using LIHTC financing, they received PAB from other parts of Colorado and
did not ask for any Competitive process funding.
Discussion Questions for Pre-Work Item 2:
• What feedback or questions do Committee members have on the range of strategies identified?
• Would the Committee like staff to explore moving forward on the quick(er) win to partner with
Metro DPA to expand down payment assistance opportunities for borrowers with incomes up to
$150k?
Action Opportunity Partner Difficulty
Advocacy Adjust PAB requirements Federal High
Advocacy Expand LIHTC Federal & State High
Advocacy/Partnership Employer Assisted Housing Programs Local Employers Medium
Partnership Community Land Trusts Elevation Community Land Trust
(existing partner)Low-Medium
Partnership Community Down Payment Assistance Metro DPA (potential partner)Low
Partnership Projects that do not require City subsidy Various Community Partners Low-Medium
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 6
Pre-Work Item #3: Explore Topic 2: Occupancy and Rental Regulations
Description: At the November meeting, Councilmembers
expressed the desire to discuss Fort Collins’ current occupancy
ordinance (known as U+2) and explore other approaches to
regulating rental housing. This session of the meeting will include
the following:
• A review of the current occupancy ordinance
• A summary of research into 20 communities across the U.S.
and their approach to rental regulations, and finally
• An exploration into potential next steps.
Background on the City’s Occupancy Ordinance: Fort Collins has had an occupancy code since the
60’s with the original intent being limiting the number of unrelated people living in the same household
as a way to manage neighborhood issues such as parking, noise, and rubbish.
In 2005, the City amended the ordinance to add clarity and to make violation of the ordinance a civil
infraction, which was followed by a period of education and outreach before enforcement started in
2007. It is a complaint-based system that investigates reports of suspected over occupancy, typically
based on parking, noise, or rubbish issues in the neighborhood. In the last several years, cases have
ranged from 160 to just over 200 with the exception of this year which to date is 120. Typically, 35-50%
are sustained and the balance are unfounded or unproven.
The 2018 Coruna Survey highlighted a couple of key points:
• There is a shift in profile of occupancy ordinance violators. In 2005, 71% of violators were
college students. In 2018 only 47% are estimated to be students.
• The ordinance is well known with 89% of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards
it, but more residents support the ordinance (42%) than oppose it (24%). The biggest split is
homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while
homes without a student have the opposite stance.
• Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower neighborhood quality ratings.
In reviewing the current occupancy ordinance, its enforcement process, and currently available options
for legally increasing occupancy in residential property located in Fort Collins, staff have identified
options for potential process changes in order to balance the needs of the community as they relate to
both the goal of addressing housing availability and impacts to quality of life/neighborhood livability.
Initial options identified include:
• Revisions to the current occupancy code – could expand or eliminate the definition of family,
increase the number of unrelated people, or base occupancy on building code requirements
• Streamline and/or Expand Extra Occupancy Rental House Approval Process – limit or remove
existing criteria, increase the number of zone districts in which this tool is allowed, or created
expedited/reduced fee approval processes
• Update Host Family Permitting Criteria/Process or create a new process for homeowners
wishing to increase occupancy in their primary residence.
• Eliminate occupancy ordinance and replace with either rental registration or rental licensing (see
capstone research paper information below)
• Implementation of a quasi-licensing and/or registration program specific to property owners
intending to increase occupancy loads, replacing the current extra occupancy process.
These initial options and additional background and information on Fort Collins’ Occupancy Ordinance
is in Attachment 3.
Greatest Challenge Alignment:
Challenge #6: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing
stability and healthy housing,
especially for people who rent.
Attachment 1: December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Pre-Work 7
What we heard through the community engagement process: As will be discussed at the December
8 Work Session, engagement for the Housing Strategic Plan was conducted this past fall. Strategies
identified by the community included four main categories, one of which is to “revamp the housing we
have.” In this category, community members mentioned a desire to revisit occupancy restrictions at nearly
every conversation that was held.
More specifically, participants saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having
enough housing, and to having housing that is affordable for all residents. Many folks supported repealing
“U+2”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. This was seen as a potential
benefit for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up” additional homes
for rental or purchase.
Capstone Research on Rental Regulations and Occupancy
In addition to the overview of the City’s approach to occupancy, staff were approached by Shelby
Sommer to conduct her capstone project for her Master’s Degree in Public Administration around rental
regulations. Specifically, Ms. Sommer research explores rental housing regulations including
occupancy, registration, licensing, and inspections for 20 communities across the United States, with
emphasis on communities that have similar housing markets or demographic characteristics as Fort
Collins. Interviews with and lessons learned from four of the 20 communities provide additional insight
and considerations for Fort Collins and other communities exploring new rental regulations.
Key findings include:
• While the most common type of rental regulations reviewed are paired licensing and inspection
programs, there are many regulatory permutations for communities to consider.
• Approaches that incorporate occupancy restrictions and focus rental registration and
inspections on properties with a history of code compliance issues appear to be strategic and
effective alternatives to comprehensive licensing and inspection programs.
• Rental regulations would likely lead to health, safety, and equity improvements but may have
less of an impact on overall housing stability or affordability.
• Communities that adopt or revise rental housing regulations can expect political resistance and
potential legal challenges, and so a collaborative and thorough stakeholder engagement
process is critical to successful program development and regulation adoption.
The full research paper that Ms. Sommer developed is Attachment 4 of this packet.
Discussion Questions:
• Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension inherent
in this solution, given the community feedback and interest?
• If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations Councilmembers want
to see included? What additional questions need to be explored and/or answered?
ATTACHMENT 2
AD HOC HOUSING COMMITTEE
November 12, 2020
5:00pm-7:00pm
Zoom Meeting
Members:
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, Councilmember Cunniff, Councilmember Gorgol
Attendees:
Staff Members: Lindsay Ex, Caryn Champine, Meaghan Overton, Clay Frickey, Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Shawna Van Zee,
Dean Klingner, Carrie Daggett, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Community Members: Daphne Bear, Jennifer Bray, Kevin Jones, Bob Pawlikowski, Adam Eggleston
Call to Order: 5:03
Approval of October Minutes and Agenda Review:
• Councilmember Cunniff moved to approve, Councilmember Gorgol seconded.
Roll call for vote: Unanimous 2-0-0.
• Proposed adoption date of February 16, 2021
• Draft vision: “Everyone has stable, healthy housing they can afford”
• Fall engagement update and summary
Discussion Item: Housing Types and Zoning Discussion
• Summary of October discussion including initial list of strategies and next steps
• Quick(er) wins: Adopt Housing Strategic Plan and prepare an out-of-cycle appropriation to initiate
comprehensive revisions to the Land Use Code in Q2 of 2021
o Interested in cost estimate for Land Use Code revisions – initial estimate $300k
o Initial work could be started, full audit implementation will take a few years
o Mid-year cycle appropriation could potentially fund beyond this Council, but the results would
need to be adopted by new Council
• Committee discussion around strategies and solutions that could be included in the Housing Strategic
Plan and their various timelines
o Committee members supported moving forward with an off-cycle appropriation to begin the
initial LUC audit work – more information will be brought forward to the full Council at the
December 8, 2020 Work Session
o Councilmembers asked that staff bring forward a conversation around economic mobility, e.g.,
educational access, wages, childcare and transportation at a future meeting.
o Councilmembers also supported moving forward now on exploring solutions to increase the
density bonus, what else could be achieved via land bank parcels, and other associated code
changes.
Discussion: Does density have to get increased through the Land Use Code, or is there
another way to address density? Could potentially pull out that one piece, discuss with
affordable housing providers about ideal density requirements. Would require change
to Land Use Code.
Affordable housing providers – in increasing density, would have to consider other
impacts (e.g. number of units per building, etc.)
While LUC is being updated, can development proposals be considered individually for
density?
• Recognized there is the option for a standalone modification request for
density, yet what staff has heard from community members and stakeholders is
there is a preference for a Land Use Code change that would apply to all
projects to reduce potential risk, particularly with financing affordable housing
Discussion Item: Explore Housing Stability and Anti-Displacement
• Summary of October discussion – request to research anti-displacement and gentrification strategies
o Began with Portland, OR framework and researched 8 communities (Portland, OR; Austin, TX;
San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Bozeman, MT; Flagstaff, AZ; Ann Arbor, MI; Lawrence, KS)
o Found 29 distinct policies – no one community doing all 29, and no policy being used by all 8
communities
Fort Collins is implementing 8 of these
• Potential Quick Wins:
o Strategy 1 – Assess displacement and gentrification risk
Can use existing staffing and readily available data
o Strategy 2 – Tenant rights and legal services
Continue support for legal defense fund for renters facing eviction
o Strategy 3 – Financial literacy
Support existing programs offered by partners
o Strategies 1 and 3 would require support from additional departments, unsure if resources
would allow currently – if committee members support, staff could create roadmap to show the
how and potential constraints
o Strategy 2 is already in process
o To prioritize these, would be helpful to see direct impact on community – what is most needed,
most quickly to positively impact housing gaps and needs?
o Councilmembers supported exploring these strategies, as they were generally low risk and could
serve as a good starting point; staff will bring these strategies back to the Committee with more
specifics at the December meeting.
Next Meeting Focus and Process Check-in:
• Interest in discussing the following at December meeting/future meetings:
o Dedicated funding source
o Overview of financing tools
o U+2, rental licensing, tenant protections – this may be too much to dig into in one meeting, but
these issues all come up frequently
o Graduate student has researched rental licensing – they could share this research
o Discussion of employment incentives, living wage, and workforce housing – earmark for
partnership conversation
o How to approach options as more retail spaces become available
• Process Check-in
o About the right amount of information and pre-work
o Some Councilmembers expressed that it was easier to read materials vs watching videos; others
expressed videos are easier – continuing with a mix is good
• Jonathan Rose will join January 11 Futures Committee – focus on communities of opportunity
o Copy of his book and invite will go to all Councilmembers
Meeting Adjourned: 6:31
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 1
Attachment 3: Pre-Work Item #3 - Occupancy in Fort Collins
History and Original Intent: The City of Fort Collins has a long history with the occupancy
ordinance. The initial ordinance went into effect in 1964, which limited the number of unrelated
individuals that may occupy a residential dwelling unit. The original intent of establishing
Occupancy limits in Fort Collins was focused on the issue of neighborhood off-street parking.
Prior to 1963, homes typically had single-driveways, single-garages and occupants generally had
only one car. This model worked until each home had more than one driver, leading to more than
one vehicle per home and parking on the street.
The City of Fort Collins adopted the ordinance in 1963 (Ordinance 53, 1963). The ordinance Was
proposed following neighborhood concerns of increased congestion and over-parking on streets
associated with the rising number of rental properties that were emerging at the time. With the
adoption of the ordinance, the definition of family was updated to exclude a group of more than 3
individuals who were not related by blood, marriage, or other duly authorized custodial
relationship. Its purpose of establishing a limit on the number of individuals who can occupy a
property was intended to decrease the impacts of parking within neighborhoods by reducing the
number of vehicle owners per household, as well as a number of other livability issues commonly
associated with over-occupied properties (noise, rubbish, etc.).
In 2005, after much public input and an economic study, City Council amended the ordinance to
add clarity and to make violation of the ordinance a civil infraction, thus making the ordinance
more enforceable. Following a period of community education and outreach, active enforcement
of the ordinance began in 2007 as a result, and has continued until present.
The occupancy limit ordinance, found in 3.8.16 of Fort Collins Land Use Code, currently restricts
the number of persons who occupy a dwelling unit to no more than three (3) unrelated parties, or
a family of any size plus one additional unrelated individual. The City’s Occupancy Enforcement
Program is managed by two fulltime Inspectors. Caseload is distributed and processed
depending on order in which cases are received, volume of reported properties, and prioritization
based on high-profile referrals or health/safety concerns. Occupancy cases are primarily
investigated on a reactive basis, following complaints involving neighborhood impact.
There are allowances for extra occupancy based on zone district and/or host family permitting,
within parameters; however, in low-density residential zone areas (RL) the objective is to preserve
the neighborhood character and therefore exceptions in that zone type are currently not allowed.
There are two existing exceptions to the occupancy ordinance currently in place: Dwellings
regularly inspected or licensed by the state or federal government, including, but not limited to,
group homes, and; Dwellings owned and operated by a non-profit incorporated organization for
the purpose of providing housing to victims of domestic violence.
The options developed are provided below, with additional information about the program, current
case loads, and engagement feedback beginning on page 4 of this document.
Options for Consideration re: Opportunities for Improvement:
In reviewing the current occupancy ordinance, its enforcement process, and currently available
options for legally increasing occupancy in residential property located in Fort Collins, staff have
identified options for potential process changes in order to balance the needs of the community
as they relate to both the goal of addressing housing availability and impacts to quality of
life/neighborhood livability. Below are potential/possible options. The bigger question is which
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 2
tools make the most sense for us to consider in balancing the tensions we now face? What
additional questions need to be explored and/or answered?
1. Revision of Current Occupancy Code
Occupancy limits and narrow family definitions can create unintended constraints on
housing choice and options, including cooperative housing opportunities for seniors and
people with disabilities desiring to live with unrelated adults in a single family home setting.
Occupancy limits may also potentially pose fair housing liabilities to the extent that they
can have a disparate impact on certain individuals.
Other cities have expanded or eliminated the definition of family, allowed up to 8 unrelated
people, or have based occupancy on building code requirements (e.g. x number of square
ft per occupant).
2. Streamline and/or Expand Extra Occupancy Rental House Approval Process
Utilizing the existing process already in place for designating a residential property as an
Extra Occupancy Rental House, however limiting or removing a number of existing criteria
required for approval in order to broaden the availability of this option as a means for
property owners to legally increase occupancy loads upon submitting application for
approval.
The option for obtaining EOR designation is limited to residential property located in 15
zone types throughout Fort Collins. This currently does not include low-density residential
zone (RL) areas, which accounts for the majority of residential homes within city limits.
Opening up the qualifying zones to include certain or all RL zone districts would drastically
increase accessibility of the EOR designation to more property owners and support an
increase in housing availability.
Additionally, the process for obtaining this designation can be both lengthy and costly.
Lowering fees and allowing for expedited EOR approval decisions being made at a staff
level, among other significant process changes, would likely be necessary in order for this
to be a practical and effective option.
3. Update Host Family Permitting Criteria/Process or create a new process for
homeowners wishing to increase occupancy in their primary residence.
Utilizing the existing application process already in place for issuing Host Family Permits,
however updating existing criteria required for approval in order to broaden the availability
of this option as a means for property owners to legally increase occupancy loads for
purposes such as being able to keep their home in the face of financial hardship, home-
sharing to allow for aging in place for elderly community members or for other individuals
in need, etc..
Currently the HFP is a simpler approval process than obtaining EOR designation, and
issuance of the permit can be done in short order at the staff level. While the permit is
already applicable for residential property in any zone-type, at present it is limited to
owner-occupied property, and only allows for an increase of one additional unrelated
occupant. Further, the permits are tied to a 10-month timeframe and can be re-issued for
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 3
up to an additional 10 months, provided that 2 months have elapsed between issuance of
permits.
Updating the HFP criteria to increase the number of additional occupants and eliminating
the required gap between permits issued (while maintaining the time-limited permit
duration on an as-needed basis) would drastically increase the availability of this option to
property owners seeking to increase occupancy loads. Such changes may put this
process in conflict with the already existing and more complicated process for Extra
Occupancy Rental House designation, however.
There would also need to be consideration of what other criteria should be included in
approving additional occupants.
4. Eliminate Occupancy Ordinance and replace with one of the following:
a. Rental Registration
b. Rental Licensing
Listed below is the conclusion from recent research paper by Shelby Sommer, see
Attachment 4.
Conclusion: Several of the communities reviewed include housing occupancy
regulations like Fort Collins, yet all layer in other rental regulatory approaches to more
proactively address rental housing management and conditions. Approaches vary from
voluntary rental registration to mandatory licensing and inspection.
Additional rental regulations beyond occupancy regulations present potential benefits to
communities like Fort Collins, especially in the context of improving health and safety
conditions for tenants. Few of the examples reviewed demonstrate significant impact on
housing stability, partially because rental occupancy provides flexibility and in university
communities, high rental turnover is expected. In terms of housing affordability, some
rental regulations can create a perception of increasing unaffordability. Yet in communities
like Fort Collins with extreme housing affordability challenges, some renters experience
substandard housing conditions as a result of simply trying to secure low-cost housing.
Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance focuses on over-occupancy as a nuisance issue for
neighbors, whereas many of the other programs examined focus on proactively
addressing housing conditions and tenants’ rights to quality, safe, and healthy housing.
As Fort Collins looks to finalize and implement the Housing Strategic Plan with a vision
that “everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a), it
may be necessary to introduce creative, locally-tailored rental housing regulations beyond
U plus 2 to improve equity and quality housing options for the community’s large rental
housing population.
5. Implementation of a quasi-licensing and/or registration program specific to
property owners intending to increase occupancy loads, replacing the current extra
occupancy process.
This is an example of a hybrid solution or a step process that could be the first phase to a
longer-term strategy of rental licensing for all rentals. It would allow us to pilot a rental
licensing program and potential streamline and change the current processes for extra
occupancy with a focus on both the health and safety of the unit and paying attention to
the livability issues in the surrounding neighborhood.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 4
Discussion Questions:
• Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension
inherent in this solution, given the community feedback and interest?
• If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations
Councilmembers want to see included? What additional questions need to be explored
and/or answered?
Current Perceptions and Caseloads:
Occupancy is a divisive topic. Annually, we have residents that say, the Occupancy ordinance
saved my neighborhood. Thank you. Over the last several years we have students and/or
members of ASCSU that approach us about changing U+2 to Me +3.
The 2018 Coruna Survey highlighted a couple of key points regarding the number of people not
in compliance, their profiles, people’s current perception of the occupancy ordinance and
neighborhood quality ratings. See tables below. The survey can be accessed
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy under the occupancy study section.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 5
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 6
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 7
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 8
Occupancy Investigation Caseloads:
TOTAL CASES
OPENED Sustained Unfounded/Unproven Percent
Sustained
2007 140 19 121 14%
2008 61 15 46 25%
2009 64 23 41 36%
2010 104 49 55 47%
2011 85 46 39 54%
2012 157 88 69 56%
2013 89 42 47 47%
2014 147 74 73 50%
2015 138 62 76 45%
2016 206 77 129 37%
2017 167 52 115 32%
2018 211 77 106 42%
2019 162 58 104 36%
2020* 120* 34* 57* 37%*
*As of 12/20
*A case distribution heat map is being developed and may be ready to share at the time of
the committee meeting.
140
61 64
104
85
157
89
147 138
206
167
211
162
120
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020*
Occupancy Cases
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 9
Current Processes for Increasing Occupancy Limits:
Extra Occupancy Rental House:
• Extra Occupancy Rental House is a building or portion of which is used to accommodate,
for compensation, four (4) or more tenants, boarders, or roomers. It is not necessary for
a family or owner to also occupy the house.
• Approved units are permitted in certain zones (see Extra Occupancy Rental House Zone
Map).
• Process for obtaining certificate of occupancy as an Extra Occupancy Rental House
includes either a Type 1 administrative public hearing or a Basic Development Review,
application for change of use building permit, and an inspection for compliance with
applicable codes/regulations.
• Some factors considered during the approval/denial process include the density/number
of nearby Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (no more than 25% of parcels on a block face),
minimum building square footage of habitable floor space per occupant, minimum bicycle
and parking spaces.
• At present, there are 59 single or two-family dwellings (104 additional “approved”
occupants) and 12 multi-family properties that are approved as Extra Occupancy Rental
Houses within the City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/files/extraoccupancyzoning11x17_2018.pdf?1552
071594
Host Family Permit:
Effective 2010, this allows an increase of the occupancy limit for host families in single-family,
owner-occupied dwellings to allow for one additional person, provided that the following conditions
are met:
• Adequate off-street parking is available to accommodate the additional occupant.
• There have been no code violations at the premises for which the permit is sought within
the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of the application for the permit.
• At least two (2) months have elapsed since the issuance of any previous host family permit
for the same premises.
Permits issued are valid for ten (10) months from the date of issuance. A permit may be revoked
during the permit duration if a violation of the City or Land Use Code has occurred at the premises
for which the permit was issued. In 2019, nine (9) Host Family Permits were issued, and to date
only one has been issued in 2020.
Current Exceptions to the Occupancy Ordinance:
• Dwellings regularly inspected or licensed by the state or federal government, including,
but not limited to, group homes.
• Dwellings owned and operated by a non-profit incorporated organization for the purpose
of providing housing to victims of domestic violence.
Attachment 3: Occupancy Background, Options, and Additional Data 10
What we heard through community engagement process:
The community values for housing included equity, choice, and collaboration. The strategies
grouped into four categories:
• Revamp the housing we have
• Increase the amount and types of new homes
• Ensure housing stability and safety for renters and homeowners
• Leverage funding for housing stability and sustainability
Under revamp housing we have the community recommendations included things like:
• Remove or relax occupancy restrictions
• Relax restrictions on density in existing neighborhoods
• Make it easier to modify homes
• Ensure all neighborhoods have access to amenities
• Explore options of “house swapping” between residents
Participants saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having enough
housing, and to having housing that is affordable for all residents. Many folks supported repealing
“U+2”, which limits the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. This was seen as a
potential benefit for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up”
additional homes for rental or purchase.
Regulating Rental Housing: Considerations for Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Social Sustainability Department
University of Colorado
School of Public Affairs
Shelby Sommer
Fall 2020
Professor Todd Ely
Dr. Sebawit Bishu
Lindsay Ex
ATTACHMENT 4
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 13
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26
References ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A: Selection of Communities for Benchmarking ......................................................... 30
Appendix B: Community Benchmarking Criteria ........................................................................ 32
Appendix C: Community Benchmarking Details ......................................................................... 34
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 40
Appendix E: Interview Participants .............................................................................................. 43
Table of Tables
Table 1. Summary Statistics for Community Demographic and Housing Characteristics ........... 16
Table 2. Regulation Paring Frequency .......................................................................................... 17
Table 3. Summary of Communities Interviewed .......................................................................... 18
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 3
Executive Summary
Fort Collins, Colorado is a university community with nearly half of the population
(46.9%) living in rental housing units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Issues such as housing
quality, stability, affordability, and equity are growing concerns across the community. The City
of Fort Collins’ current approach to regulating housing centers on limiting housing occupancy to
no more than three unrelated adults. Building on two decades of affordable housing planning,
Fort Collins is preparing its first-ever comprehensive Housing Strategic Plan. As part of that
effort, Fort Collins is exploring new solutions to address rental housing concerns.
This research explores rental housing regulations including occupancy, registration,
licensing, and inspections for 20 communities across the United States, with emphasis on
communities that have similar housing markets or demographic characteristics as Fort Collins.
Interviews with and lessons learned from four of the 20 communities provide additional insight
and considerations for Fort Collins and other communities exploring new rental regulations.
While the most common type of rental regulations reviewed are paired licensing and
inspection programs, there are many regulatory permutations for communities to consider.
Approaches that incorporate occupancy restrictions and focus rental registration and inspections
on properties with a history of code compliance issues appear to be strategic and effective
alternatives to comprehensive licensing and inspection programs.
Rental regulations would likely lead to health, safety, and equity improvements but may
have less of an impact on overall housing stability or affordability. Communities that adopt or
revise rental housing regulations can expect political resistance and potential legal challenges,
and so a collaborative and thorough stakeholder engagement process is critical to successful
program development and regulation adoption.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 4
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins (City) is a home-rule municipality, with a vision “to provide
world-class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation” (City
of Fort Collins, n.d.b). The organization is nationally recognized for its leadership and
commitment to performance excellence (National Institue of Standards and Technology, 2017).
The City’s Social Sustainability Department has a mission to “support a diverse and equitable
community that successfully meets the basic needs of all residents” (City of Fort Collins, n.d.a).
The Social Sustainability Department is leading development of the City’s first Housing
Strategic Plan, in coordination with other departments, including but not limited to
Neighborhoods Services and Planning. The effort is guided by an Ad Hoc Housing Committee
comprised of three City Councilmembers. The draft vision for the Housing Strategic Plan is
“everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a) and the plan
will eventually include goals, strategies, and implementation details to support achievement of
this vision.
The Housing Strategic Plan will address a full spectrum of housing needs, ranging from
affordable housing to high-end housing market considerations (City of Fort Collins, 2020a).
Issues and opportunities for the plan to address include quality rental housing and neighborhood
compatibility solutions. One existing approach to address neighborhood quality is Fort Collins’s
“U plus 2” occupancy ordinance, which limits the number of unrelated persons living in
residential dwelling units (including owner-and renter-occupied units). Fort Collins has a long
history of looking at occupancy issues, and so this research examines possible alternatives or
modifications to “U plus 2” in the context of the Housing Strategic Plan vision. Potential
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 5
alternatives or layered approaches to U plus 2 include registration, licensing, or inspection
programs for rental housing.
Concerns about housing affordability, availability, quality, equity, and enforcement are
underlying factors driving community conversations about potential occupancy ordinance
alternatives or refinements. Emerging priorities also include improving health, safety, and
efficiency of rental housing, and the elevating role that housing plays in achieving the
community’s ambitious climate goals. This project examines how the City of Fort Collins could,
if the community desires to, effectively regulate rental housing to help achieve a vision that
“everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.” The research explores and documents
best practices among municipal rental housing regulations and programs. Because many
communities are facing similar housing challenges as Fort Collins, this research will be of value
to other organizations looking to establish equitable and innovative rental housing regulations
and programs.
Literature Review
Defining Healthy, Stable, and Affordable Housing
To understand how to achieve healthy, stable, and affordable housing for all community
members, it is important to first define and explore what each of these concepts mean both
universally, as well as in the local Fort Collins context.
Healthy Housing
The premise behind healthy housing is that the nature and quality of housing conditions
has a tremendous impact on inhabitant health and safety. Unhealthy housing conditions,
including but not limited to lead paint, poor indoor air quality, and general neglect in upkeep, can
lead to myriad problems and challenges including asthma, lead poisoning, behavioral and
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 6
learning problems, and physical injury (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). These unhealthy conditions are
present in communities across the country; in Fort Collins, poor indoor air quality is of
prominent concern due to the fact that one of four households report a family member with a
respiratory ailment (City of Fort Collins, n.d.c.).
Research shows that public health approaches often focus on providing services after an
illness or injury, rather than proactively preventing disease by addressing factors like
neighborhood and housing conditions (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). By moving upstream and
focusing on improving social determinants of health such as housing conditions and quality,
overall population health could be enhanced (Stacy C. P., et al., 2019). In response, cities across
the nation have started developing and implementing programs to address health-related housing
issues; most in the arenas of lead and asthma concerns (GWUSPH, 2018).
Housing Stability
The concept of housing stability focuses on improving predictability and maintaining
steadiness in securing and occupying housing. It emphasizes keeping people in housing,
regardless of whether they own or rent their home. According to Phillips (2020), programs that
address tenant protections and rental housing preservation help “ensure all residents have access
to safe, clean, affordable housing without fear that the rug might someday be pulled out from
under them” (p. 19). The case for addressing and improving housing stability is that “providing
stability to those who want it, to renters in particular, is how we turn housing into homes”
(Phillips, 2020, p20).
Improving housing stability encompasses a mix of activities including increasing and
preserving housing opportunities, reducing displacement, and addressing equity issues.
According to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Report (2020),
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 7
current City of Fort Collins policies and regulations do not address housing stability or health in
a systematic way (p. 54).
Housing Affordability
The cost of housing and whether those costs are affordable to residents is a subject of
much research and analysis. A common measure of housing affordability is the percent of
household income spent on housing (i.e., rent or mortgage and associated costs). A threshold of
30% of income spent on housing costs is often used as an indicator of affordability, wherein
households spending greater than 30% of income on housing costs are commonly referred to as
“cost-burdened.”
Trends in recent decades reveal “pronounced increases in the typical rental burdens for
poor and near-poor households” (Quigley and Raphael, 2004, p. 192). Nationally, approximately
50.2% of rental households are now rent-burdened, paying 30% or more of their income on rent
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). In Fort Collins, that number is even higher, with 60.6% of
households paying 30% or more of their income on rent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).
Such a large share of income going towards housing costs puts pressure on a households’
budget, “leaving less to pay for food, utilities, transportation to work, health and child care
expenditures and reducing savings for emergencies, retirement, and other opportunities, such as
pursuing higher education or starting a small business” (Anacker, 2019, p.1). Challenges with
housing affordability in turn create challenges in housing health and stability, as households may
have limited resources to available support home upkeep or improvements, may not be able to be
able to move to other housing options, or may face displacement or eviction if rent cannot be
paid.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 8
Equity Issues in Rental Housing
While the issues around health, stability, and affordability permeate across renter and
owner-occupied housing, unique equity issues exist with rental housing. Across the country,
36.2% of occupied housing units are renter-occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). In Fort
Collins, the share of housing that is renter-occupied is much larger at 46.9% (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020). These numbers illustrate that more than a third of households (and nearly half of
Fort Collins’ households) may face unique equity challenges due to their housing status.
In the realm of public administration, social equity centers on simple fairness and equal
treatment; distribution of resources to reduce inequalities in universal programs and services; and
redistribution of resources to level the playing field (Norman-Major, 2011). This framework
helps highlight some of the equity issues associated with rental housing. Note that this paper
focuses exclusively on long-term rental housing (rented for one month or longer) due to the
systemic inequities and housing challenges facing the long-term renter population. Short-term
rental housing (often referred to as vacation rentals) also presents myriad equity impacts and
other community challenges but is excluded from this discussion since such properties are often
already regulated by cities in different ways than long-term rental properties.
Racial Discrimination and Unequal Opportunity
Housing in the United States has a long history and current reality of structural racism
and housing discrimination. According to Rothstein (2017), policy decisions and laws of cities,
states, and the federal government promoted discrimination across sectors, most prominently in
housing – patterns that continue and endure today. As one specific example in the context of
rental households, “black and Hispanic families, a growing share of low-income renter families,
experience high levels of residential segregation from white families, and are more likely to be
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 9
concentrated in lower opportunity neighborhoods” (Acevedo-Garcia, et al., 2016, p. 608). In
Colorado, research by the Bell Policy Center demonstrates the impediments to housing
opportunity by race, showing that “Colorado’s black families are 62% less likely to own a home
than the state’s non-Hispanic white families” and “Latino families are 43% less likely to own a
home than white families,” (Parsons, 2019, p. 1). These examples show that rental households,
especially those with Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC) residents, are more likely to
live in rental housing and have less neighborhood opportunity (i.e., socioeconomic, educational,
and health/environmental opportunity) (Parsons, 2019).
Landlord-Tenant Power Dynamics
Another equity consideration in rental housing is related to power dynamics of renter and
landlord relationships. When health and safety problems in rental properties exist, most
circumstances and regulations place the burden of reporting problems on the tenant.
Numerous studies provide evidence that many tenants do not report problems with their
housing due to varying reasons (Chisholm, Howden-Chapman, & Fougere, 2020; Way, Trinh, &
Wyatt, 2013). These reasons include lack of trust that repairs will be made and fear of retaliation
through rent hikes, eviction, or even deportation. The lowest and most cost-burdened tenants
tend to be the most risk-averse when it comes to reporting housing health and safety problems,
and this risk aversion is strongly linked to concerns about housing stability (Chisholm, Howden-
Chapman, & Fougere, 2020).
In Fort Collins, the Community Mediation Program is a free and confidential program
available to help address landlord/tenant issues. While the program does help resolve some
landlord/tenant issues, it requires awareness of the program, as well as willingness of both
parties to participate.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 10
Approaches for Regulating Rental Housing
Many cities (and a few states such as Arizona) have implemented approaches to regulate
rental housing to address a variety of housing needs and concerns, including improving health
and safety, protecting vulnerable tenants, and preserving neighborhood stability and property
values. While the specific regulatory and programmatic approaches vary by jurisdiction, rental
regulations can be organized into four overarching categories: occupancy, registration, licensing,
and inspection.
Occupancy Restriction
Restricting the occupancy of a housing unit addresses the potential health, safety, and
nuisance issues that can arise from having numerous people residing in a dwelling unit.
Occupancy restrictions most commonly address a minimum standard of habitable area per person
in a dwelling unit; some occupancy restrictions also address the maximum number of adults, or
even the number of unrelated people, allowed to occupy a unit. Residential occupancy limits
focused on habitable area are most often regulated through building codes, but occupancy
regulations can also be found in zoning codes, housing codes, and property nuisance codes.
Occupancy limits can be stand-alone regulations that apply to all housing, or they can be linked
to other types of nuisance or rental housing regulations.
Rental Registration
Rental registration requires landlords to register their rental property(ies) with the city
and provide basic property information such as contact information for the owner and contact
information for a local property management firm or agent (Center for Community Progress:
Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d.). Some rental registration programs collect other basic
information about each rental unit, such as year built, number of bedrooms, and number of
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 11
parking spaces so that the city can maintain a database of rental property information. In most
cases, “the purpose of registration is to enable the city to find property owners in case of
emergencies or code violations, and to make sure the owner understands his obligations under
city ordinances” (Center for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d.).
Many rental registration programs include minimal fees for registration and impose fines for
non-compliance (Ackerman, Galbreth, & Pearson, 2014).
Rental Licensing
Rental licensing requires property owners to obtain a license in order to rent a housing
unit. As is common across most programs, “under a licensing regime a rental property is not
eligible for registration unless it is in compliance with key health and safety standards” (Center
for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places, n.d., para. 3). The types of rental
properties that are subject to rental licensing programs vary by community – potential regulating
factors can include the number of units (single-family, duplex, multi-family), the type of rental
housing (short term versus long-term), exemptions for publicly owned or managed units, owner-
occupancy, and housing unit age (Way, T rinh, & Wyatt, 2013). Previous nuisance code violations
or citations can be another driver in determining which properties must be licensed.
Property Inspection
Most often, rental licensing regulation is paired with an inspection program, but some
property inspection programs do exist independently. As with the applicability of rental licensing
to varied property types and conditions, there is also variation in the inspection program
parameters. Common categories of rental inspection programs include inspection of all
properties, inspection of a pre-defined percentage of properties, and inspection of properties with
a history of code citations (Way, Trinh, & Wyatt, 2013). Rental inspection programs can focus on
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 12
housing unit exteriors, interiors, or a combination of both. Some communities prohibit
occupancy of dwelling units until an inspection has been completed; others require an inspection
in order to be granted a rental license.
Implementation Considerations for Rental Housing Regulations
Communities that enact rental housing regulations must be aware of many
implementation details and considerations to achieve the desired outcomes. Furthermore, there
are various strategies to improve implementation success, as well as co-benefits to explore.
Implementation Details
According to Ackerman, Galbreth, and Pearson (2014), some important details that
communities should consider when designing and implementing rental housing regulations
include: geographic applicability to the full community or certain neighborhoods; presence of
any additional occupancy regulations or restrictions; compliance and renewal intervals;
inspection frequency; inspection authority; inspection notification and consent; fee structures;
enforcement measures; staff training; and landlord and tenant education and outreach. While this
list is not exhaustive, these considerations summarize the many facets and details addressed in
many existing rental housing regulations and can provide an organizational structure when
comparing communities to one another.
Potential Challenges, Solutions, and Co-Benefits
Implementation of regulations to improve housing heath, stability, or affordability can
present significant challenges and barriers for governments to overcome. Major challenges
associated with implementation of healthy housing programs include landlord or property owner
opposition, tenant resistance or concerns, political climate, scope of city authority, limited
financing, and limited data (GWUSPH, 2018, p. 22-24). Potential strategies identified to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 13
overcome these barriers include convener and coalition building, community organizing,
facilitating adoption, sustainable funding, peer-to-peer guidance from other cities, effective use
of data and evaluations, compelling messaging, and leveraging data (George Washington
University School of Public Health, 2018, p. 36-39). While these challenges and strategies are
focused on advancing healthy housing, they may apply more generally to housing stability and
affordability as well.
Finally, some co-benefits can emerge in communities that regulate rental housing. For
example, research from Rocky Mountain Institute shows that rental properties are a “powerful
first intervention point for existing residential properties” in efforts to improve energy efficiency
in buildings and help communities achieve carbon reduction plans (Petersen & Lalit, 2018, p. 5).
Additional co-benefits beyond housing health, stability, and affordability explored during the
reseach process included improved neighborhood quality, community resiliency, and job
creation.
Methodology
The research methodology built on the findings of the literature review and included two
community-focused components: benchmarking and interviews. The benchmarking efforts were
completed first in order to refine which community candidates to select for semi-structured
interviews.
Benchmarking
The research methodology began with benchmarking Fort Collins to the rental housing
regulations and programs in 19 other cities. The City of Fort Collins provided a list of peer
communities that have been used for other City benchmarking efforts, many of which have
organizational structures and/or demographic characteristics like Fort Collins. That list was
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 14
supplemented with other communities identified during the literature review – these included
communities that may have different governmental or community characteristics than Fort
Collins, but have been recognized for successful, innovative, or unique rental housing
regulations or healthy home programs. Approximately 50 communities were screened for
potential benchmarking efforts. Criteria for determining which communities to include in the
benchmarking efforts included:
1. The community has a known long-term rental registration or licensing program (or
similar occupancy or housing regulation under a different name); and
2. The community satisfies one or more of the following:
a. Shows up on the City of Fort Collins’ peer communities list.
b. Referenced in one or more publications included in the literature review.
c. Located in Colorado.
d. Has a large university presence/influence.
See Appendix A for a list of communities screened and shortlisted for benchmarking analysis.
For each community included in the benchmarking analysis, data were collected to the
greatest extent practical and feasible, through information collected during the literature review
and data collected through online research of community websites and regulations. See Appendix
B for benchmarking criteria and Appendix C for detailed benchmarking results. The results were
analyzed to determine which types of rental housing regulations are most common overall, as
well as which types of regulations are most often paired together (e.g., rental licensing and
inspection). Analysis also focused on unique characteristics of rental regulations in university
communities, as well as communities with similar housing stock characteristics (e.g., percent of
households cost burdened, percent of single-family units).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 15
Community Interviews
The next phase of the research included interviews with rental program administrators
from communities with rental regulations or programs that may be good models for Fort Collins.
Through a collaborative work session with the client team, the benchmarking results were
reviewed and discussed for potential relevance and applicability to the City of Fort Collins.
Ultimately, through this work session a shortlist of six communities and two alternates were
identified and contacted for interviews. Community factors such as similar socioeconomic
conditions, comparable housing stock, program/regulation tenure and applicability, and
innovation were used in the interview selection process.
Interviews were 60 minutes each and the discussions explored more regulation history,
program administration, and other implementation considerations. See Appendix C for the
interview protocol, which outlines the steps that were conducted before, during, and following
each interview.
Results
Benchmarking
The benchmarking process compared various demographic and housing characteristics
for each community, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. As illustrated in Table 1, Fort Collins falls within the range of each
variable analyzed, and does not represent the minimum or maximum value for any of the
variables. In comparison to the average (mean) for all communities included in the
benchmarking analysis, Fort Collins has a smaller population, lower proportion of rental
households, greater share of single-family units, equal average household size, significantly
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 16
lower rental vacancy rate, and a higher-share of cost-burdened renters. See Appendix C for
detailed benchmarking information by community.
Table 1
Summary Statistics for Community Demographic and Housing Characteristics
Population Rental
Tenure
Single-
Family
Units
Average
Household
Size of
Renter
Occupied
Unit
Rental
Vacancy
Rate
Cost-
Burdened
Renters
Minimum 64,273 35.20% 12.00% 1.97 1.80% 38.6%
Maximum 935,755 63.70% 62.30% 2.8 9.20% 66.4%
Mean 333,104 51.75% 47.66% 2.27 4.68% 53.0%
Median 207,778 52.00% 52.90% 2.22 4.20% 52.7%
Fort Collins 162,511 46.90% 56.20% 2.27 2.50% 60.6%
Benchmarking efforts also included review of each community’s housing programs and
regulations, as available from each city’s website. While each community’s regulations are
unique, they were categorized into four categories for analysis purposes: unique occupancy,
registration, licensing, and inspection. See Appendix B for descriptions of these categories.
Overall, when reviewing the communities’ regulations, 90% have an inspection element,
60% have a registration element, 30% have a licensing element, and 30% have a unique
occupancy element. Interestingly, only three of the communities analyzed have just one type of
occupancy or rental housing regulation (Fort Collins just regulates occupancy, Asheville and
Aurora just regulate inspections). The majority (11, or 55%) of the other communities have two
regulations in effect. Three of the communities (Ames, Austin, and Boulder) have three types of
regulations, and two communities (Lawrence and Westminster) have all four types of rental
housing requirements. Note that Greensboro’s regulations appear to have been rescinded
recently.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 17
When examining the most common regulation pairings (Table 2), of the 20 communities
analyzed, the most common combination is rental registration and inspection (60% of all
regulations reviewed), followed by coordinated licensing and inspection regulations (30%).
Table 2
Regulation Paring Frequency
Unique Occupancy Registration Licensing Inspection
Unique Occupancy 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 5 (25%)
Registration 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 12 (60%)
Licensing 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 6 (30%)
Inspection 5 (25%) 12 (60%) 6 (30%) 2 (10%)
Analysis of communities with combined rental registration and inspection programs (12
total), reveals that 92% of those are also university communities. Of the six communities with
unique occupancy regulations (Ames, Austin, Boulder, Fort Collins, Lawrence, and
Westminster), all except for Fort Collins have at least two other rental regulation elements. As
noted earlier, Lawrence and Westminster have all four types of regulations; both Ames’ and
Austin’s regulations lack a licensing component; and Boulder’s lacks a registration element.
There are no discernable trends when examining regulation type by community
population, rental vacancy rate, share of single-family units, rental tenure, average household
size, renter cost burden, or regulation applicability. In terms of regulation longevity, 50% of
communities have regulations that have been enacted since 2000, 20% have regulations that were
enacted between 1980 and 2000, and another 20% have regulations that were enacted before
1980. Note that regulation adoption dates are unknown for two communities (San Francisco and
Washington D.C.).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 18
Interviews
Four communities responded to the request and participated in the interview process:
Ames, Austin, Boulder, and Westminster. See Appendix E for interview participant details.
Coincidentally, all the communities interviewed have unique occupancy restrictions that are
similar to Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance. Table 3 summarizes the occupancy restrictions for
each community interviewed, as well as the related registration, licensing, and/or inspection
regulations.
Table 3
Summary of Communities Interviewed
City
Occupancy
Restrictions Registration, Licensing, or Inspection Regulations
Ames Occupancy limits are
based on the number of
bedrooms.
The state of Iowa requires cities with more than
15,000 people to have a rental program. Ames
requires rental registration and conducts rental
inspections on a 1-4-year rotation, depending on the
age and condition of the property.
Austin The number of
unrelated adults
allowed is determined
by property use.
Austin focuses on rental housing that shows a pattern
of violating minimum housing standards. Housing
that exceeds a certain number of violations/citations
are required to register and be inspected.
Boulder The number of
unrelated adults
allowed is determined
by zoning district.
Boulder requires all rental properties to be licensed.
An inspection (completed by third party) is required
for a license. A license is valid for 4 years.
Westminster Occupancy is restricted
to no more than 4
unrelated people.
Westminster requires any properties with 1-3 rental
units to be registered. Licensing and periodic
inspections are required for anyone with 4 or more
units under single ownership.
Each interview revealed unique drivers and considerations for the community’s rental
housing regulations. Despite many differences across communities, all interview participants
noted positive impacts of the regulations on housing quality, especially improving health and
safety conditions within the dwelling units. None of the interview participants identified any
known impacts of the regulations on housing stability or affordability, though they also noted
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 19
they are not formally tracking or evaluating them for those impacts. The non-Colorado cities of
Ames and Austin both noted that the statewide regulatory environment significantly influenced
the local regulations.
Regarding property owner perceptions, common themes from interview participants
included general willingness of most rental property owners to comply with regulations, interest
in maintaining private property rights, and some concern about perceived costs of compliance
with the regulations. With respect to tenants, common themes included lack of awareness of
regulations and fear of potential retaliation from the property owner if a complaint is filed.
To address these concerns, all the interviewees mentioned outreach and education to
property owners and tenants as critical elements of program success. Furthermore, all the
interview participants discussed the need for flexibility in working with property owners to
achieve compliance for violations or inspections. If compliance issues persist, they all mentioned
escalating enforcement through citations. All noted concerns about potential tenant displacement
as a potential outcome of escalating enforcement measures, but also that such activities are rare.
Discussion and Recommendations
Occupancy Restrictions
For communities that regulate housing unit occupancy like Fort Collins (with a maximum
number of unrelated adults allowed per dwelling unit), issues and concerns associated with such
regulations can include tracking and enforcement, lack of tenant awareness, and impacts on
housing affordability and availability. In Fort Collins, most occupancy violations are driven by
neighbor complaints or concerns and can be difficult to investigate and resolve. Interview
participants also noted how difficult occupancy restrictions can be to investigate and enforce,
especially when considering differing cultural norms and family needs.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 20
In general, occupancy restrictions only limit the number of people in a room or dwelling
unit and do little else to address health or safety conditions of housing units. As the researched
communities demonstrate, pairing occupancy regulations with other types of rental housing
regulations (such as registration, licensing, or inspections) can be a means to improve the health
and safety conditions of rental housing units.
Rental Registration
Registration of rental properties can be an effective way to gather information about the
rental housing stock and to maintain records for property ownership and management.
Challenges associated with implementing rental registration regulations can include determining
which properties are rentals, identifying and contacting rental property owners, verifying the
number of bedrooms in a property (especially if no inspection is required), and enforcing non-
compliance. Interview participants noted that voluntary registration systems can lead to
incomplete or ineffective datasets, especially since properties that would most benefit from
registration may be least likely to comply.
Pairing registration and inspection appears to be an effective way to track rental
properties and ensure units are safe and habitable; this is the most common type of rental
regulations analyzedIf required, rental registration programs function quite similarly to rental
licensing programs and the administering agency may need to charge a fee to help recoup
program administration costs, including but not limited to staffing, tracking software,
notifications, and enforcement. The benchmarked communities with rental registration programs
charge fees ranging from $0 to $110 per unit, though fees vary significantly based on required
frequency, the number of units registered at a single property, and whether a rental unit is also
owner-occupied. The rental registration program in Ames is $50 annually, and according to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 21
program staff, this funding is enough to support full cost recovery for program administration
(note that Ames’ rental registration program also requires an inspection). Westminster’s
registration program does not require a fee, though this may be added in the future to support
program administration costs.
While none of the communities interviewed mentioned this pathway, Fort Collins could
consider starting with a no-cost, voluntary rental registration program to begin establishment of a
property database. Such voluntary program could be more effective if linked to some sort of
incentive, such as a utility bill credit, energy efficiency improvement, or guarantee of a first
warning of a potential violation instead of a citation. Alternatively, Fort Collins could move
towards a mandatory rental registration program; in that case, it is recommended that such
program include a registration fee as well as an inspection element to address housing health and
safety issues.
Rental Licensing
Many of the benefits of rental registration, including development of a property database
and gathering contact information, can also be achieved through rental licensing. Rental license
terms and requirements vary, but in general, they offer tenants the opportunity to confirm a
property’s legitimacy as a rental unit prior to entering a lease. Rental licensing programs also
provide motivation for property owners to comply with housing standards since licenses can be
rescinded or revoked.
Paired rental licensing and inspection programs are the second most common type of
combined regulations of the communities analyzed. This approach is recommended if Fort
Collins has the political and community support for introducing a comprehensive approach to
regulating rental housing. However, such programs can require significant time and resources to
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 22
develop and administer. License fees can be established to support partial or full cost recovery
for administering the program. While beneficial from a municipal budget and cost-recovery
perspective, licensing fees could create a real or perceived negative impact on housing
affordability.
As with rental registration, rental licensing fees vary greatly by community, property
type, and frequency. For example, the City of Boulder’s rental licenses require a $105 application
fee (per single family dwelling unit or per building for multi-family buildings) that is valid for
four years; the City of Westminster’s rental license fee is $50 per property every two years for
properties that have four or more units under single ownership (Westminster also charges an
inspection fee of $40 per unit). The Boulder and Westminster interview participants noted that
registration fees may need to be increased soon to recover program administration costs.
Property Inspection
Periodic and proactive inspection of properties appears to be an effective way to maintain
minimum health and safety standards for rental properties. Interview participants noted that they
have found success linking property inspection requirements and processes with other code
elements and inspection processes. For example, the City of Ames’ Division of the Fire
Department administers rental inspections and they credit the program with keeping fire fatalities
and damage to structures from fire at a minimum. The City of Boulder’s connection between
rental property inspections and its SmartRegs program helps ensure that long-term rental
properties meet basic energy efficiency standards in support of the community’s energy and
sustainability goals.
If the municipality administers property inspections, it will need to find a mechanism to
allow right of entry on private property – registration or licensing can provide that pathway.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 23
Alternatively, a community can opt to accept inspections completed by a licensed third party
(like Boulder), which shifts the burden of the inspection to the property owner and reduces the
right of entry issues. In that case, a community will need to maintain and provide a list of
licensed inspectors and must be prepared to provide follow-up inspections if necessary
(including securing right of entry).
Public housing and multi-family properties receiving financial assistance through the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are subject to inspections
to ensure compliance with basic requirements. Communities that require rental property
inspections should clarify whether HUD inspections satisfy the community’s inspection
requirements. Interview participants noted that HUD inspection requirements are somewhat
outdated, reflecting a bare minimum of housing standards, and that additional inspections may be
beneficial for the sake of improving housing quality and safety. They also noted that such
additional inspections on these properties creates a burden for tenants who are subject to multiple
inspections.
Rather than attempting to register and inspect all rental properties, Austin’s Repeat
Offender program focuses on rental properties that have a history of code violations that are most
frequency discovered through proactive neighborhood code enforcement. For properties in the
program with ongoing compliance issues, a required annual inspection provides a mechanism to
ensure properties do not fall below established standards of habitability. In 2021, Austin will be
updating the list of criteria that trigger registration of rental properties, including tailoring the
criteria to the number of units on the property. Fort Collins should keep an eye on these
regulations and may want to model Austin’s approach as a pilot rental registration and inspection
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 24
program to more proactively address health and safety conditions in properties that have a
history of nuisance code issues.
Regulation Development
Communities that adopt rental housing regulations should anticipate state legislative and
legal challenges; regulations in several of the communities researched have been overturned or
rescinded by state authority. In Colorado, there appears to be no regulatory restrictions on rental
registration, licensing, or inspection programs, though it is interesting to note that all of the
Colorado communities included in the benchmarking efforts have longstanding rental housing
programs that have been in place for decades (some with more recent amendments). Fort Collins
could collaborate with other Colorado communities facing similar housing issues and
collectively explore or advocate for statewide policy solutions for tenant rights and rental
housing conditions.
To generate regulatory buy-in and reduce opposition, communities should engage diverse
stakeholders including property owners, property maintenance companies, tenants, tenants’ rights
organizations, chambers of commerce, realtors associations, universities, affordable housing
providers, state legislators, and other community stakeholders in collaborative dialogue to
explore options and determine preferred alternatives. All the interview participants noted looking
to other communities for initial ideas and examples, but also the need to work closely with local
groups and stakeholders to create or update program requirements to address unique community
needs and opportunities.
Many communities adopt a “housing code” that goes above and beyond basic building
code requirements to address additional health and safety issues, as well as rental registration,
licensing, and/or inspection requirements. Several communities interviewed noted that rental
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 25
property owners express frustration that owner-occupied properties are not held to the same
standards, and so any code updates should consider the extra burden created for rental properties.
When developing or updating housing code language, it is important to examine for
alignment or conflicts with other adopted codes, such as the International Property Maintenance
Code. Another example is Boulder’s SmartRegs, which requires minimum energy efficiency
performance for dwelling units that is confirmed by a third party through the rental inspection
process. Communities also need to review proposed regulations and procedures for potential Fair
Housing law violations.
Program Administration
All the interview participants mentioned the need for flexibility in administering rental
regulations and that new questions and issues arise almost weekly. In completing the
benchmarking process, accessibility of information about rental regulations emerged as an
opportunity for many communities to improve. A few communities like Ames, Boulder, and
Sacramento do a nice job of sharing guides and information that is accessible to property owners
and tenants. Other communities, like San Francisco and Washington D.C., rely heavily on code
citations that can be challenging to find or difficult for the community members to understand.
Austin’s Repeat Offender Program materials are exemplary and include a user-friendly video and
interactive mapping; however, Austin’s program information was initially difficult to find due to
the program’s unique name.
Most of the rental regulations reviewed are administered by municipal government staff
with community development or code enforcement divisions with a few notable exceptions.
Ames’ program is administered by the fire department and Kansas City’s program is
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 26
administered by the health department. Fort Collins should consider these types of unique
partnerships for any future rental regulation refinements to increase housing health and safety.
Regarding funding, fees for registration, licensing, inspection, and re-inspection are
common in communities reviewed. While registration fees do apply for the Repeat Offender
Program, Austin’s rental program is largely funded through a utility bill fee called the Clean
Community Service Charge, which is $8.95 per month for all residential units (including owner
and renter-occupied), and wherein $4.25 of that monthly charge goes to the Austin Code
Department. A utility bill fee is an interesting model for Fort Collins to consider for future
healthy housing program funding.
Other challenges of rental regulation administration raised by interview participants
included retaliation of property owners on tenants for reporting suspected violations and limited
resources of some property owners to make improvements to their properties. In both cases,
having a plan in place to link property owners and tenants to resources such as mediation
support, legal services, timeline extensions, and improvement grant funding, can often make a
difference in keeping people in their homes or unintentionally leading to their displacement.
Conclusion
Several of the communities reviewed include housing occupancy regulations like Fort
Collins, yet all layer in other rental regulatory approaches to more proactively address rental
housing management and conditions. Approaches vary from voluntary rental registration to
mandatory licensing and inspection.
Additional rental regulations beyond occupancy regulations present potential benefits to
communities like Fort Collins, especially in the context of improving health and safety
conditions for tenants. Few of the examples reviewed demonstrate significant impact on housing
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 27
stability, partially because rental occupancy provides flexibility and in university communities,
high rental turnover is expected. In terms of housing affordability, some rental regulations can
create a perception of increasing unaffordability. Yet in communities like Fort Collins with
extreme housing affordability challenges, some renters experience substandard housing
conditions as a result of simply trying to secure low-cost housing.
Fort Collins’ U plus 2 ordinance focuses on over-occupancy as a nuisance issue for
neighbors, whereas many of the other programs examined focus on proactively addressing
housing conditions and tenants’ rights to quality, safe, and healthy housing. As Fort Collins looks
to finalize and implement the Housing Strategic Plan with a vision that “everyone has healthy,
stable housing they can afford” (City of Fort Collins, 2020a), it may be necessary to introduce
creative, locally-tailored rental housing regulations beyond U plus 2 to improve equity and
quality housing options for the community’s large rental housing population.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 28
References
Acevedo-Garcia, D., McArdle, N., Hardy, E., Dillman, K.-N., Reece, J., Crisan, U. I., . . .
Osypuk, T. L. (2016). Neighborhood Opportunity and Location Affordability for Low-
Income Renter Families. Housing Policy Debate, 26:4-6, 607-645.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1198410
Ackerman, A., Galbreth, L., & Pearson, A. (2014). A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection
Programs. Oakland: ChangeLab Solutions.
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: housing affordability and affordable housing. International
Journal of Housing Policy, 19:1, 1-16. doi:10.1080/19491247.2018.1560544
Center for Community Progress: Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places. (n.d.). Tool 1: Rental
Registration and Licensing. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from
https://www.communityprogress.net/tool-1--rental-registration--licensing-pages-207.php
Chisholm, E., Howden-Chapman, P., & Fougere, G. (2020). Tenants' Responses to Substandard
Housing: Hidden and Invisible Power and the Failure of Rental Housing Regulation.
Housing, Theory and Society, 37:2, 139-161. doi:10.1080/14036096.2018.1538019
City of Fort Collins. (2020a). Ad Hoc Housing Committee First Meeting. Retrieved August 28,
2020, from City of Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/
City of Fort Collins. (2020b). Housing Strategic Plan: Draft Existing Conditions Assessment.
Fort Collins. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3488568&dt=MAIL+PACK
ET
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.a). Social Sustainability. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from City of Fort
Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.b). Vision, Mission, & Values. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from City of
Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/vmv
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.c.). Healthy Homes. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from City of Fort
Collins Air Quality Division: https://www.fcgov.com/airquality/healthyhomes
Corona Insights. (2019). Rental Market Study: Market Trends, Occupancy Ordinance, and Short-
Term Rentals. Retrieved August 28, 2020, from Occupancy Limits & Enforcement:
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/files/corona-insights-rental-market-report-
to-fort-collins-2019-01-15.pdf?1550775622
George Washington University School of Public Health (GWUSPH). (2018). Advancing City-
Level Healthy Housing: Policies, Programs and Practices in Asthma and Lead. National
League of Cities.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 29
National Institue of Standards and Technology. (2017). City of Fort Collins. Retrieved October
10, 2020 , from Baldrige Performance Excellence Program:
https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/city-fort-collins
Norman-Major, K. (2011). Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity
in Public Administration? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17:2, 233-252.
doi:10.1080/15236803.2011.12001640
Parsons, M. (2019). Colorado's Racial Wealth Gap: Homewonership & Credit. Denver: The Bell
Policy Center. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://www.bellpolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Homeownership-Credit.pdf
Petersen, A., & Lalit, R. (2018). Better Rentals, Better City: Policies to Improve Your City's
Rental Housing Energy Peformance. Boulder: Rocky Mountain Institute.
Phillips, S. (2020). The Affordable City: Strategies for Putting Housing Within Reach (and
Keeping it There). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn't It More Affordable?
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18:1, 191-214. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3216881
Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government
Segregated America (First ed.). New York; London: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a
division of W.W. Norton & Company.
Stacy, C. P., Schilling, J., Gourevitch, R., Lowy, J., Meixell, B., & Thornton, R. L. (2019).
Bridging the Housing and Health Policy Divide: Lessons in Community Development
from Memphis and Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 29:3, 403-420.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2018.1539858
Stacy, C. P., Schilling, J., Gourevitch, R., Lowy, J., Meixell, B., & Thornton, R. L. (2019).
Bridging the Housing and Health Policy Divide: Lessons in Community Development
From Memphis and Baltimore. Housing Policy Debate, 29:3, 403-420.
doi:10.1080/10511482.2018.1539858
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Selected housing characteristics, 2018 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Housing&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&hidePrevie
w=false
Way, H. K., Trinh, S., & Wyatt, M. (2013). An Analysis of Rental Property Registration in
Austin. University of Texas School of Law, Entrepreneurship and Community
Development Clinc. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://law.utexas.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2015/07/2013-07-ECDC-An-Analysis-of-Rental-Property-
Registration-in-Austin.pdf
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 30
Appendix A: Selection of Communities for Benchmarking
The following table shows the list of communities screened and the results for each
community across the four screening criteria used to determine whether a community would be
included in the benchmarking efforts:
1. Peer City List – communities that are identified by the City of Fort Collins as a peer
community or high-performing organization that serves as an aspirational peer.
2. Literature Review – communities that are spotlighted in major literature review
sources (A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs (2014); Better Rentals,
Better City (2018)).
3. Known Program – communities that appear to have a registration, licensing or
inspection program for long-term rentals, per search of community’s website.
4. University Community – presence of a large college or university as a significant
component of the community’s population or identity.
Fifty communities were screened, and 20 were shortlisted for more detailed benchmarking.
City State Peer City
List
Literature
Review
Known
Program
University
Community
Benchmark
Shortlist
Ames IA yes yes yes yes
Anaheim CA yes
Ann Arbor MI yes yes yes yes yes
Asheville NC yes yes yes yes yes
Aurora CO yes yes
Austin TX yes yes yes yes
Bloomington IL yes
Boston MA yes yes
Boulder CO yes yes yes yes yes
Brooklyn
Center MN yes
Burlington VT yes yes yes yes
Cleveland OH yes
Columbia MO
Denver CO yes
Detroit MI yes
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 31
City State Peer City
List
Literature
Review
Known
Program
University
Community
Benchmark
Shortlist
Durham NC yes yes yes yes
Eau Claire WI yes yes
Eugene OR yes yes
Fayetteville AR yes
Fort Collins CO yes yes
Grand Rapids MI yes yes yes yes
Greensboro NC yes yes yes yes yes
Hayward CA yes
Irving TX yes
Kansas City MO yes yes yes yes
Lawrence KS yes yes yes
Lincoln NE yes yes yes
Los Angeles CA yes
Mesa AZ yes
Moorhead MN yes
Naperville IL yes
Oklahoma
City OK yes
Philadelphia PA yes
Plano TX yes
Rochester NY yes yes yes yes
Sacramento CA yes yes yes yes yes
San Francisco CA yes yes yes
Santa Cruz CA yes yes yes yes
Santa Monica CA yes
Savannah GA yes
Seattle WA yes
Shakopee MN yes
Sioux Falls SD yes
Tallahassee FL yes
Toledo OH
Waco TX yes
Washington DC yes yes
Westminster CO yes yes
Wilmington NC yes
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 32
Appendix B: Community Benchmarking Criteria
Criteria Description Research Relevance Source
Population Total number of
residents
Do types of regulations
differ based on total
population?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
University
Community
Community dominated
by a significant
university presence
Do types of regulations
differ based on whether
there is university
presence?
Community
website
Rental Tenure Percentage of housing
units that are renter
occupied
Do communities with
larger shares of rental
housing have differing
types of regulations?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Single-Family
Units
Percentage of total
housing units that are 1-
unit detached
Do regulations differ in
communities with large
share of single-family
units?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Average Household
Size of Renter-
Occupied Unit
Average number of
people living in
occupied rental units
Do regulations differ in
communities with large
rental households?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Rental Vacancy
Rate
Percentage of the rental
inventory that is vacant
for rent
Do regulations differ in
communities with low
rental vacancy rates?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
Cost-Burdened
Renters
Occupied units with
gross rent as 30% or
more of household
income
Do regulations differ in
communities with high
proportions of cost-
burdened renters?
2018: American
Community
Survey 5-year
Estimates
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 33
Criteria Description Research Relevance Source
Regulation
Adoption
Date when the
regulation or program
was established and/or
last amended
Describes how long the
regulation has been in
place and how recently it
was amended
Community
website
Unique Occupancy
Restrictions
Presence of regulations
that restrict total
dwelling occupancy
beyond standard
habitable square footage
or minimum room size
requirements
Helps to identify
communities that may be
regulating unit occupancy
in unique ways
Community
website
Registration Regulation requires
owner registration of
rental dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
License Regulation requires
periodic licensing of
rental dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
Inspection Regulation requires
proactive or complaint-
triggered inspection of
dwelling units
Helps to categorize the
different types of
regulatory options for
comparison
Community
website
Rental Regulation
Applicability
Type(s) of housing the
regulation applies to
(e.g., single-family,
multi-family, specific
areas)
Helps to identify what type
of housing is regulated and
where
Community
website
Program/Regulation
Description
Narrative summary of
the regulation or
program
Provides a summary of the
program for reference
Community
website
Appendix C: Community Benchmarking Details
Initial benchmarking efforts collected quantitative information for each community from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018
American Community Survey 5-Year estimates.
City State University
Community
Population Rental
Tenure
Single-
Family
Units
Average
Household
Size of
Renter
Occupied
Unit
Rental
Vacancy
Rate
Cost-
Burdened
Renters
Ames IA yes 65,937 59.20% 38.60% 2.08 3.60% 59.7%
Ann Arbor MI yes 120,641 55.20% 55.20% 2.22 2.90% 53.4%
Asheville NC yes 90,531 50.40% 54.30% 1.97 4.20% 52.9%
Aurora CO 363,550 41.00% 51.40% 2.8 4.40% 55.9%
Austin TX yes 935,755 54.80% 46.60% 2.29 6.60% 48.5%
Boulder CO yes 107,360 52.00% 39.30% 2.22 3.90% 62.2%
Burlington VT yes 935,755 62.20% 29.60% 2.15 2.00% 58.8%
Durham NC yes 264,310 50.50% 52.90% 2.24 6.60% 48.5%
Fort Collins CO yes 162,511 46.90% 56.20% 2.27 2.50% 60.6%
Grand Rapids MI yes 197,081 45.90% 58.10% 2.47 3.90% 52.4%
Greensboro NC 288,719 50.30% 53.90% 2.27 9.20% 50.3%
Kansas City MO yes 481,417 46.60% 62.30% 2.16 6.90% 46.6%
Lawrence KS yes 95,294 54.20% 49.30% 2.13 5.40% 53.8%
Lincoln NE yes 280,849 42.70% 57.80% 2.17 3.90% 46.1%
Rochester NY yes 207,778 63.70% 44.90% 2.26 7.70% 59.6%
Sacramento CA yes 495,011 52.00% 60.40% 2.56 4.20% 52.7%
San Francisco CA 870,044 62.40% 19.90% 2.13 2.90% 38.6%
Santa Cruz CA yes 64,273 52.90% 54.80% 2.47 1.80% 66.4%
Washington DC 162,204 58.20% 12.00% 2.2 6.00% 47.1%
Westminster CO 112,747 35.20% 58.30% 2.36 5.10% 50.4%
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 35
City State Regulation
Adoption
Unique
Occupancy
Restrictions
Registration License Inspection Applicability
Ames IA 1977 Yes Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Ann Arbor MI 1987 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Asheville NC 2003 No No No Yes All housing units
Aurora CO 1993 No No No Yes All multi-family properties
Austin TX 2013 Yes Yes No Yes Rental properties with violation
history; owner-occupied units
exempt
Boulder CO 1965 Yes No Yes Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Burlington VT 1993 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Durham NC 2012 No Yes No Yes Rental properties with violation
history; owner-occupied units
exempt
Fort Collins CO 1960s Yes No No No All dwelling units
Grand Rapids MI 2011 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Greensboro NC 2004 No No No No No longer applicable
Kansas City MO 2018 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 36
City State Regulation
Adoption
Unique
Occupancy
Restrictions
Registration License Inspection Applicability
Lawrence KS 2014 Yes Yes Yes Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Lincoln NE 2004 No No Yes Yes Multi-family properties with three
or more rental dwelling units
Rochester NY Mid 1970s No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Sacramento CA 2013 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
San Francisco CA unknown No No Yes Yes Multi-family properties with three
or more rental dwelling units
Santa Cruz CA 2010 No Yes No Yes All rental properties; owner-
occupied exempt
Washington DC unknown No No Yes Yes All rental properties
Westminster CO Late 1990s Yes Yes Yes Yes All rental properties
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 37
City State Regulation Description
Ames IA Occupancy regulations are based on the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit. All rental properties
must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections for registered properties (1, 2, 3 or
4 years based on dwelling type and condition).
Ann Arbor MI All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on inspection results (valid for 30-42 months).
Asheville NC Properties must comply with Minimum Housing Code. Inspections are conducted if a code violation is
suspected. Previous rental housing regulations appear to have been repealed.
Aurora CO All multi-family properties are systematically inspected. Inspections are prioritized based on property
maintenance history.
Austin TX Rental properties that meet certain conditions based on violation history must be registered for a minimum
of two years. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections may occur once a year.
Boulder CO The maximum number of unrelated individuals allowed per dwelling unit is determined by zoning district.
All rental properties must maintain a valid rental license. Owner-occupied units exempt. Licenses are valid
for four years. Baseline and renewal inspections are required. Properties must comply with basic energy
efficiency standards.
Burlington VT All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on inspection results (valid for 6 months to 5 years).
Durham NC Rental properties that meet certain conditions based on violation history must be registered for a minimum
of two years. Owner-occupied units exempt. Periodic inspections may occur based on reasonable cause.
Fort Collins CO All dwelling units have a maximum occupancy of no more than three unrelated individuals.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 38
City State Regulation Description
Grand Rapids MI All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Inspections for all registered units.
Certificates of Compliance issued based on property history (valid for 2, 4, or 6 years).
Greensboro NC Previous proactive rental inspection program appears to have been rescinded due to state legislation.
Kansas City MO All rental properties must be registered. All landlords must have a permit. Owner-occupied units exempt.
Initial inspections for all registered units. Fixed number of random routine inspections completed annually.
Lawrence KS Number of unrelated persons allowed per dwelling unit varies based on zoning district. All rental
properties must maintain a valid rental license. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are
required, and renewal inspections are required on a 3 or 6-year cycle based on property condition.
Lincoln NE Multi-family properties with three or more rental units must be licensed. Inspections are completed
annually on building exteriors and common areas. Interior inspections are completed on a complaint basis.
Rochester NY All rental properties must maintain a valid certificate of occupancy. Owner-occupied units exempt.
Baseline inspections are required, and renewal inspections are required on a 3 or 6-year cycle based on
property type.
Sacramento CA All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are required.
Properties that pass the initial inspection without any violations are placed in a self-certification program.
Random inspections of self-certified properties. Annual inspections for properties that are not self-
certified.
San Francisco CA All one and two-family rental units are required to pay an annual license fee. All multi-family properties
are required to pay an annual license fee and provide proof of compliance with minimum housing
standards, verified by a licensed professional every 5 years.
Santa Cruz CA All rental properties must be registered. Owner-occupied units exempt. Baseline inspections are required.
Properties that pass the initial inspection without any violations are placed in a self-certification program.
Random inspections of self-certified properties. Annual inspections for properties that are not self-
certified.
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 39
City State Regulation Description
Washington DC All landlords must maintain a basic business license. Inspections are required for license approval.
Westminster CO All rental properties must be registered. Rental properties with four or more units or with 4 or more units
under single ownership must be licensed. Baseline inspections are required for licensing and periodic
renewal inspections are required every 2 to 4 years based on property age.
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Pre-Interview Checklist
1. Send an email requesting a 60-minute interview with 1-2 city staff members most familiar
with rental registration program/policies.
2. Schedule interview with participants (via email or doodle poll)
3. Confirm interview appointment and send Zoom meeting link and interview details (project
description, interview agenda with list of interview questions)
Email Template
Greetings (insert name if known),
I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs,
conducting research on rental registration programs as a capstone project for the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado. Based on my preliminary research, the City of Fort Collins is interested in
learning more about your community’s rental registration program as it appears to be a potential
model for Fort Collins.
I would like to schedule a 60-minute videoconference interview with you to learn more
about your city’s rental registration program, including the purpose and history behind the
regulations, implementation considerations and challenges, and other tips and lessons learned
from your community’s experiences. I am reserving Friday, October 16 and Friday, October 23,
2020 to conduct the interviews, or can work with you to schedule an alternative date if necessary.
Please respond back to me by Wednesday, October 14, 2020 with your preferred interview date
and time and I will do my best to accommodate your request.
Once we confirm a date and time, I will follow-up with a calendar reminder, Zoom
meeting link (or other software if necessary), project summary, and interview questions. If you
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 41
feel like it is more appropriate to direct this request to another person (or people) in your
organization, please let me know so that I can follow up with him/her/them.
If you have any questions about the project or the interview request, please don’t hesitate
to email me at this address or call me at 970-692-3499. Thank you for your consideration and I
hope to hear from you soon.
With gratitude,
Shelby Sommer
Interview Checklist
1. Ask if the interview participant(s) authorize the interview to be recorded. If yes, remember to
hit record.
2. Proceed through the interview agenda and questionnaire.
Time
(min)
Agenda Topic Interview Questions
15 Introductions
and
Background
1. What is your name, title, and department?
2. How long have you been with the organization?
3. Please describe your level of involvement or history with
your community’s rental regulations/program.
4. Please describe the City's rental regulations or program. How
does it work and to what type of rental housing does it
apply?
5. What is the purpose of the regulation or program? What were
the motivating factors in its establishment?
6. Does your community have any other housing occupancy
regulations?
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 42
Time
(min)
Agenda Topic Interview Questions
35 Effectiveness
and
Implementation
Considerations
7. What challenges have you encountered with regard to
property owner buy-in &-opposition?
8. What challenges have you encountered with regard to tenant
resistance or concerns?
9. What benefits or positive impacts are you experiencing with
respect to this approach?
10. What challenges or unforeseen impacts are you experiencing
with respect to this approach?
11. How is the approach enforced? In your opinion, is
enforcement successful?
12. How is the approach funded? In your opinion, is funding
sufficient?
13. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
health and safety?
14. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
stability?
15. How well do you think this approach addresses housing
affordability?
16. What impacts do you think this approach has on your single-
family housing stock?
10 Wrap -Up 17. Are there any documents or resources not on the
community’s website that are relevant to this conversation
and available to share?
18. Which communities do you look to or think of as leaders in
effective or innovative rental regulation?
19. Do you have any recommendations for other cities as they
consider designing a rental registration program?
20. Are there any other questions you would like to go back to or
do you have any final comments?
Post-Interview Checklist
1. Type up interview summary notes.
2. Send a thank you to interview participant.
3. Send the participants any quotes or summary information that will be included in paper for
review, refinement, and approval (if applicable).
REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING: CONSIDERATIONS FOR FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 43
Appendix E: Interview Participants
Name Title Organization Division/ Department
Sara VanMeeteren Building Official City of Ames,
Iowa
Inspection Division, Division
of the Fire Department
Holly Clayton Lead Rental
Housing Inspector
City of
Westminster,
Colorado
Building Division, Community
Development Department
Tonia Pringle &
Kimberly Allen
Administrative
Supervisor –
Licensing &
Administrative
Specialist –
Licensing
City of Boulder,
Colorado
Planning & Development
Services
Daniel Word Division Manager
for Repeat
Offender Program
City of Austin,
Texas
Code Department