HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - P968 CONSUTLTING SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN ECONOMICAdministrative Services
Purchasing Divison
215 North Mason Street y 2nd Floor y P.O. Box 580 y Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 y (970) 221-6775 y Fax
(970) 221-6707
www.fcgov.com
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Proposal Number P968
Economic and Market Study
The City of Fort Collins is seeking proposals from qualified firms.
Written proposals, six (6) will be received at the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing Division, 215
North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Proposals will be received before
3:00 p.m. (our clock), December 30, 2004. Proposal No. P-968. If delivered, they are to be
sent to 215 North Mason Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. If mailed, the address
is P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, 80522-0580.
Questions concerning the scope of the project should be directed to Project Manager, Tess
Heffernan, 970-416-2253.
Questions regarding proposals submittal or process should be directed to James B. O’Neill, II,
CPPO, FNIGP (970) 221-6775.
A copy of the Proposal may be obtained as follows:
1. Call the Purchasing Fax-line, 970-416-2033 and follow the verbal instruction to
request document #30968.
2. Download the Proposal/Bid from the Purchasing Webpage,
www.fcgov.com/purchasing.
3. Come by Purchasing at 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, and request
a copy of the Bid.
Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest: No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall
have a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment,
material, supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly
any decision-making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the
services to be rendered. This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City. Soliciting or
accepting any gift, gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from
any person who has or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins is prohibited.
Collusive or sham proposals: Any proposal deemed to be collusive or a sham proposal will be
rejected and reported to authorities as such. Your authorized signature of this proposal
assures that such proposal is genuine and is not a collusive or sham proposal.
The City of Fort Collins reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any
irregularities or informalities.
Sincerely,
James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP
Director of Purchasing & Risk Management
12/17/2004
City of Fort Collins
Request for Proposal
Economic and Market Study
INTRODUCTION
The City Manager’s Office of the City of Fort Collins (City) seeks an independent external
Professional to conduct an economic and market study in order to answer a number of
questions surrounding the current and future rental market in Fort Collins and related issues.
The selected Professional will be retained by the City Manager’s Office and will report directly to
the Policy and Project Manager.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months the Fort Collins City Council has explored a number of actions
designed to improve the quality of life in Fort Collins’ neighborhoods. Of particular interest and
discussion is the ongoing issue of problem properties, and especially problem rental properties
located in single family neighborhoods.
For many years Fort Collins City Code has defined a “family” as having no more than 3-
unrelated adults. This code provision has proven to be difficult to enforce. It is widely assumed
that in many cases more than 3 adults rent a single dwelling unit, however the exact numbers
are not known.
Fort Collins does not currently regulate rental properties, however City Council is considering a
number of regulatory changes, including a rental registration program and/or rental licensing
program. Another change under consideration by Council is that of changing the “no more than
3-unrelated” code so that it is more enforceable. If this were to happen, it is likely that many
people would be forced to find alternative housing.
It is estimated that approximately 48% of Fort Collins housing is rental housing. Fort Collins is
the home of Colorado State University (CSU) which has a student population of approximately
24,000. Thus, a number of renters in the vicinity of the University are assumed to be students.
CSU has plans to grow in size, expanding its student population in the coming years.
12/17/2004
SCOPE OF WORK
The overall purpose of this economic and market study is to:
1. Test the validity of assumptions regarding the impacts of regulation of rental
properties within the Fort Collins city limits.
2. Identify potential housing trends and what impact regulations will or will not have
on the Fort Collins housing market.
The selected Professional will deliver by February 18, 2005 a report providing responses to the
following questions:
1. What will be the impact on tenants of a strict enforcement of the “no more than 3-
unrelated” ordinance?
a. How many tenants are currently in violation of this ordinance and thus would be
required to find alternative housing?
b. Would vacancies accommodate these displaced tenants currently? Five years
from now? Ten years from now?
c. Will there be a change in the average cost to rent housing? Please explain.
2. What will be the impact on single family neighborhoods of a strict enforcement of the
“no more than 3-unrelated” ordinance?
a. Will the number of single-family rental homes increase or decline? (Or, will the
number of owner-occupied homes increase or decline?)
b. If the answer to “a” (above) is yes, where will these changes most likely occur?
c. How will property values be affected currently? Five years from now? Ten
years from now?
3. Does the ratio of owner-occupied single family homes to renter-occupied single
family homes in a neighborhood have an impact on property values? If so, what is
the impact? Provide examples specific to Fort Collins.
4. How will the Fort Collins housing market be affected by the Colorado State University
strategy to increase enrollment by 5,000 students in the next 5 – 10 years, including
proportional increases in faculty and staff?
REFERENCES
1. The following documents are attached for your use in crafting your response. They
include:
ITEM APPENDIX
City Council Agenda Item Summary: April 27, 2004 A
City Council Agenda Item Summary: October 12, 2004 B
2. The following document is available for download on the City of Fort Collins Public
Records page located at: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/. Search using “P968”, and then
scroll down to “Purchasing Documents” to P968 Trends 2002.
3. The following document is available for viewing on the City of Fort Collins web page
located at http://fcgov.com/building/ . Document Description: Online Zoning Map.
12/17/2004
PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Has your firm ever performed a project of this nature? If so, please describe up to three
such projects. Specify the scope of work for the project, and the topics you were asked
to investigate. Please provide three client references for your performance in this type of
project.
2. Describe your firm, its history and size, the locations in which it operates and the number
of employees.
3. Provide information on the principal Professional who would be responsible for this
project. What is his/her professional background and experience? If you expect to
utilize other personnel to accomplish the duties specified in this RFP, provide the same
information requested above for each of the personnel listed.
4. Has the principal Professional performed a project of this nature? If so, please describe
three such projects. Specify the scope of work for the project, and the topics you were
asked to investigate, if different from those listed under item 1 (above).
5. Describe any pending litigation against your firm.
6. Describe any litigation that has been brought against your firm during the last 3 years.
7. Describe the professional liability coverage carried by your firm.
8. Beyond the stated scope of this project, what additional information would be required
for the successful completion of this project? Have any vital questions or concerns been
omitted?
9. Describe any problems you foresee in your ability to conduct the services described in
this RFP.
10. What is your estimated cost to complete this project? Please describe the methodology
used to derive your estimate.
12/17/2004
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. These criteria will be the basis for
review of the written proposals and interview session. Interviews required will be scheduled
after January 1, 2005.
The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and
5 being an outstanding rating.
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
QUALIFICATION
STANDARD
2.0
Scope of Proposal
Does the proposal show an understanding of the
project objective, methodology to be used and
results that are desired from the project?
2.0
Assigned Personnel
Do the persons who will be working on the project
have the necessary skills? Are sufficient people of
the requisite skills assigned to the project?
1.0
Availability
Can the work be completed in the necessary time?
Can the target start and completion dates be met?
Are other qualified personnel available to assist in
meeting the project schedule if required? Is the
project team available to attend meetings as
required by the Scope of Work?
1.0
Motivation
Is the firm interested and are they capable of doing
the work in the required time frame?
2.0
Cost and
Work Hours
Do the proposed cost and work hours compare
favorably with the project Manager's estimate? Are
the work hours presented reasonable for the effort
required in each project task or phase?
2.0
Firm Capability
Does the firm have the support capabilities the
assigned personnel require? Has the firm done
previous projects of this type and scope?
03
Reference evaluation (Top Ranked Firm)
The project Manager will check references using the following criteria. The evaluation rankings
will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory.
QUALIFICATION
STANDARD
Overall Performance
Would you hire this Professional again? Did
they show the skills required by this project?
Timetable
Was the original Scope of Work completed
within the specified time? Were interim
deadlines met in a timely manner?
Completeness
Was the Professional responsive to client
needs; did the Professional anticipate
problems? Were problems solved quickly and
effectively?
Budget
Was the original Scope of Work completed
within the project budget?
Job Knowledge
a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work?
b) If Professional administered a construction
contract, was the project functional upon
completion and did it operate properly?
Were problems corrected quickly and
effectively?
03
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day and year set forth below, by and
between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the "City" and _____, [insert either a corporation, a partnership or an individual,
doing business as____________], hereinafter referred to as "Professional".
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein expressed, it is agreed
by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of Services. The Professional agrees to provide services in accordance
with the scope of services attached hereto as Exhibit "A", consisting of _____ (_____) page[s],
and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Work Schedule. [Optional] The services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the Work Schedule attached hereto as
Exhibit "B", consisting of _____ (_____) page[s], and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. Time of Commencement and Completion of Services. The services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be initiated within _____ (_____) days following
execution of this Agreement. Services shall be completed no later than _____. Time is of the
essence. Any extensions of the time limit set forth above must be agreed upon in writing by the
parties hereto.
4. Early Termination by City. Notwithstanding the time periods contained herein,
the City may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by providing written notice of
termination to the Professional. Such notice shall be delivered at least fifteen (15) days prior to
the termination date contained in said notice unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties.
03
All notices provided under this Agreement shall be effective when mailed, postage prepaid and
sent to the following addresses:
Professional:
City: With Copy to:
In the event of any such early termination by the City, the Professional shall be paid for services
rendered prior to the date of termination, subject only to the satisfactory performance of the
Professional's obligations under this Agreement. Such payment shall be the Professional's sole
right and remedy for such termination.
5. Design, Project Indemnity and Insurance Responsibility. The Professional shall
be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion and the
coordination of all services rendered by the Professional, including but not limited to designs,
plans, reports, specifications, and drawings and shall, without additional compensation,
promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies. The Professional
shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees in accordance with
Colorado law, from all damages whatsoever claimed by third parties against the City; and for the
City's costs and reasonable attorneys fees, arising directly or indirectly out of the Professional's
negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. The Professional
shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 combined single
limits, and errors and omissions insurance in the amount of ___________.
6. Compensation. [Use this paragraph or Option 1 below.] In consideration of the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, the City agrees to pay Professional a
fixed fee in the amount of _____ ($_____) plus reimbursable direct costs. All such fees and
costs shall not exceed _____ ($_____). Monthly partial payments based upon the
03
Professional's billings and itemized statements are permissible. The amounts of all such partial
payments shall be based upon the Professional's City-verified progress in completing the
services to be performed pursuant hereto and upon the City's approval of the Professional's
actual reimbursable expenses. Final payment shall be made following acceptance of the work
by the City. Upon final payment, all designs, plans, reports, specifications, drawings, and other
services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole property of the City.
6. Compensation. [Option 1] In consideration of the services to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement, the City agrees to pay Professional on a time and reimbursable
direct cost basis according to the following schedule:
Hourly billing rates: _____
Reimbursable direct costs: _____
with maximum compensation (for both Professional's time and reimbursable direct costs) not to
exceed _____ ($_____). Monthly partial payments based upon the Professional's billings and
itemized statements of reimbursable direct costs are permissible. The amounts of all such
partial payments shall be based upon the Professional's City-verified progress in completing the
services to be performed pursuant hereto and upon the City's approval of the Professional's
reimbursable direct costs. Final payment shall be made following acceptance of the work by the
City. Upon final payment, all designs, plans, reports, specifications, drawings and other
services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole property of the City.
7. City Representative. The City will designate, prior to commencement of work, its
project representative who shall make, within the scope of his or her authority, all necessary and
proper decisions with reference to the project. All requests for contract interpretations, change
orders, and other clarification or instruction shall be directed to the City Representative.
8. Project Drawings. [Optional] Upon conclusion of the project and before final
payment, the Professional shall provide the City with reproducible drawings of the project
03
containing accurate information on the project as constructed. Drawings shall be of archival
quality, prepared on stable mylar base material using a non-fading process to prove for long
storage and high quality reproduction.
9. Monthly Report. Commencing thirty (30) days after the date of execution of this
Agreement and every thirty (30) days thereafter, Professional is required to provide the City
Representative with a written report of the status of the work with respect to the Scope of
Services, Work Schedule, and other material information. Failure to provide any required
monthly report may, at the option of the City, suspend the processing of any partial payment
request.
10. Independent Contractor. The services to be performed by Professional are those
of an independent contractor and not of an employee of the City of Fort Collins. The City shall
not be responsible for withholding any portion of Professional's compensation hereunder for the
payment of FICA, Workers' Compensation, other taxes or benefits or for any other purpose.
11. Personal Services. It is understood that the City enters into this Agreement
based on the special abilities of the Professional and that this Agreement shall be considered as
an agreement for personal services. Accordingly, the Professional shall neither assign any
responsibilities nor delegate any duties arising under this Agreement without the prior written
consent of the City.
12. Acceptance Not Waiver. The City's approval of drawings, designs, plans,
specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way
relieve the Professional of responsibility for the quality or technical accuracy of the work. The
City's approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be construed to
operate as a waiver of any rights or benefits provided to the City under this Agreement.
03
13. Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to be a
material element of this Agreement. In the event either party should fail or refuse to perform
according to the terms of this agreement, such party may be declared in default.
14. Remedies. In the event a party has been declared in default, such defaulting
party shall be allowed a period of ten (10) days within which to cure said default. In the event
the default remains uncorrected, the party declaring default may elect to (a) terminate the
Agreement and seek damages; (b) treat the Agreement as continuing and require specific
performance; or (c) avail himself of any other remedy at law or equity. If the non-defaulting
party commences legal or equitable actions against the defaulting party, the defaulting party
shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's reasonable attorney fees
and costs incurred because of the default.
15. Binding Effect. This writing, together with the exhibits hereto, constitutes the
entire agreement between the parties and shall be binding upon said parties, their officers,
employees, agents and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the respective survivors, heirs,
personal representatives, successors and assigns of said parties.
16. Law/Severability. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
construction, interpretation, execution and enforcement of this Agreement. In the event any
provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this
Agreement.
03
17. Special Provisions. [Optional] Special provisions or conditions relating to the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit "_", consisting of
_____ (_____) page[s], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
By: _________________________________
John F. Fischbach
City Manager
By: _________________________________
James B. O'Neill II, CPPO, FNIGP
Director of Purchasing & Risk Management
DATE: ______________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
[Insert Professional's name] or
[Insert Partnership Name] or
[Insert individual's name]
Doing business as ____[insert name of business]
By: __________________________________
Title: _______________________________
CORPORATE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT
Date: _______________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________ (Corporate Seal)
Corporate Secretary
03
APPENDIX “A”
Study Session Item Date: April 27, 2004
Staff: John Fischbach, Darin Atteberry & Steve Roy
Subject for Discussion: Neighborhood Quality of Life Task Force Update
General Direction Sought and Specific Questions to be Answered
1. Does Council wish to proceed with Mandatory Rental Registration with Voluntary
Certification (Option 2) or Mandatory Rental Licensing (Option 3)?
2. Does Council wish to include any of the listed “Variables” in addition to Rental
Registration or Licensing?
3. Does Council wish to retain any form of an occupancy limit and incorporate it into
Rental Registration or Licensing?
4. What level of community outreach should staff undertake, and what kinds of
feedback is Council seeking?
Background and Work in Progress
At the March 9, 2004 City Council Study Session Council members were presented with a
framework of three options designed to address a number of quality of life issues in Fort Collins
neighborhoods. Council provided a range of feedback, including direction to implement Option
1 (policing strategies, code and system improvements, and marketing strategies) and provide
further details on Option 2 (Rental Registration) and Option 3 (Rental Licensing.)
Several of the Option 1 strategies have been implemented and others are in process. On May 4,
2004 Council will consider first reading amendments to five ordinances dealing with
unreasonable noise, animals, weeds and rubbish, outdoor storage and public nuisances. All
changes are designed to enhance the City’s enforcement of existing Code provisions.
Concurrently, work is progressing to better inform citizens about the City’s various codes and
services such as the “Nuisance Hotline”. Attachment A summarizes those efforts. Police
Services is also moving forward with the implementation of strategies to increase training and
supervision of officers assigned to party calls, closer tracking of these calls, and a pilot project to
increase response to noisy party complaints during high call-load hours.
Yet another strategy is that of creating a program called Community Party Partners, based on the
existing CSU Party Partners program. This is an educational forum for any community member
who has received a noise citation.
03
Finally, staff from Police Services and the City Attorney’s Office recently met with Judge Lane
to discuss procedures relating to noise violations. As a result, there is no longer a “standard”
penalty below the maximum of $1,000 and/or six months in jail for an unreasonable noise
violation. However, portions of the fine and/or jail sentence can still be suspended on a case-by-
case basis. These charges also are now considered to be “mandatory court” so defendants must
appear for arraignment. The impact of these changes, along with related internal procedural
changes, will be monitored and reported at a later date.
Rental Regulation: Best Practices and Other Community Programs
As noted earlier, Options 2 and 3 specifically address regulation of rental housing. Staff
conducted research from January – April 2004 by examining programs in other communities,
with a focus on university towns with similar issues to those found in Fort Collins. Data was
gathered on numerous city ordinances found in 15 communities recommended by neighbors,
Council and staff (see Attachment B.) Telephone surveys were then conducted with seven
communities:
Boulder, CO Iowa City, IA Lawrence, KS
East Lansing, MI Duluth, MN Chapel Hill, NC
Blacksburg, VA
Where possible, City staff talked with a staff person, landlord and resident in each community in
order to gain a variety of perspectives as to each program’s effectiveness. Attachment C
summarizes those conversations. Several conclusions can be drawn:
1. Program goals and issues vary greatly from one community to the next. There are no
easy “apples to apples” comparisons that can be quickly drawn.
2. Those communities who had some version of the Public Nuisance Ordinance stated that it
was their most effective tool; staff, landlords and residents generally agreed on this.
3. Perspectives on program effectiveness varied greatly from city to city and from person to
person. Iowa City, Iowa seemed to have the highest overall marks from staff, landlords
and residents.
Census data indicates there were approximately 19,700 rental units in Fort Collins in 2000. Of
these units, approximately 7,500 are single family detached, attached, and duplex rental units
located in single family zoning districts. Appendix D illustrates the distribution of single family
zoning districts throughout the city. Thus any program implemented in Fort Collins will
potentially have a wide impact on a variety of stakeholders, including tenants, neighbors,
property owners and property managers.
Rental Regulation: Options for Fort Collins
The analysis that follows looks closely at two potential programs for our community: Mandatory
Rental Registration with Voluntary Certification (Option 2) and Mandatory Rental Licensing
(Option 3). Within each of these, several “Variations” are listed for Council’s consideration.
03
One of these Variations, that of creating new, more enforceable occupancy limits, is discussed in
greater detail in Attachment E.
Option 2: Mandatory Rental Registration with Voluntary Certification
Mandatory Rental Registration
1. Results in a data base containing:
- Property address
- Property owner name and contact information
- Local contact information
2. Failure to register is a code violation; penalties include fine and/or jail
3. Minimal registration fee covers cost of administration. Fees in other communities
range from $25-$100/year. Staff anticipates a fee of approximately $25 annually will
be sufficient to cover costs.
4. Additional resources required to cover costs of program:
- 1 administrative FTE (compensation and benefits) $ 49,000
- Ongoing operating funds $ 20,000
- One time (primarily cost of space fees) $ 28,000
- Total estimate: $ 69,000 ongoing, $ 28,000 one time
5. Any inspections are on a complaint basis, as with current practices
Voluntary Certification
1. Landlord provides proof of compliance in order to become certified
- Minimum housing standards met
- City provides lease addendum addressing nuisance issues, neighborhood
courtesies, etc.
- Must have satisfactory history of code compliance
- Acceptable parking provided (e.g. minimum number of spaces per bedroom)
- Owner or manager completes a landlord training class
2. Certified properties:
- Can list through CSU Housing Fair and Off Campus Listing Services
- Benefit from additional marketing tools
3. Certification recognized and promoted by City of Fort Collins and CSU
4. Additional resources required
- Ongoing operating funds for marketing, monitoring and training: $5,000 -
$10,000
Variables to Option 2 for Council Consideration
A. Limit to residential zones, excluding apartment complexes of 4 units and higher
B. Mandatory parking standards
C. Create new, more enforceable occupancy limits
D. Mandatory inspection upon registration, either by the City or private contractor
03
E. Notify landlords and property managers of all police calls to property (regardless of
citation)
Pros and Cons of Mandatory Rental Registration with Voluntary Certification
Pros Cons
Rental Registration
- Creates a standard of accountability for
all rental property owners
- Increases City ability to enforce and
track code violations
- Landlords and property managers are
notified sooner about code violations at
properties
- Fees cover cost of program
- Low fees won’t increase housing costs
- Pairing with Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides dual approach to
gaining compliance
Rental Registration
- Unknown what degree of positive
impact Registration alone will provide
- Will be resisted by some stakeholders
(property owners/managers) and/or not
seen as enough by others (neighbors)
- May create a perception of increasing
housing costs
Voluntary Certification
- Recognizes and rewards exemplary
properties
- Creates and encourages higher
standards
- Benefits tenants by ensuring minimal
and higher habitability standards met,
and provides information on those
properties
Voluntary Certification
- Unknown what percentage of property
owners will opt for Certification
Variable A: Limit to residential zones
- Lower cost because fewer units
- Focuses on high-nuisance call areas and
properties
Variable A: Limit to residential zones
- Doesn’t address apartments
- May create perception of unequal
treatment (of occupants, landlords or
neighbors)
Variable B: Mandatory parking
- Gets more cars off street
- Ensures adequate capacity exists for
each unit in neighborhood
Variable B: Mandatory parking
- Requires inspections and related costs
(see Inspections, Addendum X) FELIX
- May create perception of inequality
because no parking limitations for
owner occupied
Variable C: Create new, more enforceable
occupancy limits
- Could better address neighborhood
03
Pros and Cons of Mandatory Rental Registration with Voluntary Certification
Pros Cons
related problems
- Could remove unenforceable aspects of
existing “3-Unrelated” ordinance
- May stem the transition of single
family owner-occupied homes into
rental properties
- May result in migration from single
family homes into apartments or other
multi-family housing
single family neighborhoods as tenants
are required to find other housing
- Occupancy limits do not necessarily
address behaviors
- May create perception of inequality
because no occupancy limits for
families
- May penalize responsible landlords and
tenants even if no problems exist
- Additional resources required for
investigation and prosecution
- May fall short of neighborhood
expectations if enforcement problems
persist
- Will result in under-utilization of
available housing
Variable D: Mandatory inspection upon
Registration by City or private contractor
- Benefits tenants by ensuring minimal
habitability standards met
- Illegal units will be identified and can
be mitigated and/or eliminated
Variable D: Mandatory inspection upon
Registration by City or private contractor
- Higher cost to applicant and the City,
increasing cost of program
- May increase cost of housing
- Removes major component of and
incentive for voluntary Certification
Variable E: Notify landlord of police calls
- Landlords and property managers
become aware of criminal activity at
property
- Can be designed so that cost of service
will be covered by registration fees
- Addresses ongoing request by several
landlords and property managers
Variable E: Notify landlord of police calls
- System not currently in place to address
confidentiality, legal and logistical
issues
- Time intensive and costly program to
implement
Option 3: Mandatory Residential Rental Licensing
1. Mandatory inspection upon application for license.
2. Ongoing mandatory inspections required
3. Establishes minimum parking requirements
4. Can be designed to address issues, e.g. occupancy, parking, safety, nuisance
03
7. Additional resources required: estimates range from $280,000 (biannual inspections
of rental units in single family zoning districts) to $600,000 (biannual inspections of
all residential rental units).
Variables to Option 3 for Council Consideration
A. Limit to residential zones, excluding apartment complexes of 4 units and higher
B. Create new, more enforceable occupancy limits
C. Inspections on a complaint basis after licensing
D. Notify landlords and property managers of all police calls to property (regardless of
citation)
Pros and Cons of Mandatory Residential Rental Licensing
Pros Cons
Rental Licensing
- Increases safe housing and control over
nuisance violations
- Mandates property owner
accountability
- Acknowledges rental properties as
regulated business activity
- Can be designed so that fees cover cost
of program
- Ensures adequate parking capacity
exists
- Most comprehensive of all options
Rental Licensing
- Does not in and of itself address issues
surrounding behaviors and/or proof of
occupancy
- Strong resistance by some stakeholders
(property owners, property managers,
ASCSU, etc.)
- Could increase cost of housing
- Some properties will not be brought
into compliance, forcing tenants to find
alternative housing
- Intensive effort and high cost to design,
operate and enforce
- May create perception of inequality
because no parking limitations,
inspections, etc. for owner occupied
Variable A: Limit to residential zones
- Lower cost of program because fewer
units
- Focuses on high-nuisance call areas and
properties
Variable A: Limit to residential zones
- Doesn’t address apartments
- May create perception of unequal
treatment (of occupants, landlords or
neighbors)
Variable B: Create new, more enforceable
occupancy limits
- Could better address neighborhood
concerns about over-occupancy and
related problems
- Could remove unenforceable aspects of
existing “3-Unrelated” ordinance
- May stem the transition of single
Variable B: Create new, more enforceable
occupancy limits
03
Pros and Cons of Mandatory Residential Rental Licensing
Pros Cons
family owner-occupied homes into
rental properties
- May result in migration from single
family homes into apartments or other
multi-family housing
- May create perception of inequality
because no occupancy limits for
families
- May penalize responsible landlords and
tenants even if no problems exist
- Additional resources required for
investigation and prosecution
- May fall short of neighborhood
expectations if enforcement problems
persist
- Will result in under-utilization of
available housing
Variable C: Complaint-based inspections
after licensing
- Decreases cost of program because
fewer number of units inspected
- Focuses on problem properties rather
than well-managed properties
Variable C: Complaint-based inspections
after licensing
- Does not address health and safety of
all rental occupants
- Some illegal or problem properties will
not be identified and mitigated
Variable D: Notify landlord of police calls
- Landlords and property managers
become aware of criminal activity at
property
- Can be designed so that cost of service
will be covered by registration fees
- Addresses ongoing request by several
landlords and property managers
Variable D: Notify landlord of police calls
- System not currently in place to address
confidentiality, legal and logistical
issues
- Time intensive and costly program to
implement
Community Outreach
At the March 2, 2004 Study Session Council directed staff to wait until more information was
gathered before conducting community outreach on this subject. Stakeholder interest is very
high, given the potential impacts of any programs pursued. Thus staff is asking for direction on
the level of outreach Council wants to undertake and the nature of the feedback sought.
At a minimum, staff recommends that any outreach to the community include information on the
option Council has directed staff to further pursue at the April 27, 2004 study session. This
would likely be in the form of press releases, fact sheets and meetings held with various
stakeholder groups who express interest. A more intensive outreach would involve seeking out
any and all stakeholder groups who might have an interest in the topic and asking for feedback
from those parties using a variety of methods: surveys, comment forms, one-on-one and group
meetings, etc. Stakeholders could be asked their opinions about various program components,
including their perspectives on how each component could best be implemented.
03
A clear message to the community is needed in regards to the input Council is seeking. If a
program idea or course of action has been decided and is not actually “negotiable”, it is
important that this be conveyed to the community. If, on the other hand, Council wishes to use
community input to continue to generate program ideas, that message should also be clearly
communicated.
Past experience has shown that any outreach on this topic is likely to be fairly time- and staff-
intensive because of the high level of interest and emotion this topic evokes. Thus the greater
level of outreach undertaken, the more time will be needed to effectively conduct that outreach
and gather feedback from community members.
*Attachments
A. Nuisance Hotline Marketing Proposal
B. Table of Communities with Rental Licensing Programs
C. Survey Regarding Rental Licensing Programs
D. City of Fort Collins Single Family Zone Districts Map
E. Analysis: Creating New, More Enforceable Occupancy Limits
*The document containing Attachments A, B, C, D, and E, is available for download on
the City of Fort Collins Public Records page located at: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/.
Search using “P968 Rental Licensing Alternatives”, and then scroll down to “Purchasing
Documents” and select the document.
03
APPENDIX “B”
Study Session Item Date: October 12, 2004
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Steve Roy and Tess Heffernan
Subject for Discussion: Rental Licensing Alternatives
General Direction Sought and Specific Questions to be Answered
1. Does Council wish to proceed with the package of alternatives outlined in this document?
2. What feedback is Council seeking from citizens from this point forward?
Background
At the April 27, 2004 City Council Study Session Council members discussed a number of new
and ongoing initiatives designed to have a positive impact on the quality of life in Fort Collins
neighborhoods. At the conclusion of that discussion, Council directed staff to continue those
efforts and also explore mandatory residential rental licensing. Specifically, Council instructed
staff to develop an ordinance and related standards for Council consideration, look at variables to
find the best “fit” for Fort Collins, and ask the community for input on the potential licensing
variables.
Since then, members of the original Neighborhood Quality of Life team and other staff have
conducted research into “best practices” in other communities with the goal of finding
components that could work well in Fort Collins. Additionally, the team has carried out a fairly
extensive outreach program designed to gain input from specific stakeholder groups and the
community at large.
Community Outreach and Feedback
A variety of methods were used to gain community feedback on the subject of rental licensing.
And as most Council members have learned, many citizens have a great deal of passion for this
subject. Over 1,200 responses have been received in the past 3 months alone.
Meetings were held with a variety of stakeholder groups, including landlords, property
managers, neighbors, affordable housing specialists and CSU students. Additionally, a public
meeting held August 30, 2004 drew between 250-275 participants. One-on-one dialogues took
place through email, letters and phone calls. The City’s website was utilized not only to provide
information, but to provide the opportunity for participants to fill out a survey and attach any
comments they wished. (We acknowledge that many citizens were unhappy about the format of
the survey and regret this was the case.) A City News article was included in 60,000 utility bills,
Cable 27 and traditional news media were used to inform people about the topic, and surveys and
fliers were distributed at Neighborhood Night Out and other community events.
03
A summary of feedback received from citizens is included in Attachment A. Council members
have received much of this information as it has been collected; however, complete copies of all
feedback are available for further review if desired.
There is a great deal of polarization in the community surrounding the issue of rental licensing.
As might be expected, many landlords and property managers believe it to be bureaucratic,
costly and ineffective. On the opposite view, many neighbors of rentals feel rental licensing will
prevent the further deterioration of their neighborhoods.
The community dialogue surfaced a number of key issues surrounding rental licensing. In the
broadest sense, many stakeholders question the ultimate goal of rental licensing: is it designed to
improve the health and safety of tenants, address nuisance behaviors, or both? In any case, the
following reasons for or against rental licensing were cited.
Those in favor believe rental licensing is needed because:
• The quality of life in many single family neighborhoods is deteriorating at a rapid
rate; something must be done
• A rental property is a business and should be licensed as such
• Neighbors and the City are being forced to take on role of property manager
• Landlords should be held accountable for the condition of and activities at their
properties
• Licensing is one way to help enforce existing ordinances
Those opposed believe rental licensing is not a solution because:
• It is a misperception that landlords can control tenant behavior; rental licensing will
not have an impact nuisance behaviors
• These types of laws are intrusive and an infringement on the rights of property
owners
• The cost of housing will increase; transitional and lower-income residents need a
place to reside at a reasonable cost and this will make rents rise
• A small percentage of property owners/managers cause problems and there is no
justification for additional burdens on good owners/managers/tenants
The following chart shows how rental property owners/managers and neighbors of rental
property answered the question, “Overall, are you in favor of rental licensing?” Tenants and
other stakeholders were fairly evenly split in their support.
03
On a more positive note, there are three areas where the majority of respondents are in
agreement:
1. The current ordinance limiting occupancy to three-unrelated adults is not effective. It
exacerbates problems because it is very difficult to enforce in its current form. This leads
to deception and a perception that laws can be ignored.
2. Laws that are on the books need to be enforced, especially those surrounding nuisance
issues (most commonly noise, parking and property upkeep). Both those against and in
favor of licensing want to prevent neighborhood deterioration and want the City to
increase its enforcement efforts.
3. More education of tenants, landlords and neighbors is needed. One tool frequently
mentioned in regards to tenants is that of a lease addendum outlining the various City
codes and expectations of tenants. This is discussed in more detail later in this document.
Options for Council Consideration
In addition to the feedback outlined above, members of the project team have spent a great deal
of time delving into how other cities use rental licensing or other methods to address
neighborhood quality of life issues. The City Attorney’s Office alone has examined 19 codes
from other communities and 7 state statutes. (A matrix outlining many of those communities and
related regulations was provided to Council at the April 27, 2004 Study Session.)
After much analysis of the numerous recommendations and research surrounding this subject,
the project team recommends Council adopt a “package” of five components that, when
implemented together, can ultimately address the majority of issues and concerns:
1. Amend the three-unrelated ordinance
Rental Property Owner/Manager
Yes
10%
Unsure
7%
No
83%
Neighbor of Rental Property
Yes
84%
Unsure
3%
No
13%
Are you in favor of rental licensing?
03
2. Create a licensing process for units that can safely accommodate more than three
unrelated adults
3. Amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to include the potential for revoking the ability to
rent
4. Implement a mandatory rental registration program (either city-wide or in targeted areas)
5. Add a Nuisance Gatherings provision to the current code
A detailed discussion of each of these components follows.
1. Amend the three-unrelated ordinance
The three-unrelated ordinance can be amended to make it a civil infraction and thus lower the
burden of proof and expand the kinds of evidence that can be offered in court. Project team
members believe this will enable the City to more effectively enforce this code. Some level of
neighborhood involvement will still be required for effective enforcement. The proposed
changes would include the following:
a. The occupancy limit provision would be removed from the zoning code and rewritten in a
more straightforward fashion. “Occupied” would be defined, and “dwelling unit,” “owner”
and “family” would be redefined.
b. A violation of this provision would be made a civil infraction punishable by a fine only,
rather than a misdemeanor criminal offense with a possible jail sentence. This would: (a)
lower the burden of proof (from proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proof by a
preponderance of the evidence); (b) allow the prosecution to call the defendant(s) to the
witness stand; (c) relax the rules of evidence; (d) allow cases to be heard by a hearing officer
to avoid a substantial increase in the Municipal Court caseload.
c. Upon receipt of substantiated complaints investigators would: (a) contact the occupants and
inspect the premises, (b) check the license numbers of cars regularly parked in front of the
premises against Department of Motor Vehicles records to see who owns the vehicles, (c)
and/or seek information from the Postal Service as to who receives mail at the premises in
question.
d. If the investigation indicated a violation, then the tenants, owners and property managers
would all be cited for the violation. Upon conviction, fines would be assessed against each
defendant. Fines would increase for subsequent violations.
Additional staff will be needed in order to effectively investigate, gather needed evidence and
prosecute this revised ordinance. Details on those costs, which are estimated at $25,000 one-
time and $80,000 ongoing, are included in component #2, which follows.
2. Create a licensing process for units that can safely accommodate more than three
unrelated adults
03
If the three-unrelated law is effectively enforced, many renters currently living in units with
more than three adults will need to find alternative housing. At the same time, there are units
throughout the City that can safely and effectively house more than three adults. Therefore, in
combination with better enforcement of the three-unrelated law, project team members
recommend the City create a licensing process for units that can safely house more than three
unrelated adults. Conditions for receiving a license would include the following:
a. The unit must pass a mandatory inspection to ensure existing rental housing standards are
met, and to determine the maximum occupancy allowed based on conforming bedrooms
and other requirements
b. Accommodations for off-street parking must be met
c. The owner must have a record of no or a minimum number of previous code violations at
that address
d. Tenants must sign and the owner keep on file a lease addendum or some type of
information disclosure and acknowledgement form that summarizes City codes. This
addendum could also be used to document the license number of the residents’ vehicles
and other information as desired. An example lease addendum is included in Attachment
B as an illustration.
Repeated nuisance violations must be avoided in order to maintain the license. Cumulative
penalties for failing to operate in accordance with the license would include fine, suspension and
revocation of license. Failure to obtain a license would be a misdemeanor punishable in
Municipal Court; the City would first have to prove that there are more than three unrelated
adults living in a unit before issuing a citation for not obtaining a license.
Affordable housing providers who are subject to federal requirements would be exempted from
this ordinance, as would other specified uses such as safehouses, Hospice and the like. Any use
exempted from these requirements would be specifically listed in the ordinance. Owner-
occupied units would not be exempted, because if they were, a parent could purchase a home for
a student who, in turn, could rent rooms out to more than two other people.
It is worth noting that if the three-unrelated law is enforced without an alternative such as this, it
is highly likely that more homes will become rentals, many of them in single family
neighborhoods throughout the city.
Some have suggested a Rental Licensing Board be created to approve each license and hear
appeals. A more common structure used by many communities is that of administrative staff
who approve a license based on pre-determined standards, and a Rental Licensing Board who
hears appeals. This aspect of the program will be researched in more depth and developed after
further direction from Council.
The costs for this program are based on an estimated 3,000 single family and duplex units that
could potentially apply for a license:
Total program cost: $210,000
– Includes 3.2 FTE (compliance inspection and administrative staff) and overhead costs
03
– Total fee per unit: $80 - $90 annually
3. Amend the Public Nuisance Ordinance to include the potential for revoking the ability
to rent
Currently, the maximum penalty for violation of the Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) is that of
a court order requiring action to be taken to abate the nuisance plus cost recovery. The project
team recommends the PNO be amended so that the ultimate penalty would include a court order
revoking the ability to rent a property. This change would represent a natural evolution of the
PNO which, at Council direction, was originally used to educate property owners about
violations. A “zero tolerance” philosophy has since resulted in an increase in the use of this tool,
especially during the past year. This change to the PNO, in tandem with a mandatory rental
registration program (outlined below), would in many ways have the same impact on nuisance
behaviors as a more traditional licensing program without the cost or complexity and without
adding more ordinances and new requirements.
4. Implement a mandatory rental registration program
The team recommends that the City implement a mandatory rental registration system to obtain
information regarding the identity of owners, occupants and any local management agent. This
program could be applied city-wide or in certain targeted areas where there are a higher
concentration of nuisance violations, depending on Council’s preference.
Some argue that the City does not need a registration program because owner information
needed to enforce the nuisance provisions of the City code is already available through the
County Assessor’s database and, in some cases, through the City’s Utility records. While it is
true that the City can identify and contact the majority of property owners, there are
shortcomings in existing processes and resources that a registration requirement could help with.
Registration would shorten the period of time generally needed to identify the property owners
and provide more reliable, current information. The hope is that this program could be
accomplished online and include elements such as:
a. The name of a local contact person who has been authorized by an absentee property
owner (who might otherwise be unresponsive) to accept notices and service of process
b. Names of tenants, either on file or available at the request of the City; this information
would be helpful in either citing tenants as well as the property owners for certain kinds
of violations and in investigating and prosecuting any occupancy limit violations
c. Confirmation that a mandatory lease addendum or information and disclosure statement
has been signed by tenants (as described earlier).
An added benefit and potential consequence of a mandatory registration program is that many
illegal units, such as single family units that have been converted to duplexes, will be identified
over time.
03
Some units, such as apartment complexes with on-site managers, would have fewer reporting
requirements. This program would be a large undertaking and details should be developed with
input from stakeholders, especially those most directly affected. The project team recommends
an ad hoc group that includes representatives of rental property owners, managers, tenants and
neighbors be formed for the purpose of determining the specific elements of a registration
program.
The cost of a registration program would be assessed per building rather than per unit.
Anticipated costs for a rental registration program are:
First 1–2 years: $420,000 – 7 FTE, space, equipment, database development, software licensing
and overhead. This includes contractual employees to get the program up and running and
ongoing administration of the program, including prosecuting violations.
Remaining years: $120,000 - $240,000 annually, depending on the details of the program, i.e.
the amount of information required and how frequently updated.
Total cost per building: $35 - $45 for first time registration; $10 - $20 per year for renewal
5. Add a Nuisance Gatherings provision to the current code
A final tool, a Nuisance Gatherings code addition, is based on an existing ordinance in East
Lansing, Michigan. This ordinance addresses social gatherings or parties which result in a
variety of nuisance behaviors occurring on neighboring properties. It also has a provision for
recouping costs to the City in regards to overtime of Police, Streets or other expenses and holds
the owner, occupant, tenant or others having any “possessory control” accountable. A copy of
that ordinance is included Attachment C.
Another section of the East Lansing code deals specifically with litter left following a large event
and a faster process for abating that nuisance. Staff is examining this provision to see if it, too,
would be a helpful amendment to the Fort Collins code.
The Nuisance Gathering code change would be in conjunction with continued efforts to more
effectively and proactively enforce current nuisance laws, including loud parties, code
compliance issues and the Public Nuisance Ordinance. At the September 28 Study Session on
the 2005 budget exception process, the City Manager recommended an additional Code
Compliance Officer and one-time funding to continue the Police Party Project in 2005. If
approved, these positions will greatly assist in meeting increasing demands for enforcement.
The project team anticipates a 6 – 12 month timeframe to develop, bring before Council and
implement the majority of the five alternatives. The simpler code changes can be written and
brought to Council within the next few months.
03
Long Term Actions
Project team members would like to continue to examine a number of other initiatives related to
neighborhood quality of life. They include:
• Continued expansion of enforcement efforts; Staff members are currently exploring whether
grants targeting crime prevention, underage drinking and other areas could be tapped to help
fund these efforts
• The Board of Realtors has expressed interest in developing public/private collaborations to
build additional student housing. The hope is that Colorado State University will wish to be
a partner in this discussion, especially given the estimate of 5,000 additional students in the
coming decade.
• Explore potential incentives to encourage student renters to seek housing close to the
University, minimizing the “clash of cultures” that sometimes occurs in single family
neighborhoods
• Police Services hopes to have the daily Case Log available online by early 2005. This will
enable property owners and managers to easily and proactively check for police calls to their
units, whether or not a citation is issued.
• Assess the effectiveness of the components detailed in this proposal on an ongoing basis,
assuming Council wishes to implement them.
*Attachments:
A: Summary of Community Feedback
B: Example Lease Addendum
C: Example Nuisance Parties Ordinance
*The document containing Attachments A, B, and C is available for download on the City
of Fort Collins Public Records page located at: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/. Search using
“P968 Neighborhood Quality of Life”, and then scroll down to “Purchasing Documents”
and select the document.
- May increase cost of housing
- May increase numbers of rentals in
single family neighborhoods as tenants
are required to find other housing
- Occupancy limits do not necessarily
address behaviors
behaviors, etc.
5. Penalties for non-compliance include revocation of license (can no longer use
property for rental)
6. Licensing fee imposed to recover administrative and enforcement costs
concerns about over-occupancy and
Variable C: Create new, more enforceable
occupancy limits
- May increase cost of housing
- May increase numbers of rentals in