2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
•
City of Boulder, Boulder County, City and County
of Broomfield, City of Longmont
2020-2024
Consolidated Plan
for Housing and Community Development
CREATED
08/31/2020
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ I–1
The Process ...................................................................................................................... I–6
Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................ I–23
Housing Market Analysis .............................................................................................. I–68
Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................... I–114
Action Plan ................................................................................................................... I–150
II. Housing Market Analysis and Needs Assessment Supplement
Appendix A. Community Engagement Findings
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Executive Summary
Every five years, the City of Boulder is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to analyze housing and community development needs and to
identify goals for allocating HUD block grant funds to address needs. That study, called the
Consolidated Plan, details how the City of Boulder proposes to allocate the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG). In addition, the City is a partner and lead agency in the
Boulder/Broomfield HOME Consortium, which allocates HOME funding to address
affordable housing.
This Executive Summary presents the top findings from the research conducted to support
the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. That research included:
1) An analysis of housing market data and affordability gaps;
2) A resident survey designed to collect information on residents’ housing, community
development and human services and needs. A total of 472 Boulder residents
responded to the survey, including: 103 households with children; 125 older adults;
100 residents with a disability; 156 households earning less than $50,000 per year;1
3) Open community meetings with residents and stakeholders, where more than 60
residents in the Consortium attended;
4) Interviews with stakeholders who work with residents who have low income to
discuss policy and program interventions for addressing needs;
5) Briefings to City Council; and
6) A public comment period during which the draft Plan was offered for review.
Top Housing Market Trends
Rents and for sale home prices remain extremely high. The city’s median home
value is well above the county’s value overall at $750,000, increasing by 50 percent from
2013. In Boulder, the average rent was $1,728 2as of third quarter 2019, requiring an
income of $70,000.
1 It is important to note that the resident survey was conducted during February and March 2020, before and early in
outbreak of the covid-19 virus. The housing situation and needs of residents during that period can help inform short-
and long-term policy responses to the health care crisis, which has affected the housing situation of many low income
households.
2 Excludes University submarket.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION X, PAGE 1
The city’s homeownership rate has not changed and the proportion of owners who are cost
burdened has remained stable, indicating that new owners are very high income or are
participating in the city’s deed-restricted ownership program.
Owners and renters in the Consortium are now higher income than in the past. Rising rent
prices have forced out low income renters, and new owners must be wealthier to afford to
buy in the Consortium market.
Vacant rentals are basically nonexistent. The Consortium had less than 400 rental
units vacant as of third quarter 2019, according to a survey conducted by the Apartment
Association. In Boulder, only 40 rentals were vacant as of third quarter 2019.
The region has lost a significant number of privately provided affordable
rentals. Since 2013, the Consortium has experienced a significant decline in private
market rental units affordable to low income households. These units are renting at higher
rates, which has broadened the income brackets in which rental gaps exist. In Boulder
alone, over half of rental units affordably priced for households with income between
$25,000 and $35,000 in 2013 shifted to higher income brackets by 2018.
Rental gaps remain. In 2018, all Consortium member jurisdictions showed a mismatch
between affordable units and renters who have low incomes. In Boulder, there is a
shortage of 7,630 rental units to serve households earning less than $35,000.
A 2013 housing choice survey conducted by the City of Boulder concluded that half of the
city’s rental gap could be related to the college student population. This would put the 2018
“non-student rental gap” at 3,800 units.
Homeownership is unattainable for the majority of renters. In 2018, a household
looking to purchase the median-priced home would have needed to earn over $200,000 in
Boulder. Over 90 percent of renters earn less and cannot afford to buy with current home
prices. There is a significant shortage of homes to buy priced at less than $375,000.
Severe cost burden affects 20,000 households in the region. Severe cost burden
occurs when a household pays 50 percent and more of their income toward housing costs
and indicates vulnerability to eviction and homelessness. Overall in the Consortium, 17,000
renters face severe cost burden. An additional 3,500 owners face severe cost burden. In
Boulder, 8,500 renters (38% of all renters) and 700 owners (10% of owners) are severely
cost burdened.
Boulder’s primary housing needs include:
•A shortage of 7,630 units renting for less than $875 per month—the rent level under
which the rental unit gap exists.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION X, PAGE 2
•A shortage of homes to buy priced at less than $375,000 per month.
•Housing subsidies to assist 1,500 people with disabilities, many of whom are older
adults, who struggle to pay their monthly rent and mortgage.
Housing and Supportive Service needs according to Residents
A resident survey representing the needs of 472 Boulder households was administered to
support the housing study and collect data on service needs. That survey found that:
•22 percent rate the condition of their housing as “fair” or “poor”;
•27 percent of Boulder renters would like to buy a home but the majority—61
percent—cannot afford the downpayment needed;
•About half of Boulder households surveyed would move if they could—but they
cannot afford rents in other units (55%) or other homes to buy (29%). Security deposits
are less of a deterrent to moving (22%);
•37 percent of Boulder City residents worry that an unexpected health issue would
strain their savings and put them in debt;
•34 percent say they could not pay for an unexpected doctor bill;
•32 percent live paycheck to paycheck.
•When residents need to skip services because they cannot afford them, they are
mostly likely to skip dental care and car repairs.
•Over 40 percent of residents needing services say they could use information about
the types of jobs they are qualified for and/or financial help to pay for educational
development, and better transportation options.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION X, PAGE 3
SECTION I.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING (HOME) AND CITY OF
BOULDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
The Boulder Broomfield Regional HOME Consortium (Consortium), comprised of the Cities of
Boulder and Longmont, Boulder County, and the City and County of Broomfield, is excited to
present its Five-Year Consolidated Plan (Plan) covering years 2020-2024. HOME, also known as
the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, is a federal housing grant administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) used to assist communities in
addressing housing needs -through such activities as new construction, rehabilitation and rental
subsidies- for residents who have low and moderate income.
In addition to satisfying the planning and reporting requirements for the Consortium,
components of this Plan detail how the City of Boulder, City of Longmont and City and County
of Broomfield, as direct recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
from the federal government, will use it to address housing and community development
needs, as presented in the CDBG supplement to this Plan. While Boulder County does not
receive a direct allocation of CDBG funding for the balance of county jurisdiction, it does utilize
this funding through a competitive process administered by the State of Colorado Department
of Local Affairs (State).
2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment
Overview
The primary objective of this Plan is to maintain and work toward increasing housing
opportunities and addressing community development needs in the Consortium area. The
outcomes of each Consortium member jurisdiction vary slightly depending on market area
needs. Specifically:
The City of Boulder's outcomes focus mostly on preserving and creating affordable rental
housing, public services and capital improvements of community serving agencies. The city
intends to continue supporting owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, the creation of
homeownership opportunities, and to provide supportive services for people who are
experiencing homelessness and/or have special needs. The city will continue to support families
in the Family Resource Schools program at five select area elementary schools and the
operations of CDFI providing microloans to MBE/WBE in Boulder. The city will continue to use is
CDBG funds to support the capital improvements of community serving agencies meeting the
needs of low income persons .
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
1
In response to COVID-19, Boulder also plans to utilize CDBG-CV and annual allocations to
expand rental assistance payments, further fund the small business loan program with
Colorado Enterprise Fund, and may pursue additional services benefiting persons experiencing
homeless, possibly to include the launching of a Community Ambassador/Ranger Plan to
provide navigation and diversion services or set up respite operations for persons displaying
COVID-related symptoms.
The city expects to use these CDBG allocations to serve a total of 567 households in the 2020
Action Plan year. This includes 20 households experiencing homelessness and transitioning
back into housing, 5 homes rehabilitated for low income homeowners, 20 small businesses
assisted and 400 households stabilized via housing and financial counseling, rental assistance
and eviction prevention. The average investment per household will be roughly $2,950.
The City of Longmont proposes to allocate CDBG funds to support the development and
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, the rehabilitation of existing affordable homes,
small business, rental assistance payments and health related operations related to COVID-19.
Longmont will also allocate funds to nonprofit partners for housing counseling, rental security
deposits, and utility assistance. Through these allocations, the city anticipates serving a total of
320 households in the 2020 Action Plan year. This includes ; 23 households experiencing
homelessness transitioning back into housing; 8 new affordable rental homes created; 50 rental
homes for seniors preserved; and stabilizing 240 households via housing and financial
counseling and eviction prevention. The average investment per household will be $4,315, with
$11.6 million dollars leveraged and brought into the community.
The City of Longmont also administers the Boulder County Down Payment Assistance Program,
which provides amortized and deferred loans for households who wish to purchase a home in
Boulder County, outside the city limits of Boulder. The program expects to serve 20 clients over
the next five-year period.
Broomfield proposes to use its HOME Funds to continue the Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Program (TBRA) administered through the Health and Human Services Department, serving an
estimated 10 families annually. CDBG will be allocated to continue the Home Rehabilitation and
Urgent Repair Programs, to support preservation of and development activities for affordable
housing as they arise, for legal assistance to low income renters to prevent
eviction/homelessness, and to provide other public service needs for low-income renters,
seniors and special needs populations as determined annually, for a total families served
annually of approximately 100.
The HOME Consortium has approved two years of HOME allocations (2019 and 2020) for the
Coffman Street Apartment project being developed by the Boulder County Housing Authority
(BCHA) through a public-private partnership in downtown Longmont. This development will
offer 73 affordable apartment homes for households with income at or below 60 percent AMI
including 12 highly subsidized homes (30% and 40% AMI). This development will also provide
property management offices, commercial space for a workforce enterprise, and a 260-space
parking garage for property and area residents, and downtown employees and visitors as part
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
2
of the public-private partnership. BCHA is likely to have one more development of 400 rental
and for-sale homes, currently in the planning and design stages, anticipated to begin within the
next few years, funded primarily through low income housing tax credits with anticipated gap
funding by CDBG and/or HOME funds.
3. Evaluation of past performance
The primary objective of the Consortium is to maintain, and ultimately increase the availability,
amount, and quality of housing, community development and human services opportunities, to
serve a diversity of residents’ needs. Although each community may approach this differently
depending on needs and existing housing and services, the annual evaluation of performance
focuses on the Consortium’s and each individual member jurisdiction’s ability to invest
resources toward these shared goals. Jurisdictions receiving a direct allocation of CDBG funding
evaluate investments leveraged to achieve local housing and community development
objectives.
In the past five years, the City of Boulder’s housing investments have primarily focused on
preserving and creating affordable rental housing. This has included construction of new rental
units; rehabilitation of existing rental units; development of supportive, transitional housing
units; and preservation of public housing units. The city has also funded owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation and homeownership opportunities, and assisted people experiencing
homelessness and other special needs populations with supportive services. With CDBG funds,
Boulder has invested in the capital improvement needs of service providers and public services
that target residents who have low and moderate income.
The City of Longmont’s CDBG funds have traditionally been used to make long lasting
improvements for many low to moderate income individuals and families. Over the past five
years, the City of Longmont has used CDBG to complete housing rehabilitation, emergency
repairs, and mobile home repairs; remove impediments for households with a disabled and/or
older adult family member; provide housing counseling and consumer debt counseling. In
addition, it has used General funds and local Affordable Housing funds to provide support
services, provide down payment assistance, support the construction of affordable for-rent and
for-sale homes, and provide internet access and computers to low income families with
children to bridge the digital divide. Additional detail on specific programs and
accomplishments by year are in the jurisdiction-level Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) available online.
Broomfield has successfully continued to use its HOME Funds to continue the Tenant Based
Rental Assistance Program (TBRA) administered through the Health and Human Services
Department. This successful program is even more critical in times of high rental costs and
economic uncertainty for low income households. Broomfield has enrolled 75 families into the
TBRA program, with over a 80 percent success rate of families graduating and reaching their
self-sufficiency goals. Broomfield has made major and minor home repairs to over 120 homes
of low-and moderate income families, including modifications for accessibility and energy
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
3
efficiency upgrades to save those families the high costs of energy bills. Broomfield has also
provided assistance in the from of acquisition and pre-development costs to non-profit
developers of affordable housing, both for families, seniors and recently extremely low-income
foster youth who have been emancipated from the foster care system.
Boulder County has addressed gaps identified in the Needs Assessment over the past five years
through housing development, using federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
dollars and gap funding from HOME and CDBG, as awarded by the State, and preservation
projects through BCHA general funds.
In 2018, BCHA completed construction on a dual-focused development in Louisville, providing
200 homes which includes a building of 71 homes for adults age 55 and older. Since 2019, BCHA
has completed substantial rehabilitation- including roofing, decking, siding and windows- to ten
of its properties serving 146 households.
4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
Citizen participation in development of this Plan was primarily achieved through completion of
a resident survey and attendance at community meetings.
Residents living within the Consortium area had an opportunity to share their experiences with
housing options and community resources through a resident survey. Offered in English and
Spanish, the survey was available online and in a postage-paid mail version. A total of 2,357
residents participated. Residents who commonly face disproportionate housing needs were
well-represented by respondents, including:
•500 households with children;
•750 older adults, age 55 and older;
•500 residents with disabilities;
•Nearly 700 renters;
•85 residents living in mobile homes;
•125 residents who were precariously housed (living in their cars, shelters, or temporarily
staying with family or friends);
•300 households with an annual income of less than $25,000; and
•Another 300 households with an annual income of between $25,000 and $50,000.
The survey instrument included questions about residents’ current housing and financial
situation, housing and transportation challenges, knowledge of and access to community
resources, and experience with housing discrimination.
In Fall 2019, four open community meetings were held in Boulder, Broomfield, Nederland and
Longmont. These were attended by 64 people, made up of residents and stakeholders, who
participated in conversations and activities to identify top community needs; prioritize
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
4
community development and housing investments; and pinpoint gaps in access to resources
and institutional structures. During that same period, stakeholders were also consulted through
focus groups and one-on-one interviews.
5. Summary of public comments
This section will be completed once the public comment period has completed.
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them
All comments received during the development of this Plan and during the public comment
period were accepted and considered in evaluating funding allocations.
7. Summary
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
5
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies -91.200(b)
1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source
The following are the jurisdictions responsible for preparing this Plan and the administration of
each HUD-allocated grant, based on funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator BOULDER Department of Housing & Human
Services
HOME Administrator BOULDER Department of Housing & Human
Services
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Lead Agency
The City of Boulder is the lead entity for preparing the Consortium Consolidated Plan in
conjunction with its members. Each jurisdiction that receives a direct allocation of CDBG
funding, as explained in the introduction, including the City of Boulder, City of Longmont and
City and County Broomfield, contributed to this section of this plan.
For administration of grants, each of the jurisdictions listed above administers its own CDBG
allocation and many of its related activities. As the lead agency of the Consortium, the City of
Boulder assumes the responsibility of administering the HOME funds with each jurisdiction
overseeing administration of the specific HOME projects for which it has been awarded funding.
The City of Boulder’s CDBG program is administered through its Department of Housing &
Human Services staff who oversee the funding application process as well as the administration
and monitoring of funds. Staff work with the two volunteer City Manager-appointed
committees to review applications. The Affordable Housing Technical Review Group (TRG)
reviews housing applications, while the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)
reviews community development proposals and makes funding recommendations to the City
Manager for approval.
Local Agencies Involved
The City of Longmont Housing and Community Investment (HCI) Division has the leadership
responsibility for its CDBG program. HCI staff coordinate efforts of the entities involved in
implementing projects and programs funded, as well as provide technical assistance to
community organizations, and encourage the involvement of the business community. The
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
6
Technical Review Group and Housing and Human Services Advisory Board review all CDBG,
HOME and local funding proposals and offer funding recommendations to City Council.
The Broomfield CDBG program is administered through its Community Development
Department. Broomfield’s CDBG programs are managed directly by the city staff who manage
bids and oversight for the home repair improvements and other program activities which are
determined annually as part of the Annual Action Plan approved by the Broomfield City Council.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Renee Gallegos, Community Investment Program Manager
City of Boulder, Department of Housing & Human Services
1300 Canyon Street, Boulder Colorado 80302
303/441-4142 (direct); 720/564-2188 (fax)
GallegosR@bouldercolorado.gov and https://bouldercolorado.gov/housing
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
7
PR-10 Consultation -91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)
1. Introduction
For the Consortium Consolidated Plan and jurisdictional CDBG Plans, the team encouraged
input from a diversity of community groups through a resident survey, four open community
meetings, a stakeholder focus group, and during a public comment period. In response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the final comment period was reduced to 5 days, per HUD guidance, to
ensure that funds reached community organizations and residents as quickly as possible.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between
public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health
and service agencies (91.215(I)).
The Consortium members actively coordinate with the public, (other) area housing providers,
and partner agencies providing family resources, physical and behavioral health services, and
others, in a variety of ways, including through:
1) Annual distribution of funding. Consortium members work closely with (other) housing and
service providers to prepare applications, develop eligible activities and projects that meet the
needs of the community, provide technical assistance and project management to ensure
successful programming;
2) Affiliations with local and regional boards, committees and coordination efforts;
3) Strong working relationships with local housing and service providers, including meeting
regularly to discuss housing and human service needs and to develop strategies to address
these needs;
4) Continuous coordination among local jurisdictions and housing and service providers.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of people
experiencing homelessness (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families,
families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and people who are at risk of
homelessness
The Consortium supports and is affiliated with the Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative
(MDHI), a coalition working with homeless assistance agencies in the seven-county Denver
metropolitan area, to coordinate the delivery of housing and services to homeless families,
individuals, youth and people with disabilities. MDHI is the lead agency in establishing the
Continuum of Care model for the metropolitan Denver community.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
8
In 2017, the Cities of Boulder and Longmont, and Boulder County formed the Homeless
Solutions for Boulder County (HSBC), which coordinates homelessness response systems and
housing interventions for individual adults throughout Boulder County, with a prioritization of
resources for people who are experiencing chronic homelessness. HSBC serves as a localized
coordinated entry system that matches needs of single adults, age 18 and older, with resources.
This is a requirement for all residents to receive these specific services from Boulder County,
Boulder, and/or Longmont. Entry points are located in Boulder and Longmont, both of which
are accessible to people with disabilities and located close to public transportation.
HSBC is aligned with MDHI and functions in coordination with MDHI’s housing placement
system and has leveraged other housing options, such as Permanent Supportive Housing and
locally funded and HUD funded set aside Housing Choice Vouchers by the local Housing
Authorities to fill service gaps. A similar system is being researched for families and youth.
The City and County of Broomfield relies primarily on the resources of Boulder County and the
City and County of Denver, as well as services provided through the local Continuum of Care
agencies, to help meet needs for their residents who are experiencing homelessness, as there
are no shelters or transitional housing options in Broomfield. Broomfield also provides federal
Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds, received through the state of Colorado, for
emergency assistance and homelessness prevention.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate
outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS
Boulder County Human Services divisions, under the Department of Housing & Human Services,
along with several local human services agencies, receives federal Emergency Solutions Grant
(ESG) funds to work toward the prevention of homelessness and provide rapid rehousing. These
funds are provided to local shelters to support operations and essential services. MDHI
develops standards and policies for ESG funding and the county, cities, and nonprofit and
agency partners have input into those standards and policies.
Under the direction of MDHI Continuum of Care (CoC), local homelessness service providers,
including the Boulder County Department of Housing & Human Services, Boulder Shelter for the
Homeless, Mental Health Partners of Boulder and Broomfield Counties, Boulder Permanent
Supportive Housing (PSH) Collaborative (which includes the Inn Between of Longmont), and
Attention Homes, providing transitional housing and supportive services for youth experiencing
homelessness, utilize Homeless Management Informational System (HMIS), a computerized
data collection tool designed to capture client-level information over a period of time. The
implementation of HMIS at the local level aligns with the policies and procedures set by MDHI
around client confidentiality, data collection, computer entry, and reporting. Additionally,
Boulder County and its HSBC partners utilize Boulder County Connect (BCC), the County’s client
portal which supports data collection and reporting, particularly for coordinated entry, shelter
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
9
attendance, and evaluation of system effectiveness. HSBC members participate with MDHI for
continuous discussion regarding the use and administration of HMIS specifically addressing
issues of duplication and ease of use. Additionally, HSBC work groups meet regularly to
enhance data collection and quality.
In Broomfield, local funding sources supplement ESG: for example, Broomfield’s CSBG funds are
used to provide emergency one-time rental, utility and/or mortgage assistance to prevent
homelessness.
2. Describe agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process
and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other
entities
Agencies, groups, organizations who were invited to participate in the process, and who were
consulted during development of this Plan included the following:
• Local housing authorities, including those serving Broomfield, Boulder County, Boulder
and Longmont;
• Human services providers, including Boulder County Department of Housing & Human
Services, ; City of Longmont Community Services; Broomfield Health and Human
Services; and City of Boulder Department of Housing & Human Services;
• Agencies serving older adults including Area Agency on Aging, an affiliate of the Denver
Regional Council of Governments and local jurisdictional senior centers;
• Services for people experiencing homelessness, including Homeless Solutions for
Boulder County (HSBC); Boulder Shelter for the Homeless; HOPE of Longmont; Bridge
House, connecting people who are experiencing homelessness to housing resources and
employment and skill-building opportunities; and Attention Homes, providing
transitional housing and supportive services for youth;
• Employment training and support agencies including Broomfield Workforce Center and
Workforce Boulder County;
• Family resource centers, including Broomfield FISH, Emergency Family Assistance
Association (EFAA), the OUR (Outreach United Resource) Center, and Sister Carmen
Community Center;
• Organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, including Safehouse Progressive
Alliance for Nonviolence (SPAN) and Safe Shelter of St. Vrain Valley;
• Public health services provided by Broomfield Public Health and Environment and
Boulder County Public Health Department;
• Broomfield Transportation Division and Boulder County Transportation’s Mobility for All
program;
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
10
• Agencies serving people who have a physical, developmental, cognitive and/or
behavioral/mental disability, including Center for People With Disabilities (CPWD),
Imagine! and Mental Health Partners of Boulder and Broomfield Counties;
• And other (than Boulder and Longmont) municipalities within Boulder County, including
City of Louisville, City of Longmont, and the Towns of Lyons and Nederland.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
11
Identify any types of agencies not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
Not applicable. More than 100 agencies were invited to contribute to this Plan by attending
community meetings and open houses, participating in focus groups, responding to the survey,
and helping to promote the survey to households with low and moderate income in the region.
No agencies were expressly not consulted.
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan
Name of Plan Lead
Organization
How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care MDHI Prevent homelessness through emergency
assistance and other homelessness prevention
activities; create and preserve deeply
affordable rental housing. Results of Point-in-
Time results from survey conducted in the
Denver Metro area each January.
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
(AI)
Boulder
Broomfield
Regional
Consortium
Approach funding priorities and strategic
goals with equity framework All housingauthorities connect clients expressing an
interest in ownership to area nonprofits
Human Services Funding
Process
Boulder County specializing in homeownership and self-Public services activities are coordinated with sufficiency.goals of the Human Services funding process
The Boulder County
Regional Housing
Partnership Regional
Housing Strategy
Boulder County Housing goals of the Con Plan are aligned with
regional housing goals and strategies
Manufactured Housing
Strategy
City of Boulder Infrastructure investment to preserve
affordable housing preservation and stabilize
households
Middle Income Housing
Strategy
City of Boulder Preservation and creation of housing
opportunities for residents with moderate
income
City of Longmont 2020-
2024 Capital
Improvement Program
(CIP)
City of
Longmont
Projects from the CIP are included in the non-
housing community development needs and
goals of this Strategic Plan.
Advance Longmont 2.0
(Economic Development
Plan)
City of
Longmont
Con Plan goals and activities are aligned with
this Plan
Envision Longmont
(Comprehensive Plan)
City of
Longmont
Housing and economic development projects
to be funded also meet the goals of those
elements in the Comp Plan.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
12
Name of Plan Lead
Organization
How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
Aging in Boulder County Age Well
Boulder County
Con Plan considers aging trends and needs of
the growing population of seniors
Homeless Solutions for
Boulder County Annual
Reports
Boulder County Con Plan considers demographics of and
trends for people experiencing homelessness
Boulder County Housing
Authority (BCHA) HUD
Annual Public Housing
Authority Plans
Boulder County
Housing
Authority
Provided to HUD’s Office of Public and Indian
Housing (PIH), these plans detail BCHA’s goals
and accomplishments, which also align with
this Plan and other regional housing plans
Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
City of Boulder Housing and economic development projects
align with policies and goals adopted in the
plan.
City of Boulder Human
Services Strategy
City of Boulder Public Services and Homeless activities align
with the strategies and goals of the HS
Strategy.
Table 2 – Other local / re gional / fe deral planning e fforts
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any
adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan
(91.215(l))
Since the last Plan, conducted in 2015-2019, the Consortium has strengthened its coordination
and cooperation throughout Boulder County with creation of a Regional Strategic Housing Plan
and, for Broomfield, a housing market analysis and strategy. The Regional Plan, developed by
the Regional Strategic Housing Partnership made up of Boulder County, City of Boulder and City
of Longmont, has set forth a goal of increasing the number of affordable homes countywide to
reach 12 percent of its housing stock be permanently affordable by 2035. In March 2020,
Broomfield established an ordinance that requires affordable housing in new developments of
20 percent of rentals and 10 percent of for sale units.
The Consortium member jurisdictions continue to partner with the State in the coordination of
funding opportunities ensuring the leveraging of state, local and private investment funding to
support housing and community development efforts. All Consortium members participate in
MDHI, which facilitates, integrates and tracks cooperative, community-wide and regional
systems of care for people who have become homeless, to help them become stable, and work
toward self-sufficiently, as possible.
Narrative
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
13
PR-15 Citizen Participation -91.401, 91.105, 91.200(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen
participation. Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
Community engagement for this Plan was designed to be inclusive and representative of a
diverse set of target groups that have disproportionate housing needs. The table below
summarizes the very extensive outreach undertaken by Consortium members.
Key components of the outreach included:
1) A resident survey designed to collect information on residents’ housing, community
development and human services dispositions and needs, including the experience of
discrimination, displacement, and eviction. The survey was marketed through social
services agencies and family resource centers; housing agencies, including Consortium
members and community partners; and local municipal jurisdictions;
2) Focus groups, hosted by partner agencies and held in Spanish and English, requested
input from residents who have low income;
3) Interviews with stakeholders who work with residents who have low income to discuss
policy and program interventions for addressing needs;
4) Briefings to City Councils, County Commissioners and Housing and Human Services
Boards; and
5) A 5-day comment period during which the draft Plan was offered for review, and two
public hearings, which were held on May 26, 2020 in Longmont and Broomfield.
Consortium staff designed a comprehensive approach to outreach to inform residents about
the survey and subsequent Plan. This was conducted through distribution of materials, direct
email communication, social media posts, and coordination with partner agencies to:
• More than 4,000 housing authority property residents, and voucher-holders and
applicants, including Boulder County’s Josephine Commons Senior Housing during lunch
served by Meals on Wheels;
• 500 Boulder County Department of Housing & Human Services staff;
• Agencies serving older adults including Area Agency on Aging, an affiliate of the Denver
Regional Council of Governments and local jurisdictional senior centers, one of which
received in-person assistance for residents completing surveys;
• Services for people experiencing homelessness, including Homeless Solutions for
Boulder County (HSBC); Boulder Shelter for the Homeless; HOPE of Longmont; Bridge
House, connecting people who are experiencing homelessness to housing resources and
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
14
employment and skill-building opportunities; and Attention Homes, providing
transitional housing and supportive services for youth;
• Employment training and support agencies including Broomfield Workforce Center and
Workforce Boulder County;
• Family resource centers, including Broomfield FISH, Emergency Family Assistance
Association (EFAA), OUR (Outreach United Resource) Center, and Sister Carmen
Community Center;
• Organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, including Safehouse Progressive
Alliance for Nonviolence (SPAN) and Safe Shelter of St. Vrain Valley;
• Public health services provided by Broomfield Public Health and Environment and
Boulder County Public Health Department;
• Human services providers, including Boulder County Department of Housing & Human
Services, including Boulder County St. Vrain Community Hub, the County’s “one-stop”
integrated services delivery for residents; City of Longmont Community Services;
Broomfield Health and Human Services; and City of Boulder Department of Housing &
Human Services;
• Broomfield Transportation Division and Boulder County Transportation’s Mobility for All
program;
• Agencies serving people who have a physical, developmental, cognitive and/or
behavioral/mental disability, including Center for People With Disabilities (CPWD),
Imagine! and Mental Health Partners of Boulder and Broomfield Counties;
• And other (than Boulder and Longmont) municipalities within Boulder County, including
City of Louisville, City of Longmont, and the Towns of Lyons and Nederland, in public
libraries, town halls, and Chambers of Commerce;
• Mobile home communities in county outside of Boulder and Longmont – San Lazaro,
Arbordale Acres, who offered to email it to their residents; Boulder Ridge; and
• Elementary schools serving families with low and moderate income.
Altogether, more than 1,500 hard copy surveys were dropped off at locations where residents
who have low income frequent.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
15
# Followers Views (if
known)
City of Boulder (Facebook) 20,324 1,396
City of Boulder (Twitter) 87,036
Boulder County Department of Housing & Human Services 2,231
Nederland Area News 2,404
What’s Up Longmont 9,391
What’s Up Longmont (official) 3,699
80026 Lafayette on the Verge 5,869
Nederland Area Non-Profit Alliance 72
80027, Neighborhood News, Networking and Joy! 1,085
Lafayette Rocks! 10,141
Longmont Community Group 1,395
All About Longmont 3,726
Lafayette Colorado 4,440
Latinos de Boulder County 737
Broomfield Voice 51
Broomfield Housing Authority webpage 205
Social media postings reached an estimated 140,000+ followers though these networks:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
16
Citizen Participation Outreach Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 1 Community meetings Non-targeted/broad community Four community meetings held in 4 Consortium jurisdictions in the. Meeting attendance: 12 Boulder, 12 Broomfield, 30 Longmont, 10 Nederland. Total 64 Wide range of comments covering housing and community development needs All comments or views received were accepted 2 Resident Focus Group Spanish speakers 5 people accessing services at Sister Carmen Community Center Perspectives on needs related to housing and homelessness services All comments or views received were accepted Consolidated Plan BOULDER 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 3 Citizen Survey for Plan and Human Services Needs Assessment All residents, particularly those with housing and human services needs 2,357 survey respondents representing populations with special and disproportionate housing needs Feedback related to housing and community development needs, and human services needs and challenges All comments or views received were accepted Research.net/r/BBL20 20 And Es.Research.net/r/BBL 2020 4 Citizen Survey for Regional AI Residents most vulnerable to housing barriers and with disproportionat e housing needs 1,861 Consortium respondents representing populations with special and disproportionate housing needs Feedback related to housing needs and challenges, community access to opportunity, accessibility, and discrimination All comments or views received were accepted http://denver-aurora- boulderafh.com/ Consolidated Plan BOULDER 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 5 Resident focus groups for Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Residents most vulnerable to housing barriers and with disproportionat e housing needs 350 residents participated in-depth discussions about their housing challenges. These groups primarily represented immigrants, Spanish speakers, African Americans, families with children, people with disabilities, residents who identify as LGBTQ, and at-risk youth. Feedback related to housing needs and challenges, community access to opportunity, accessibility, and discrimination. All comments or views received were accepted. http://denver-aurora-boulderafh.com/ Consolidated Plan BOULDER 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 6 In-person consultation throughout Boulder County Seniors, low income households, people experiencing homelessness, people with severe and persist mental illness, mobile home community residents, people with disabilities, survivors of domestic violence Outreach contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A N 7 Boulder Daily Camera Newspaper Article All residents of Boulder and Boulder County Article contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A Article is included in community engagement appendix Consolidated Plan BOULDER 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 8 Social media promotional video All residents of Boulder and Boulder County Video contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A https://vimeo.com/3967 52540 9 Longmont Times-Call Newspaper Article All residents of Longmont Article contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A Article is included in community engagement appendix 10 City of Boulder, Boulder County, Broomfield, Longmont and other area All residents of Boulder County Postings contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A Flyers are included in community engagement appendix housing authorities online promotion flyer and website posting Consolidated Plan BOULDER 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Ord er Mode of Outre ach Target of Outr each Summary of response/attend ance Summary of comments rece ived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 11 Press release All residents of Boulder County Press release contributed to more than 2,000 responses to resident survey for this Plan N/A N/A Included in community engagement appendix 12 Human Service newsletter Nonprofits, social service organizations, resident subscribers Newsletter reaches approximately 500 organizations and resident subscribers N/A N/A Included in community engagement appendix 13 Survey drops Elementary schools through weekly folder, social service agencies, mobile home communities, human rights events, summer fairs, dental aid 1,500 hard copy surveys distributed N/A N/A offices Table 3 – Citizen Participation Outreach Consolidated Plan BOULDER 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The Housing Needs Assessment (NA) section of the eCon Plan describes the primary housing
problems in the region. Data and information for this section were provided by HUD and culled
from existing housing needs assessments and market analyses, as well as resident surveys. A
stand-alone Housing Market Analysis and Needs Assessment supplement was developed with
this Plan and is appended to this document.
HUD provides pre-populated data tables for this section which compare housing problems for
households by size and racial/ethnic composition. These are used to examine if
disproportionate needs exist in the Consortium region.
Primary Findings
Between 2013 and 2018, the five-year period for which household and housing market data are
readily available, the housing market has changed in the following ways:
Rental housing. All jurisdictions have experienced a significant decline in private market rental
units affordable to low income households (earning $25,000 to $35,000). These units are
renting at higher rates, which has broadened the income brackets in which rental gaps exist.
This change also driven low income renters outside of the Consortium. Specifically,
•In Boulder, 60 percent of units that were affordably priced for renters earning between $25,000
and $35,000 in 2013 have shifted to higher income brackets in 2018—mostly brackets above
$50,000. Boulder has been losing renters with incomes between 0 and 50 percent AMI: renters
in that income bracket declined by 10 percent from 2013.
•In Broomfield, more than half of units affordably priced for households with income between
$25,000 and $35,000 in 2013 had shifted to higher income brackets by 2018. Broomfield lost
around 18 percent of renter households with income between 0 and 50 percent AMI between
2013 and 2018.
•In Longmont, an astonishing 50 percent of rental units affordably priced for households with
income between $25,000 and $35,000 in 2013 shifted to higher income brackets by 2018. The
city lost around 15 percent of renter households with incomes of between 0 and 50 percent AMI
between 2013 and 2018.
•In Boulder County overall, 56 percent of units affordable to $25,000 to $35,000 renter
households in 2013 shifted to higher income brackets. The county also experienced a decrease
in renter households with income between 0 and 50 percent AMI (13%) since 2013.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
23
By 2018, all Consortium member jurisdictions showed a widened rental mismatch between
affordable units and renters who have low incomes. These gaps vary by jurisdiction:
• In Boulder, this gap is a shortage of 7,600 units renting at $875 per month as of 2018.
The gap in 2013 was a bit smaller—7,331 units—but only existed for households with
income of less than $25,000 per year.
• In Broomfield, this gap is nearly 1,400 units; up from 1,000 units in 2013. Broomfield
saw the gap widen from renters with income of less than $20,000 per year in 2013 to
those with income of less than $35,000 per year in 2018.
• In Longmont, the gap is 2,200 units. in 2013, this gap was 2,800 units, with the decline
largely due to fewer households who have low income. Longmont also experienced a
reduction in rental units affordable to households in the $25,000 to $35,000 income
range, even as units priced to serve those with income of less than $20,000 increased.
• In Boulder County overall, the gap for that income level is 12,000 in 2018, down slightly
from 2013. The gap also widened to include renters with income between $25,000 and
$35,000 as market rents became out of reach for this income group.
About half of renters in the Consortium region pay more than 30 percent of their monthly gross
household income toward housing costs, including utilities, and insurance (defined as “cost
burdened”), with the highest concentration in Boulder at 59 percent and lowest in Broomfield
at 45 percent. A significant proportion of these renters pay more than 50 percent of their
monthly gross income toward rent (defined as “severely cost burdened”). The highest share is
in Boulder at 38 percent of renters, followed by Boulder County (31%), Longmont (25%) and
Broomfield (20%.)
Ownership housing. Housing for purchase is very difficult to find for households who have low
to moderate incomes.
In 2018, a household looking to purchase the median-priced home—a measure of the
“average” price for a home—would have needed to earn at least:
• $150,000 in Boulder. In Boulder, less than 10 percent of renter households earn over
$150,000 (6%) and the median income for renter households is around $40,000.
• $88,000 in Broomfield. In Broomfield, around 35 percent of renter households earn over
$88,000 and the median income for renter households is around $65,000.
• $79,000 in Longmont. In Longmont, around 30 percent of renter households earn over
$79,000 and the median income for renter households is around $56,000; and
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
24
• $110,000 in Boulder County overall. In Boulder County, less than 20 percent of renter
households earn over $110,000 (18%) and the median income for renter households is
around $49,000.
An affordable home for a household earning $100,000 is about $375,000. Analysis conducted
on the inventory of homes listed or sold between mid-2018 and mid-2019 indicates that in
Boulder, 4 percent of all homes listed or sold were priced at less than $375,000; this is also true
of Boulder County (4%) and Broomfield (4%). For Longmont, 7.6 percent were listed or priced at
less than $375,000.
Data on cost burden from the 2013-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) report that around
20 percent of owners in Boulder, Boulder County, Broomfield and Longmont are cost burdened,
with approximately 7 percent severely cost burdened. The lower level of cost burden among
owners is related to the extremely high barrier to entering ownership in the Consortium: the
households who have the ability to buy in the Consortium market area are high income and,
overall, high income households are less likely to be cost burdened.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
25
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment -24 CFR 91.405, 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)
Summary of Housing Needs
Please see the prior, Overview section.
This section also requires a table on the number of households with children living in
overcrowded conditions, by tenure and AMI level. This table was once pre-populated with data
provided by HUD; however, this table was blank in IDIS. The resident survey completed for this
Con Plan provides some indication of overcrowdedness in the Consortium:
• 21 percent of residents who responded to the survey said their home isn’t big enough
for their family;
• 25 percent of large families (5+ member) said their home isn’t big enough;
• 22 percent of Hispanic respondents said their home isn’t big enough—this is 2.75 times
higher than for Non-Hispanic White respondents.
Consortium Region
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2018 %
Change
Population 350,456 395,345 13%
Households 140,714 156,162 11%
Median
Income
$65,730 $85,889
31%
Table 4 -Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2010 Census (Base Year), 2018 ACS
Boulder (city)
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2018 %
Change
Population 97,385 107,355 10%
Households 41,302 42,177 2%
Median
Income
$52,276 $62,207
19%
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2010 Census (Base Year), 2018 ACS
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
26
Boulder County
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2018 %
Change
Population 294,567 326,078 11%
Households 119,300 128,497 8%
Median
Income
$64,314 $83,755
30%
Table 6 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2010 Census (Base Year), 2018 ACS
Broomfield (city and county)
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2018 %
Change
Population 52,872 69,267 31%
Households 20,116 28,530 42%
Median
Income
$75,590 $95,800
27%
Table 7 -Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2010 Census (Base Year), 2018 ACS
Longmont
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2018 %
Change
Population 86,429 95,986 11%
Households 33,777 37,327 11%
Median
Income
$52,922 $78,322
48%
Table 8 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2010 Census (Base Year), 2018 ACS
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
27
Consortium Region
Number of Households Table
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-
100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 23,039 16,897 15,687 13,584 80,510
Small Family Households (with 4
or less people) 4,688 5,151 5,174 4,712 43,535
Large Family Households (with 5
or more people) 1,545 1,159 1,056 940 5,534
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 3,271 3,231 2,805 2,931 14,296
Household contains at least one
person age 75 or older 2,536 2,195 1,731 1,167 4,307
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 2,761 1,888 2,344 1,935 9,416
Table 9 - Total Households Table
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
Housing Needs Summary Tables: Consortium Region
1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen
facilities 535 204 220 55 1,014 33 19 50 33 135
Severely
Overcrowded
- With >1.51
people per
room (and
complete
kitchen and
plumbing) 95 75 80 40 290 0 14 39 10 63
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
28
Renter Owner
0-30% >30->50->80-Total 0-30% >30->50->80-Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI
Overcrowded
- With 1.01-
1.5 people
per room
(and none of
the above
problems) 564 385 250 124 1,323 193 134 63 74 464
Severe cost
burden (and
none of the
above 11,38 15,06
problems) 0 2,754 834 95 3 3,723 1,977 1,103 492 7,295
Housing cost
burden (and
none of the
above
problems) 1,450 4,338 3,337 848 9,973 993 2,132 2,341 2,536 8,002
Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above
problems) 1,015 0 0 0 1,015 372 0 0 0 372
Table 10 – Housing Problems Table
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen
or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or
more of
four
housing
problems 12,580 3,419 1,379 319 17,697 3,949 2,136 1,253 615 7,953
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
29
Renter Owner
0-30% >30->50->80-Total 0-30% >30->50->80-Total
AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI
Having
none of
four
housing
problems 2,915 5,933 6,369 4,248 19,465 2,209 5,401 6,693 8,398 22,701
Household
has
negative
income,
but none
of the
other
housing
problems 1,015 0 0 0 1,015 372 0 0 0 372
Table 11 – Housing Problems 2
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
3. Cost Burdened
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small
Related 2,843 2,368 1,452 6,663 1,061 1,429 1,255 3,745
Large
Related 944 354 130 1,428 252 355 346 953
Older adults 2,029 1,130 556 3,715 2,133 1,555 1,061 4,749
Other 8,060 3,573 2,269 13,902 1,371 863 838 3,072
Total need
by income
13,876 7,425 4,407 25,708 4,817 4,202 3,500 12,519
Table 12 – Cost Burden > 30%
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
30
4. Severely Cost Burdened
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small
Related 2,413 868 248 3,529 958 692 295 1,945
Large
Related 609 55 10 674 138 150 108 396
Older adults 1,579 515 213 2,307 1,521 668 400 2,589
Other 7,620 1,430 390 9,440 1,151 495 329 1,975
Total need
by income
12,221 2,868 861 15,950 3,768 2,005 1,132 6,905
Table 13 – Cost Burden > 50%
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
5. Crowding (More than one person per room)
Renter Owner
0->30->50->80-Total 0->30->50->80-Total
30% 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100%
AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single-family
households 528 389 294 133 1,344 193 143 63 54 453
Multiple,
unrelated family
households 94 35 20 0 149 0 4 39 0 43
Other, non-family
households 35 54 15 35 139 4 0 0 34 38
Total need by
income
657 478 329 168 1,632 197 147 102 88 534
Table 14 – Crowding Information -1/2
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
Renter Owner
0-30% AMI >30-50% >50-80% Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% >50-80% Total
AMI AMI AMI AMI
Households Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
with
children
present
Table 15 – Crowding Information – 2/2
Consolidated Plan BOULDER 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Describe the number and type of single-person households in need of housing assistance.
Estimating the needs of single-person households in Boulder is complicated by the large
student population drawn to the area to attend the University of Colorado-Boulder. Because
their income is limited, students can make up a significant proportion of households living in
poverty and facing housing challenges. This is usually a temporary situation for most students,
which changes when they graduate and find employment.
The presence of the large student population can make it challenging for non-student single-
person households to find rents affordable to them. The rental market caters to the student
population, many of whom live with roommates, are willing to live in smaller units and can pay
more in rent.
The rental gaps analysis conducted for the City of Boulder to support the eCon Plan shows a
mismatch of 7,600 units between the number of households with income between 0 and 50
percent AMI and affordable rental units. Removing students from that gap brings it down to
3,800 units. Students occupy a significant portion of the rental stock in Boulder.
Apartment vacancy rates in the Consortium area are very low, less than 4 percent (data as of
2Q19). The median rent amount for an efficiency unit is $1,450/month; the median rent
amount for a 1-bedroom unit is $1,510/month. A single-person household with income equal to
30 percent AMI would need rental subsidies ranging between $800 and $900/month to avoid
being cost burdened.
The survey conducted for the Consolidated Plan collected responses from 334 single-person
households. These households were mostly older (median age of 58), many were retired (30%),
most made less than $35,000 (60%), many reported disabilities (35%), and the vast majority
were Non-Hispanic White (85%). The most common housing challenges reported by these
households included:
• Concern about rent increases (30%);
• Difficulty keeping up with rent or mortgage payments (22%); and
• Need accessibility improvements in home/apartment (22% of those with disabilities).
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who have disabilities
or are survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
In the Consortium counties, 8 percent of the population has some type of disability. Overall, 6
percent of residents in Boulder have some type of disability. In Boulder County, 8 percent of
residents have a disability. People with disabilities represent 9 percent of the population in
both Broomfield and Longmont.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
32
People with disabilities are often overrepresented among people living in poverty. According to
2018 ACS data, in Boulder, they make up 9 percent of the working age (18 to 64) population
who live in poverty, while comprising only 6 percent of the working age population overall.
This is more pronounced in the other Consortium communities where the differences are
doubled. In Boulder County, people with disabilities make up 13 percent of the working age
population who live in poverty, while making up 6 percent of the working age population
overall. In Broomfield, people with disabilities make up 11 percent of the working age
population who live in poverty, compared to 5 percent of the working age population overall.
And in Longmont, they make up 22 percent of the working age population who live in poverty,
while only comprising 7 percent of the working age population overall.
According to the resident survey completed for this Plan, 29 percent of people with disabilities
worry about their rent increasing beyond what they can afford and 26 percent struggle to pay
their rent or mortgage each month. These are higher rates than for residents in the region
overall (22% and 17%, respectively).
One in four households with a member who has a disability said their home/apartment needs
some type of modification to meet their household’s accessibility needs. Modifications
residents said they needed included grab bars in bathroom (37%), ramps (27%), wider
doorways (24%), and accessible parking (24%). Many residents would prefer to live in or require
a home without stairs.
Through the open-ended comments, households with a member with a disability indicated
their most pressing concerns are access to mental and medical care, better transportation
options, help with home repairs, and more housing affordable to them.
Thirty-seven percent of people with disabilities have some type of supportive service need,
compared to just 7 percent of all residents. The most common needs for people with disabilities
were help with housekeeping, yard work/shoveling and transportation to doctor’s
appointments/grocery store/other places.
People with disabilities place high value on housing that is located near their place of
employment, near transit and is affordable to them. This type of housing can be hard to find in
the region, particularly in Boulder, according to survey respondents.
The needs of victims of intimate partner/domestic violence were also gathered through
stakeholder interviews. These residents are extremely challenged to find housing that is quickly
available given the region’s very tight rental market. Additional transitional housing to serve
this population is needed.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
33
What are the most common housing problems?
According to the CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data above and the
Consortium Housing Market Analysis, the area’s most common housing problems occur for
renters with income of less than 30 percent AMI. These renters have a very hard time finding
affordable rentals beyond those provided or subsidized by local housing authorities. Many of
these renters have special needs and need permanent supportive housing, which is severely
lacking in the region.
The housing problem this population faces most frequently is a cost burden. Nine percent
experience a cost burden, and almost 70 percent (69%) experience a severe cost burden.
Owners with income of less than 30 percent AMI also face this problem most frequently.
Fifteen percent experience a cost burden, and almost 60 percent (57%) experience a severe
cost burden. For owners, cost burden is the most common housing problem, reflective of the
area’s very high home prices.
Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems?
Yes. Three-quarters (76%) of renter households with one or more severe housing problems
have income of less than 30 percent AMI. Severe housing problems for owner households are
also concentrated; 60 percent of owners with one or more severe housing problems have
income of less than 30 percent AMI.
Severe housing problems for owner households expand across a wider income bracket.
Among residents from selected protected classes represented in the resident survey, Hispanic
households and households with a member who has a disability are the most likely to
experience a housing challenge. Families with children and large families also experience some
housing challenges at higher rates than the region. Specifically,
•Rents that have increased in the past five years (42% of respondents) and wanting to live
with fewer people (31% of respondents) were stated as the most significant housing
challenges for Hispanic households;
•Almost 30 percent of households with a member who has a disability worry about rent
increases or struggle to pay rent; 16 percent need help with care taking but can’t afford it;
and
•Large families, families with children, and Hispanic residents are more than two and a half
times more likely than the average resident to state their home is not big enough for their
household size.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
34
Describe the characteristics and needs of low-income individuals and families with children
(especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of
either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the
needs of families and individuals formerly experiencing homelessness who are receiving rapid
re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance
The resident survey captured 125 residents who are “precariously housed.” For survey
purposes, this is defined as people who are currently homeless, those staying with friends or
family but not on the lease (“couch-surfing”), and people living in transitional or temporary
housing.
These residents have far more acute needs than other types of residents represented by the
survey:
•Half of them noted they can’t afford rental application fees or security deposits.
•Thirteen percent indicated they can’t find a place due to their criminal record.
•More than one-third feel they have been discriminated against when seeking housing.
•Reporting very low levels of financial stability, 40 percent feel they will never get out of
debt.
•About three-fourths say they cut back on food to be able to afford their housing.
•Only half have a vehicle; they are much more likely than other groups to rely on public
transportation.
As part of the community engagement process for this Plan, a resident focus group was
conducted at the Sister Carmen Community Center serving east Boulder County residents. All
attendees were Spanish-speaking females with young children. Participants who lived in
publicly-assisted housing voiced concerns over not being able to access a housing voucher
subsidy due to their immigration status as a non U.S. Citizen; they are worried about not being
able to find housing or being evicted if landlords enforce lawful permanent residency
requirements on adults regardless of the citizenship status of their children.
If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a
description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to
generate the estimates:
The Consortium uses the HEARTH Act definition of at-risk of homelessness (categories 2 and 3):
anyone who is facing eviction or homelessness within 14 days due to economic issues and has
no resources available.
At-risk of homelessness can also be defined as an individual or family who reported staying in
the following locations on the night of the Point-in-Time Count (PIT), a survey which provides a
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
35
snapshot of data regarding people experiencing homelessness on the final Monday night of
each January:
• Temporarily with family or friends
• In a motel/hotel paid for by self
• In jail, prison or juvenile detention
• In a hospital, psychiatric hospital, substance abuse treatment program or halfway house
• Facing eviction from permanent supportive housing
• Facing eviction from an apartment or house including Section 8
• Staying “somewhere else” and said they are experiencing homelessness
• Staying “somewhere else” and facing eviction
Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an
increased risk of homelessness
The primary housing characteristic in the Consortium area affecting instability and increased
risk of homelessness is the inability to find and remain in an affordable rental unit. As discussed
above, residents living in unstable housing conditions are more likely to say they have faced
housing discrimination, have trouble servicing other household debt, and cannot afford a rental
security deposit. As a result, they live in temporary housing conditions—“couch surfing” or
living in crowded conditions with friends or family.
About half do not have a car and may have trouble keeping a job if public transportation does
not align with their required work schedules.
The households that are most vulnerable to housing instability include those with mental health
challenges, special needs or disability conditions, income instability due to underemployment
or lack of livable wage, poor social networks, substance abuse, single-parenthood with multiple
children, and/or former foster care history. Inter-generational poverty is also a typical client
characteristic for many households in higher-risk housing programs.
Individuals face the same barriers as families with respect to affordability and availability of
rental units. However, homelessness tends to present differently with individuals instead of
families. As identified in Boulder County’s 2019 PIT, a significant portion of the single adults
were considered chronically homelessness with significant barriers to housing stability such as
mental health and substance use issues. As such, the lack of sufficient housing with supportive
services impacts the housing stability of individuals.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
36
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems -91.405, 91.205
(b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in
comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction
A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at an
income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (defined as 10 percentage points or
more) than the income level as a whole. For example, assume that 60 percent of all households
with low income within a jurisdiction have a housing problem, and 70 percent of Hispanic
households with low income have a housing problem. In this case, Hispanic households with
low income have a disproportionately greater need. Per the regulations at 91.205(b)(2),
91.305(b)(2), and 91.405, a grantee must provide an assessment for each disproportionately
greater need identified. Although the purpose of these tables is to analyze the relative level of
need for each race and ethnic category, the data also provide information for the jurisdiction as
a whole that can be useful in describing overall need.
Disproportionate housing needs in a population are defined as having one or more of the
following four housing problems in greater proportion than the jurisdiction as a whole or than
Whites: 1) Living in housing that lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2) Living in housing that lacks
complete plumbing facilities, 3) More than one person per room (overcrowded), and 4) Cost
burdened greater than 30 percent AMI.
0%-30% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 18,974 2,682 1,387
White 14,134 1,853 817
Black / African American 300 60 4
Asian 845 137 115
American Indian, Alaska Native 19 8 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 3,239 599 335
Table 16 -Disproportionally Greater Need 0 -30% AMI
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
37
30%-50% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 12,027 4,862 0
White 9,182 3,906 0
Black / African American 79 0 0
Asian 505 165 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 35 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,789 690 0
Table 17 -Disproportionally Greater Need 30 -50% AMI
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
50%-80% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 8,309 7,375 0
White 6,733 6,129 0
Black / African American 65 35 0
Asian 289 244 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 110 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 855 899 0
Table 18 -Disproportionally Greater Need 50 -80% AMI
Data 2011-2015 CHAS
Source:
80%-100% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,324 9,253 0
White 3,714 7,643 0
Black / African American 29 160 0
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
38
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Asian 144 343 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 425 975 0
Table 19 -Disproportionally Greater Need 80 -100% AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Discussion
The above disproportionate needs tables were generated by HUD for the eCon Plan from a
proprietary data set and the analysis below is based on that data set.
The greatest disproportionate needs exist for households with income between 80 to 100
percent AMI. Nearly 100 percent of American Indians/Alaska Native households in this income
bracket have housing problems, 67 percent greater than White households and 68 percent
higher than the jurisdiction as a whole, although they represent a very small proportion of the
total population. Disproportionate needs are also present for African American households, as
75 percent of those with income between 80 to 100 percent AMI have housing problems, 13
percent greater than White households and 12 percent higher than the jurisdiction as a whole.
For households with income between 30 to 50 percent AMI, disproportionate needs are also
present for American Indian and African American households. Nearly 100 percent of these
households have housing problems, 30 percent greater than White households and 29 percent
higher than the jurisdiction as a whole.
The vast majority of households with income of less than 30 percent AMI with one or more
housing problems are White, with 88 percent experiencing problems. There are no ethnic
groups with disproportionate housing problems in the 0 to 30 percent AMI category.
African Americans have the lowest ownership rates across jurisdictions. According to 2018 ACS
5-year estimates, the homeownership rate for African American households in Boulder is 15
percent compared to 30 percent for Hispanics, 40 percent for Asians, and 50 percent for Non-
Hispanic Whites. In Boulder County, the homeownership rate for these households is 30
percent compared to 40 percent for Hispanics, 55 percent for Asians, and 65 percent for Non-
Hispanic Whites. In Broomfield, the homeownership rate for these households is higher at 50
percent but still below the 52 percent for Hispanics, 70 percent for Asians, and 68 percent for
Non-Hispanic Whites. In Longmont, the homeownership rate for these households is 25 percent
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
39
compared to 40 percent for Hispanics, 53 percent for Asians, and 68 percent for Non-Hispanic
Whites.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
40
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems -91.405,
91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in
comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction
This section discusses severe housing needs as defined by HUD, using HUD-prepared housing
needs data. The tables show the number of Consortium households that have severe housing
needs by income and race and ethnicity. Needs are defined as one or more of the following
housing problems: 1. Housing lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Housing lacks complete
plumbing facilities, 3. Household has more than 1.5 people per room, 4. Household cost burden
exceeds 50 percent.
It is important to note that, in a community like Boulder County, some housing units meant for
recreational occupancy (e.g., cabins) are misrepresented as being in very substandard
condition.
The resident survey allowed condition issues to be analyzed by protected class, and found that
households with extremely low income and Hispanic households are most likely to report
condition issues.
•Overall, 18 percent of respondents in the Consortium rated the condition of their home as fair
or poor.
•Precariously housed residents were the most likely to be unsatisfied with the condition of their
home (41 percent).
•Renters and mobile home residents were three times as likely to rate the condition of their
home as fair or poor compared to homeowners.
•Around 30 percent of resident households who are Hispanic, or have income below $25,000,
rated the condition of their home as fair or poor, compared to 16 percent of Non-Hispanic
White households and 18 percent of households with income between $50,000 to $100,000.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
41
0%-30% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 16,529 5,124 1,387
White 12,509 3,478 817
Black / African American 280 80 4
Asian 770 212 115
American Indian, Alaska Native 19 8 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 2,555 1,283 335
Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 0 -30% AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:
1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5
people per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
30%-50% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 5,555 11,334 0
White 4,380 8,729 0
Black / African American 30 49 0
Asian 219 450 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 10 25 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 699 1,779 0
Table 21 – Severe Housing Problems 30 -50% AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:
1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5
people per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
42
50%-80% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,632 13,062 0
White 2,022 10,841 0
Black / African American 45 55 0
Asian 138 404 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 19 90 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 305 1,459 0
Table 22 – Severe Housing Problems 50 -80% AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:
1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5
people per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
80%-100% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but
none of the
other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 934 12,646 0
White 719 10,631 0
Black / African American 0 190 0
Asian 94 398 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 20 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 120 1,280 0
Table 23 – Severe Housing Problems 80 -100% AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:
1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5
people per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
43
Discussion
Consortium households facing severe housing problems show disproportionate need among
some racial/ethnic groups in the two highest income brackets.
For households with income between 50 to 80 percent AMI, the disproportionate need is for
African American households who experience a severe housing need at a rate of 45 percent,
which is 29 percent higher than the rate for White households and 28 percent higher than the
jurisdiction as a whole. Asian households fall just under the disproportionate need definition
(9%).
In the 80 to 100 percent AMI category, Asians have a 13 percent disproportionate need relative
to White households and 12 percent disproportionate need to the jurisdiction as a whole.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
44
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens -91.405, 91.205
(b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in
comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction
Cost burden is experienced when a household pays more than 30 percent of their gross
household income toward housing costs, including utilities, insurance and property taxes (for
homeowners). Severe cost burden occurs when a household pays 50 percent or more of gross
household income in housing costs.
Housing Cost Burden
Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative
income (not
computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 100,334 23,656 24,304 1,378
White 86,288 18,737 19,432 817
Black / African American 625 197 355 4
Asian 4,074 905 1,095 115
American Indian, Alaska
Native 119 155 33 0
Pacific Islander 25 0 0 0
Hispanic 7,887 3,174 2,710 335
Table 24 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Discussion
There are disproportionate housing cost burdens for African Americans and American Indian
households. American Indian households with income between 30 to 50 percent AMI
experience severe cost burden at a rate 35 percent higher than White households. African
American households with income over 50 percent AMI experience severe cost burden at a rate
14 percent higher than White households.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
45
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion -91.205 (b)(2)
Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately
greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole?
The greatest disproportionate need exists for households with income between 80 to 100
percent AMI. Nearly 100 percent of American Indians/Alaska Native households in this income
bracket have housing problems, 67 percent greater than White households and 68 percent
higher than the jurisdiction as a whole, although they represent a very small proportion of the
total population. Disproportionate needs are also present for African American households, 75
percent of those with income between 80 to 100 percent AMI have housing problems, 13
percent greater than White households and 12 percent higher than the jurisdiction as a whole.
For households with income between 30 to 50 percent AMI, disproportionate needs are also
present for American Indian and African American households. Nearly 100 percent of
households have housing problems, 30 percent greater than White households and 29 percent
higher than the jurisdiction as a whole.
The vast majority of residents with income of less than 30 percent AMI with one or more
housing problems are White households, with 88 percent of these residents experiencing
problems. There are no ethnic groups with disproportionate housing problems in the 0 to 30
percent AMI category.
African Americans have the lowest ownership rates across jurisdictions. According to 2018 ACS
5-year estimates, the homeownership rate for African American households in Boulder is 15
percent compared to 30 percent for Hispanics, 40 percent for Asians, and 50 percent for Non-
Hispanic Whites. In Boulder County, the homeownership rate for these households is 30
percent compared to 40 percent for Hispanics, 55 percent for Asians, and 65 percent for Non-
Hispanic Whites. In Broomfield County, the homeownership rate for these households is higher
at 50 percent but still below the 52 percent for Hispanics, 70 percent for Asians, and 68 percent
for Non-Hispanic Whites. In Longmont, the homeownership rate for these households is 25
percent compared to 40 percent for Hispanics, 53 percent for Asians, and 68 percent for Non-
Hispanic Whites.
Boulder households facing severe housing problems show disproportionate need among some
racial/ethnic groups in the two highest income brackets, households with income between 50-
80 percent AMI and 80-100 percent AMI.
For households with income between 50 to 80 percent AMI, the disproportionate need is for
African American households who experience a severe housing need at a rate of 45 percent,
which is 29 percent higher than the rate for White households and 28 percent higher than the
jurisdiction as a whole. Asian households fall just under the disproportionate need definition
(9%).
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
46
In the 80 to 100 percent AMI category, Asians have a 13 percent disproportionate need relative
to White households and 12 percent disproportionate need to the jurisdiction as a whole.
There are disproportionate housing cost burdens for African Americans and American Indian
households. American Indian households with income between 30 to 50 percent AMI
experience severe cost burden at a rate 35 percent higher than White households. African
American households with income between over 50 percent AMI experience severe cost
burden at a rate 14 percent higher than White households.
If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs?
The resident survey conducted to support this Plan allowed identification of housing challenges
by income level, special needs, and race and ethnicity.
Among residents from selected protected classes, Hispanic households and households with a
member who has a disability are the most likely to experience a housing challenge. Families
with children and large families also experience some housing challenges at higher rates than
the region.
•Rent increases (for 42% of respondents) and wanting to live with fewer people (for 31%
of respondents) are the biggest housing challenges for Hispanic households;
•Almost 30 percent of households with a member who has a disability worry about rent
increases or struggle to pay rent; 16 percent need home health care but can’t afford it;
and
•Large families, families with children, and Hispanic residents are over two and a half
times more likely than the average resident to state their home is not big enough for
their household’s size.
Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your
community?
City of Boulder—Race and Ethinicity Distribution and LEP Distribution
Boulder has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated,
by HUD definition. The following figures show clusters in the HUD Affirmative Fair Housing Data
and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) dot density maps by race/ethnicity and national origin. As indicated
by the maps, there are no strong clusters of racial minorities in Boulder; ethnic minorities
present some clusters in the southwest part of the city shown by the limited English proficiency
density map. Hispanic minority households are mostly spread throughout the city.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
47
,.
-1
,\
~ AFF HT0004 City of Boulder, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NG ..
.....
2,n;
]Jggmj
N Jurisdiction ~-D
Demographics 2010
1 Dot= 30 ...
1 White, Non-Hispanic
'i{;. Black, Non-Hispanic
;$. Native American, Non -
~ Hispanic
~ A~ian/Pacific Islander, Non-
~ Hispanic
~Hispanic
... , "-~ Othe r, Non-Hispanic ~ ...
Multi-racial . Non-Hispanic
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
]Jggmj
Jurisdiction
D
Limited English Proficiency
(Jurisdiction] (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot = 5 People
Spanish
~Chinese
~ Other lndic Language
~f Korean
!'Jiai' ~'t Russian
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Boulder County—Race and Ethinicity Distribution and LEP Distribution
Boulder County has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated, by the HUD definition. The following figures show clusters in the HUD AFFH-T dot
density maps by race/ethnicity and national origin. As indicated by the maps, there are no
strong clusters of racial minorities in Boulder County, yet ethnic minorities present some
clusters in the southwest part of Boulder as shown by the limited English proficiency density
map. Hispanic minority households within the County are clustered in the urban areas in
Boulder, and mostly in Longmont.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
48
. ,,..-•'"""'"'\
l!,...-,· . • . \: . ~ ~ . ~. >-~ b ·d j •l .• ~, ~ -,..,_/ r) .. ( 7 ]. >;'',,{ 1
)_ .., .\· . • 1~'--
" ·: . -.. ,
~ )·: J ,•.
• I
r • • •• • ' •• . . . ( .. .
.•...,_' .... .
'-'-(
• • I • . . .
.. ..
I .•
... ...
.J
~ AFFH:0004 I Esri)IER:, Garmin, NGA, USGS , NPS
... ...
\
• • I
l ,. 11 Legend
3 • ~ •• -·:rr.·· Region . .
D
Li .
• t--,---. , ,
.. ,
j
I..
Demographics 2010
1 Dot;6Q
White, Non-Hispanic
~ Black, Non -Hispanic
1~~--Native American, Non
iol!..s Hispanic
~~ Asian/Pacific Islander, Non
:..~ Hispanic
,,;re
~Hispanic
~ Other, Non-Hispanic
Multi-racial. Non-Hispanic
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
Region
D
Limited English Proficiency
(Jurisdiction) (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot ; 15 People
•· • Spanish
~Chinese
~ Other lndic Language
~Korean
~ Russian
• TRACT
R/ECAP
D
~ .. . ;_ ... ~ ... , .
"=cln I AFFHT0004 [ Esn, HERE, Garmin , NGA, USGS , NPS • •• I,_':\_', • _
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Longmont—Race and Ethinicity Distribution and LEP Distribution
As shown in the following figures, Longmont has a racially/ethnically diverse population that is
fairly well dispersed across neighborhoods. There is, however, some concentration of foreign-
born residents and limited English proficient residents in north-central Longmont.
(Concentration in this case is defined simply as a strong cluster in the HUD AFFH-T dot density
maps.)
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
49
.. -1/. ,: .-•••
~ AFFHT0004J Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA,
0
US~S. NPS \.::it::lnl /.' . -
.. 2mi
N ·--t
• Date created~]14/W18
2mi
..
~
Jurisdiction
t::i
Demographics 201 O
1 Dot =30 ..
~ VVh ite, Non-Hispanic
~ Black. Non-Hispanic
~ Native American. Non
",N Hispanic
;_~ Asian/Pacific Isl ander. Non
~ Hispanic
~· Hispanic
~~ Other. Non-Hispanic
Mul ti-racia l, Non-Hispanic
TRACT -,.
R/ECAP
D
~
Jurisdiction
t::i
Limited English Proficiency
[Jurisdiction] (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot = 5 People
: Spanish
~Chinese
~Korean
l~German
~ Russian
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
Da te created, /4/201 B
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Broomfield has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated. According to HUD AFFH-T maps, there is not a substantial difference in
racial/ethnic distribution of census tracts with high housing problems, but there is a slightly
higher representation of immigrants from Mexico.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
50
-BCHA Beneficiaries % White Race % American % Black % Asian Indian % Pacific Islander Ethnicity % MultiRacial % Hispanic % Non Hispanic Residents living in BCHA properties 92% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3% 28% 72% Boulder County overall 90% 1% 5% 0% 0% 2% 13% 87% 30% AMI Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) 40% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI Other Household Characteristics % Disability % Single Parent Household Residents living in BCHA properties 63% 17% 12% 6% 21% 27% Boulder County overall 16% N/A 9% N/A 8% N/A NA-35 Public Housing -91.405, 91.205 (b) Introduction This section contains tables showing beneficiaries of HUD-funded public housing authority assistance relative to eligible households in the Consortium overall. Demographics of Boulder County Housing Authority Beneficiaries, 2018 Note: Adjusted for beneficiaries for whom race or ethnicity is unknown. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: Boulder County Housing Authority, HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (https://egis.hud.gov/affht/), 2016 1-year American Community Survey, and BBC Research & Consulting. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
-Race Ethnicity % American % Pacific BHP Beneficiaries % White % Black % Asian Indian Islander % MultiRacial % Hispanic % Non Hispanic All BHP residents 90% 4% 0% 0% 0% 5% 35% 64% Residents without project based vouchers living in BHP properties (non-elderly) 88% 1% 2% 0% 0% 7% 43% 57% Residents with project based vouchers living in BHP properties (non-elderly) 89% 1% 2% 0% 0% 6% 64% 34% Boulder County overall 90% 1% 5% 0% 0% 2% 13% 87% Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Other Household Characteristics 30% AMI 40% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI % Disability % Single Parent Household All BHP residents 19% 9% 29% 42% 21% 18% Residents without project based vouchers living in BHP properties (non-elderly) 24% 12% 48% 16% 6% 10% Residents with project based vouchers living in BHP properties (non-elderly) 12% 10% 40% 37% 16% 46% Boulder County overall 16% N/A 9% N/A 8% 8% Demographics of Boulder Housing Partners (a.k.a. Housing Authority of the City of Boulder) Beneficiaries, 2018 Note: Adjusted for beneficiaries for whom race or ethnicity is unknown. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: Boulder Housing Partners, HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (https://egis.hud.gov/affht/), 2016 1-year American Community Survey, and BBC Research & Consulting. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
-Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Ethnicity Race % % Asian or Pacific % LHA Beneficiaries 30% AMI 40% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI % Hispanic Non Hispanic % White % Black Islander Disability Residents living in LHA properties 10% 35% 50% 5% 22% 78% N/A N/A N/A 10% Voucher holders 32% 57% 11% N/A 43% 57% 95% 2% 1% 28% Boulder County overall 16% N/A 9% N/A 13% 87% 90% 1% 5% 8% Demographics of Longmont Housing Authority Beneficiaries, 2018 Note: Adjusted for beneficiaries for whom race or ethnicity is unknown. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: Longmont Housing Authority, HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (https://egis.hud.gov/affht/), 2016 1-year American Community Survey, and BBC Research & Consulting. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants
on the waiting list for accessible units:
1) What are the number and type of families on the waiting lists for public housing and
section 8 tenant-based rental assistance?
2) Based on the information above, and any other information available to the
jurisdiction, what are the most immediate needs of residents of public housing and
Housing Choice voucher holders?
For the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Boulder Housing Partners uses a lottery system to fill
vouchers for their federally funded voucher programs. The goal is to process all the applications
from one lottery round before opening the lottery again. All the 2019 lottery applications were
processed by BHP prior to 2020, when the lottery was opened in February 2020. During that
lottery round, 1,800 applications were received and 150 applicants were randomly chosen.
Because this list is specifically for the voucher program, which is tenant based assistance, the
application does not ask if there are accessible unit needs. Once a voucher holder is issued a
voucher, they are responsible for finding a unit in the private market. At this time, BHP does not
have resources available to assist voucher holders in finding units to lease.
At the end of 2019, Boulder County exhausted its applicant pool for its Section 8 tenant-based
voucher allocation generated from the last lottery held in 2015. The next lottery is anticipated
to be held by end of summer 2020. Until a new list is formed, BCHA is unable to determine how
many applicants have a disability that will require them to find an appropriately-accessible unit.
As stated earlier, Boulder County has no public housing units.
The LHA uses a lottery system for its HCV Tenant Based Program. Like the other partners, the
goal is to lease up all applications prior to opening up another waitlist application process. Our
last application and lottery took place back in June 2018: 917 applications were received at that
time and 6 applicants were randomly selected and leased units. Because this list is specifically
for the voucher program, which is tenant based assistance, the application does not ask if there
are accessible unit needs. A resource list is provided should applicants have difficulties trying to
lease units, but the LHA does not have dedicated Housing Specialists to help search for a unit.
How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large
The resident survey conducted for this Plan provides a unique ability to compare the needs of
residents living in publicly assisted housing, voucher holders, and those without vouchers.
There were 190 respondents who indicated they live in publicly assisted or deed restricted
housing. Of those, 56 indicated they live with children under age 18. Sixty-six survey
participants indicated they have a Section 8 housing voucher.
Among housing voucher holders, nearly 80 percent indicated it is somewhat (33%) or very
difficult (45%) to find a landlord that accepts vouchers.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
54
The majority of respondents indicated that it is difficult because there are not enough
properties available, landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders, and because
tenants have a hard time finding out about landlords who accept vouchers.
The survey data suggest that finding a rental unit that accepts vouchers is a significant
challenge regardless of the need for accessibility features.
Discussion
Boulder County Housing Authority (BCHA), as representative for Boulder County government
under its Department of Housing & Human Services (BCDHHS), serves all county jurisdictions,
outside Boulder city limits through rental housing (only, at this time). The housing authorities of
Boulder and Longmont have jurisdiction over their cities, although all three areas allow cross-
jurisdictional residency through an Interjurisdictional Agreement.
Boulder County Housing Authority’s (BCHA) portfolio includes 908 homes (58 properties), and
close to 900 tenant-and unit-based Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). To address the County’s
rental gap identified in the Needs Assessment, BCHA focuses its efforts on constructing new
properties serving households with maximum income of 60 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI), and upgrading the structure and systems within its existing properties. Households that
are not seved by traditional or tax credit financing, those with income at or below 40 and 50
percent AMI, are served by HOME funding, from the Consortium and the State, CDBG awarded
by the State.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
55
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment -91.405, 91.205 (c)
Introduction:
This section provides an overview of the Consortium’s resources to address the needs of people
experiencing homelessness.
Homeless Needs Assessment
Population Estimate the # of
persons experiencing
homelessness on a given
night
Estimate the
#
experiencing
homelessnes
s each year
Estimate
the #
becoming
homeless
each year
Estimate the
# exiting
homelessnes
s each year
Estimate the
# of days
persons
experience
homelessness
Sheltered Unsheltered
Persons in
Households with
Adult(s) and
Child(ren) 184 0 0 0 0 0
Persons in
Households with
Only Children 1 0 0 0 0 0
Persons in
Households with
Only Adults 397 71 0 0 0 0
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals 100 19 0 0 0 0
Chronically
Homeless Families 11 0 0 0 0 0
Veterans 44 9 0 0 0 0
Unaccompanied
Child(ren) 1 0 0 0 0 0
Persons with HIV 6 0 0 0 0 0
Table 25 -Homeless Needs Assessment
Data Source
Comments: Please see introduction above. 2019 MDHI PIT.
If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting
homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness,"
describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless
individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and
unaccompanied youth):
Becoming Homeless, Length of Homelessness
Consolidated Plan BOULDER 56
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Boulder County’s 2019 PIT counted a total of 623 people experiencing homelessness, of that
number, 107 self-identified as newly homeless, and 129 identified as chronically homeless. In
Broomfield, there were a total of 30 people experiencing homelessness, including 8 who
identified as newly homeless, and 1 who identified as chronically homeless. National estimates
suggest PIT undercounts the homeless population by at least half.
Since the inception of the Homeless Solution for Boulder County (HSBC) collaborative in
October of 2017, the County has had access to a different methodology of collecting data on
individuals experiencing homelessness. Through the Coordinated Entry assessment, the County
knows that in 2019, of the 1774 individuals who were assessed for homelessness services:
• 638 had been homeless for more than 12 months
• 452 had been homeless for a month or less
• 1015 reported having a disabling condition
• 1345 reported coming from a homeless situation before doing the screening
• 345 reported coming from a transitional or permanent housing situation before doing
the screening
Exiting homelessness
Since the development of Housing Solutions for Boulder County in October of 2017 (and
through Jan. 2020), 817 individuals have exited homelessness (393 to housing options, 295
reunified with support networks, and 128 to other programs). The re-focus of the Boulder
Shelter for the Homeless to a housing-focused shelter, continued collaboration with data-driven
decision making, and significant investments in housing vouchers, units, and supportive services
are pointing to large increases in the number of vulnerable people moving to housing options.
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with
children and the families of veterans.
One estimate of this population would be a combination of the numbers of children in the
public school districts experiencing homelessness and receiving assistance from McKinney-
Vento-designated school staff multiplied by a factor to capture the families with children ages
0-5 who are not yet enrolled in school. The McKinney-Vento population in the Boulder Valley
School District (BVSD) for school year 2017-2018 was 451 children, and in the St. Vrain Valley
School District (SVVSD), 525 children. This would combine to equal nearly 1,000 homeless
children, an increase of 300 since 2014. Including families with children under age 5, an
estimated 1,400 children would represent approximately 700 families (average 2.0 children per
family) who are currently homeless or unstably housed (doubled up) in Boulder County.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
57
A best estimate of families “at risk of homelessness” would be to double the number of
documented families experiencing homelessness. This is based on the metrics of the Boulder
County Housing Stabilization Program (HSP), funded by local tax revenue, which administers
funding to provide short-term rental and deposit assistance to community members
experiencing homelessness or requiring temporary housing stability. The metrics indicated that
approximately half the clients need to be rehoused, with the other half needing eviction
prevention. This methodology suggests the number of families currently in need of housing
assistance would be approximately 1,400 households. Of these, based on population
demographics, approximately 30 percent of households may be not be lawful permanent
residents and therefore ineligible for assistance unless there was a safety concern.
Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.
Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by homelessness in Boulder
County. Below are percentages of people of color in the 2019 PIT, compared to their
percentage of the overall county population.
•Latino/Hispanic: 14 percent of county population, 26 percent of PIT
•African American: 1 percent of county population, 6 percent of PIT
•American Indian/Alaska Native: .5 percent of county population, 7 percent of PIT
•Mixed Races: 3 percent of county population, 14 percent of PIT
Information gathered from the 2019 Coordinated Entry data provided by Homeless Solutions of
Boulder County (HSBC), suggests that the majority of single persons experiencing homelessness
are White. These individuals comprised 64 percent of intakes in Boulder County overall. African
Americans comprised 11 percent of those seen through Coordinated Entry. By ethnicity,
persons of Hispanic descent were 13 percent of countywide intakes.
Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.
In the 2019 PIT, 53 people (8%) of those counted in Boulder County were unsheltered.
Unsheltered individuals may have multiple barriers including disabilities and mental health
issues preventing them from accessing available services. They are often in need of permanent
supportive housing. In Broomfield, 18 people (60%) were unsheltered. The night of the 2019
PIT was unseasonably cold, so the numbers may be significantly lower than when is traditionally
evidenced.
Of HSBC intakes during 2019, 76 percent were coming from a homeless situation. Of those, 46
percent were persons staying in a place “not meant for human habitation,” and 52 percent
were in a homeless shelter. An additional four percent came to intake services from an
institutional setting, and 19 percent from transitional or permanent housing.
Discussion:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
58
In Boulder County’s 2019 PIT, a total of 623 people were experiencing homelessness; of that,
107 were newly homeless, and 129 were chronically homeless. In Broomfield, a total of 30
people were experiencing homelessness; of that, 8 were newly homeless, and 1 was chronically
homeless. National estimates suggest PIT undercounts the homeless populations by at least
half.
The 2016 Longmont Homeless Services Assessment estimated that in the Fall 2016, the number
of adults who were chronically homeless in Longmont was at least 80 and as many as 100
people.
According to the 2019 PIT, the number of people without permanent homes throughout
Boulder County and Broomfield has increased from 622 in 2017 to 653 in 2019.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
59
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment -91.405, 91.205 (b,d)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the housing and supportive service needs of people with
special needs who are not identified as homeless in the Consortium area. Information on these
needs was gathered through stakeholder consultation.
Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:
Special populations with the most significant needs in the Consortium area include:
•Disability. There are around 31,000 residents with a disability living in the
Consortium area, making up 8 percent of the total population. According to
CHAS data provided by HUD, 43 percent of households that contain a member
who has a disability experience one or more housing problems. By that measure,
13,330 residents with a disability in Boulder have some type of housing need.
The resident survey conducted as part of this Plan found that the top housing
challenges for people with disabilities include securing a unit that meets their
accessibility needs and managing the cost of rental units.
•Households made up of older adults. In the Consortium 70,341 residents are 62
years or older, accounting for 18 percent of the Consortium population.
Consortium-wide, 22 percent of older adult households have some type of
housing need. The 2018 Boulder County Age Well Report, providing information
about needs of older adults, found a sharp decline in the proportion of those
who gave availability and affordability of housing a positive rating (27% in 2010
to 9% in 2018). Fewer older adults stated they can remain in their communities
as they age.
•Large families (with 5 or more people). There are around 10,400 large family
households in the Consortium. HUD CHAS data indicate that 23 percent of large
households Consortium-wide have some type of housing problem. Their most
common housing need is related to cost burden, although they are also more
susceptible to overcrowding. (CHAS data do not provide enough detail to
quantify the number of large family households that are overcrowded).
•Female-headed households with children. There are about 6,635 female-headed
households with children in the Consortium area. The poverty rate for these
households is 15 percent—much higher than the area-wide family poverty rate
of 4 percent. The estimated 1,000 female-headed households with children living
in poverty are the most likely to struggle with rising housing costs and may need
unique supports given the challenges they face.
•Limited English proficient households. About 2,350 households in the
Consortium area have limited English proficiency (LEP), meaning no one over the
age of 14 speaks English “very well.” Spanish is the most common language
spoken by these households in the Consortium, followed by other Indo-European
languages. These households may have trouble accessing resources and/or
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
60
housing-related documents in their native language. The 16 percent of
households with limited English proficiency living in poverty are the most likely
to experience acute housing needs.
•At risk of homelessness. Households spending 50 percent or more of their
income on housing are considered at risk of homelessness. These households
have limited capacity to adjust to rising home prices and are vulnerable to even
minor shifts in rents, property taxes, and/or incomes. The Consortium area has
23,530 households with income of less than 100 percent AMI (34% of all
households with low and moderate income) that are severely cost burdened and
therefore at risk of homelessness.
What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these
needs determined?
According to service providers consulted for this Plan, the most significant supportive service
needs of special populations include:
• Temporary shelter and transitional housing;
• Resources for families experiencing domestic violence, especially to address the severe
housing and child care shortage;
• Resources for and outreach to workers who do not have lawful presence and families of
mixed status families who are afraid to seek help;
• Affordable child care, particularly for swing shift workers; and
• Frequent, reliable transportation, especially for people with disabilities who need public
transit in close proximity to their homes.
Supportive service needs were also collected through resident outreach to inform this plan:
• Public transit is a challenge for one-quarter of people with disabilities—specifically, not
being able to safely access bus stops or stops are too far away. People with disabilities
also identified resources for job skill development as a moderate need.
• Female-headed households with children living in poverty are the most likely to struggle
with rising housing costs and may need unique supports given the challenges they face.
Some residents said that inadequate transportation prevented their children from
participating in after school activities while their parents were at work.
• Households with limited English proficiency may have trouble accessing resources
and/or housing-related documents in their native language.
• Residents of Hispanic descent identified resources to assist with health care access as
most needed.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
61
• Precariously housed residents identified health and dental care resources as most
needed.
• According to the 2018 Boulder County Age Well Report providing information about
needs of older adults, 18 percent report at least a minor problem with finding adequate
information or dealing with public programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. Maintaining adequate health care is also a top concern.
Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within
the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area:
N/A
Discussion:
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
62
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs -91.415, 91.215 (f)
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:
With limited financial resources available to support the capital improvement needs of public
facilities the City of Boulder’s annual community development funding allocation prioritizes the
capital needs, including facility acquisition and rehabilitation, of agencies that serve low-income
households in Boulder. While the majority of funds are distributed during the annual fund
round, the city partners with service providers throughout the year to address emergency
needs.
As for city-owned capital improvements, the City of Boulder is spending the majority, about 80
percent, of its 2020 capital funds on capital maintenance and enhancement of its existing
assets. Boulder’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) focuses on taking care of what the city
already owns with an emphasis on making improvements to its core service areas. Capital
enhancements involve upgrades to existing facilities that may include upgraded technologies,
materials, and equipment that can be more efficient, effective and less costly to operate over
time. The 2020 to 2025 CIP includes several large projects including: Software Replacement,
Deferred Facility Maintenance Projects, Pavement Management Program, BCH Hospital
Deconstruction, North Boulder Library Branch, South Boulder Creek Phase I, Ongoing repairs to
Barker Gravity Pipeline. The support of these projects using City resources allows the City to
prioritize its CDBG funds to cover the capital improvement costs needed by community serving
agencies to acquire or improve capital facilities.
Broomfield has many community facilities offering a range of services to citizens. The city’s new
Capital Improvements Plan, covering the 2020-2024 period, provides a five-year spending
outlook. The CIP is revised annually as resources and needs change. The 2020-2024 CIP
prioritizes a number of public facility projects including a new Service Center, improvements to
the Library and Auditorium (including a Children’s library extension), completion of the
Broomfield Community Center reconstruction project. Additional projects include
maintenance/repair of existing facilities, technological upgrades, HVAC upgrades, parking lot
upgrades, and roof replacement. Beyond the current CIP planning period, the City has also
identified the need for a new library branch building, a library expansion, court building
expansion, policy building expansion, and a new animal shelter. These projects are not likely to
be funded in the next five years.
Longmont has many community facilities offering a range of services to citizens. The city’s new
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), covering the 2020-2024 period, provides a five-year spending
outlook. The CIP is revised annually as resources and needs change. The 2020-2024 CIP
prioritizes the following spending on public buildings including increasing public access and
accessibility; broadband fiber construction and installation, electric utility improvements, parks
and recreation facilities construction and improvements, and significant transportation
improvements including better accessibility, more bike paths/lanes, and adding train quiet
zones.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
63
How were these needs determined?
The city-owned capital improvement needs are assessed annually and prioritized for the
expenditure of city funds and revenues. The capital improvement needs of Boulder service
providers, prioritized for CDBG investments, are identified through the annual fund round. The
availability of funds is announced through the Notice of Funding availability that is both
published and released to housing and service providers. In addition to the City of Boulder
Community Development Fund Round, staff coordinates closely with the Human Services Fund
Round which provides programming funds to local service providers. Capital improvement
needs identified through the Human Services Fund Round are referred to the city’s Community
Development Fund Round.
For Broomfield, priority needs were determined based on an analysis of the current functions
the facilities serve, the building conditions and age, and the forecasted demand for that service
based on population growth on other relevant criteria, including affordability and budgeting
with conservative revenue forecasts. Study sessions are held with City Council and public
hearings held prior to approving plans and annual budgets.
The City of Longmont conducts an in depth evaluation of the City’s public facilities capital
improvement needs every 5 years and has its public utilities on regular replacement or
maintenance schedules. The facilities and utilities to be updated or newly constructed each
year are included and detailed in the City Capital Improvements Plan which is updated and
adopted annually as part of the City’s budget approval.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:
The City of Boulder prioritizes capital improvements to meet capital needs, including facility
acquisition and rehabilitation, of agencies that serve low-income households in Boulder. In the
CIP, over $85 million is allocated for 2020, with a total projected amount of approximately $565
million from 2020 to 2025. The 2020 CIP is lower than anticipated at this time last year based
on timing of large utility projects that have been pushed to 2021 and 2022. The 2020 to 2025
CIP includes several large projects including: Software Replacement, Deferred Facility
Maintenance Projects, Pavement Management Program, BCH Hospital Deconstruction, North
Boulder Library Branch, South Boulder Creek Phase I, Ongoing repairs to Barker Gravity
Pipeline.
In Broomfield, in addition to the public facility needs discussed above, the 2020 CIP identifies a
number of public improvements related to trails, open space and parks in Broomfield. These
projects contribute to neighborhood well-being and improve community assets. Transportation
infrastructure, drainage and storm water, and utility projects are also a priority for public
improvements. Major transportation projects include the Dillon Road/W 144th Avenue traffic
improvement and utility funds are being directed to areas of residential development growth.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
64
In Longmont, public improvements with the most significant capital needs in the next five years
include: 1) Storm drainage and rehabilitation; 2) Water systems rehabilitation; 3) Improvements
to public parks and recreation centers; 4) Various transportation improvements, ranging from
street rehabilitation to transit station improvements and corridor enhancements; and 5)
Expansion of broadband service.
How were these needs determined?
The city-owned capital improvement needs are assessed annually and prioritized for the
expenditure of city funds and revenues. The capital improvement needs of Boulder service
providers, prioritized for CDBG investments, are continuously identified through the annual
funding round as well as ongoing coordination with local service providers serving households
who have low income.
In Broomfield, priority needs were determined based on an analysis of the current functions the
facilities serve, the building conditions and age, and the forecasted demand for that service
based on population growth on other relevant criteria, including affordability and budgeting
with conservative revenue forecasts. Study sessions are held with City Council and public
hearings held prior to approving plans and annual budgets.
For Longmont, needs were determined through the 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Program,
which details the City’s capital infrastructure needs for the five-year period. The city’s
departments and divisions update the Capital Assets Maintenance Plan (CAMP) and any
strategic plans, identify the projects to be considered in the CIP, complete the project forms
describing the projects and detailing the costs, coordinate with each other on projects that
involve more than one department or division, and coordinate with other agencies, if
applicable. The Budget Office coordinates the annual CIP process. Duties include assisting City
staff in completing CIP forms; preparing the initial rankings for all projects; updating fund
statements for each funding source; assembling, preparing and distributing all documents and
materials; monitoring project expenses; and preparing amendments and additional
appropriation ordinances. The City provides information to agencies and groups to get their
input on proposed projects and, to the extent possible, coordinate projects with agencies that
build or upgrade their own capital projects. The City Council reviews, holds public hearings,
discusses, makes any changes to and adopts the CIP as part of the Operating Budget process
every fall.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:
In Boulder, there is special interest in transportation-related essential services. The City of
Boulder Human Services Strategy includes the following six goals:
A GOOD START: A good start early in a child’s life provides a solid foundation for positive, life-
long outcomes and success.
AGING WELL: Older residents can remain and thrive in the community as they age.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
65
ECONOMIC MOBILITY & RESILIENCE: Residents have equitable opportunities to improve their
economic condition and create intergenerational stability
HEALTH & WELLBEING: Residents can access resources to optimize their physical, mental and
social well-being.
HOMELESSNESS: Residents have opportunities to achieve and maintain a safe, stable home in
the community.
INCLUSIVE & WELCOMING COMMUNITY: Community members and visitors feel safe,
welcomed, and included in social, civic, and economic life.
Given the scope of eligible public service activities, the city prioritizes CDBG-funded services
that might focus on employment services, education programs, services to older adults and
homeless persons. In the wake of COVID, and the waiving of the public service cap for 2019 and
CDBG-CV, Boulder is likely to program a larger amount of the CDBG funds to meet COVID-
related recovery needs.
The 2016 Update to Broomfield’s Comprehensive Plan outlines existing service provision and
goals for human services over the next five years. The highest priorities are related in large part
to the projected population growth in the city as well as aging of the current population, which
increases needs for senior services. Overall, the city anticipates a need for expansion of public
services in order to accommodate growth and demographic shifts in the community.
The following are the current six priorities used by Longmont for the Human Service Funding
Process. These priorities are being reviewed and will be updated in conjunction with an update
of the Human Services Needs Assessment.
Housing Stability -Supporting a continuum of affordable housing options (mostly emergency
and transitional housing in this area).
Food & Nutrition-Helping households obtain adequate quantity and quality of foods.
Health & Well-being -Ensuring access to affordable medical, dental and mental health care.
Self-sufficiency and Resilience- Helping households attain steady employment and move
toward self-sufficiency; helping households remain as self-reliant as possible.
Education & Skill Building - offering education and skills training that are the building blocks of
self-sufficiency (lifelong).
Safety and Justice -ensuring safe and supportive environments for vulnerable children and
adults/
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
66
How were these needs determined?
Needs are identified through a competitive process based on alignment with City of Boulder
priorities and goals. Applications are submitted using an online grant management system,
which is shared with the City of Longmont, Boulder County and Foothills United Way. Through
the joint application system, agencies or organizations may apply to more than one funder
and/or more than one impact area per funder, but individual programs can only apply for ONE
impact area per funder. Although the cities of Boulder and Longmont, Boulder County and
Foothills United Way are collaborating for the joint application process, each funder will be
awarding its own funds through its own grant review process, and some funder requirements
may be different as described in the application.
The plan for providing public services to Broomfield residents is determined within the city's
Comprehensive Plan, which is based on data collected from service providers in the area and
surveys of residents. The resident survey conducted for this Plan also helped determine
Broomfield’s service needs.
The City of Longmont works with human services agencies to address human and social
problems within the community. The City’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board makes
a funding recommendation to City Council for their approval each fall. In 2013 and again in
2016, the City conducted extensive outreach to ask the community how the Human Service
Agency Funding Process should be prioritized to meet the local needs. The six priorities shown
above were the result of the significant outreach, input and feedback process. The City is
currently conducting outreach and analysis to update the Community Needs Assessment, which
will provide additional direction related to funding priorities. That work is expected to be
complete in 2020.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
67
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:
This section continues the discussion of housing needs in the above (NA) section with a more
specific focus on housing costs and condition.
Rental vacancies and home sales in Boulder County and Broomfield in 2019 show a very tight
housing market. The Consortium is seeing rent vacancies well below the industry accepted
stabilized rate of 5 percent. Compared to the past Plan, conducted for 2015-2019, housing
supply has been relatively stable for the Consortium’s lowest income households due to
jurisdictional investments in housing affordability and stability.
The primary challenge is in the lack of affordable housing once provided by the private market:
the private market is providing fewer affordable rentals, however, for renters with income
between $25,000 to $35,000, which has increased the range of households with affordable
rental needs.
Median home values have increased between 50 and 60 percent in the past five years. Housing
for purchase remains very difficult to find for households with low and moderate income.
Analysis conducted on the inventory of homes listed or sold between mid-2018 and mid-2019
indicates that only 4 percent of all homes listed or sold in Boulder were priced at less than
$375,000; this is also true of Boulder County (4%) and Broomfield (4%). For Longmont, 7.6
percent were listed or priced at less than $375,000.
More specific information on the Consortium’s housing market and needs can be found in the
Housing Need and Market Analysis supplement to this Plan.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
68
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 95,574 61.20%
1-unit, attached structure 10,543 6.75%
2-4 units 7,679 4.92%
5-19 units 20,826 13.34%
20 or more units 17,810 11.40%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 3,730 2.39% Total 156,162 100.00%
Table 26 – Residential Properties by Unit Number
MA-10 Housing Market Analysis: Number of Housing Units -91.410,
91.210(a)&(b)(2)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the housing supply throughout Boulder County and
Broomfield.
All residential properties by number of units
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No bedroom 114 0.12% 2,921 4.98%
1 bedroom 1,830 1.88% 13,811 23.54%
2 bedrooms 14,384 14.75% 21,603 36.83%
3 or more bedrooms 81,172 83.25% 20,327 34.65%
Total 97,500 100.00% 58,662 100.00%
Table 27 – Unit Size by Tenure
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with
federal, state, and local programs.
Consortium members individually maintain databases of affordable units assisted with federal,
state, and local programs. Those units are summarized in the tables below by target AMI,
restriction type and unit type.
Boulder
Number of units by restriction type and unit type for all target AMI levels
Unit type
Likely to Remain
Affordable
Permanently
Affordable Total
Bed 30 150 180
Condominium 15 605 620
Co-Op 53 53
Duplex 55 55
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
69
Unit Type
Likely to Remain
Affordable
Permanently
Affordable Total
Bed 24 125 149
Co-Op 18 18
Duplex 6 6
Mobile Home 96 96
Multifamily 45 111 156
Townhouse 5 5
Total 69 361 430
Unit Type
Likely to Remain
Affordable
Permanently
Affordable Total
Bed 18 18
Condominium 154 154
Co-Op 33 33
Duplex 6 6
Mobile Home 24 24
Multifamily 533 1207 1740
Single-family 14 57 71
Townhouse 22 22
Total 547 1521 2068
Four-plex 32 32
Mobile Home 120 120
Multifamily 919 1409 2328
Single-family 14 146 160
Townhouse 83 83
Total 978 2653 3631
Zero to 40% AMI
40 to 60% AMI
60 to 80% AMI
Unit Type
Likely to Remain
Affordable
Permanently
Affordable Total
Bed 6 7 13
Condominium 15 401 416
Co-Op 2 2
Duplex 27 27
Four-plex 12 12
Multifamily 341 65 406
Single Family 59 59
Townhouse 48 48
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
70
Unit Type
Permanently
Affordable
Condominium 7
Duplex 5
Total 12
Row Labels
Permanently
Affordable
Condominium 12
Duplex 11
Four-plex 20
Multifamily 20
Single Family 30
Townhouse 8
Grand Total 101
Total 362 621 983
80 to 100% AMI
Over 100% AMI
Longmont
Older Adults Families Individuals Total Units Shelter Beds
< 30% AMI 88 196 10 294 95
31% - 50%
AMI
298 784 99 1181
51% - 60%
AMI
98 639 737
> 61% AMI 54 54
Totals 484 1673 109 2266 95
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
71
Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for
any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.
The February 2, 2020 expiring use database maintained by HUD shows 22 properties in the
Consortium with public subsidies. Combined, these properties represent a total of 962 units.
There are nine properties in Longmont, six in Boulder, three in Broomfield, two in Louisville and
one each in Lyons and Lafayette. Eleven out of the 22 properties have usage expiration dates
occurring at or before 2024. The properties expiring in the next five years make up 35 percent
of the total units (339 units). The majority of expiring units (65%) are one-bedroom units. Of the
eleven properties expiring in the next five years, six are in Longmont, two in Boulder, two in
Broomfield, and one in Lafayette.
The above estimates represent an undercount given that they do not include all properties with
only local subsidies.
Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population?
No, there remains a shortage of affordable rentals and that need has expanded to households
in the $25,000 to $35,000 income range (from less than $25,000 in the past Consolidated Plan,
covering years 2015-2019). Ownership units are also very difficult to find for moderate income
renters seeking to buy.
Describe the need for specific types of housing:
There are two primary needs in the Consortium region: 1) Rental units affordable to households
with income of less than 50 percent AMI, particularly for those with income of less than 30
percent AMI; and 2) Affordable homeownership products.
A rental gaps analysis was conducted for Boulder County and Broomfield to support this eCon
Plan. The model indicates that for residents with annual income of less than $35,000 in Boulder
County, an overall gap of approximately 11,500 units exists.
Homeownership units are limited for households with low and moderate income. In Boulder
County, 80 percent of homes listed for sale between Q2-2018 and Q2-2019 were priced at
more than $375,000; in Longmont almost 70 percent (67%) of homes were listed for more than
$375,000. Only five percent of the homes in Boulder County and six percent of the homes in
Longmont were listed for less than $280,000. Affordable homes for sale are generally in the
form of detached single-family homes in Longmont or attached, deed-restricted units in
Boulder.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
72
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing -91.410, 91.210(a)
Introduction
This section contains pre-populated HUD tables that support the housing needs and market
analysis discussions above. Where appropriate, alternative data sources have been referenced
and numbers updated.
Cost of Housing
Consortium
Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year:
2018
% Change
Median Home Value $336,519 $535,286 59%
Median Contract Rent $894 $1,433 60%
Table 28 – Cost of Housing
Data Source: 2006-2010 ACS (Base Year), 2018 1-Year ACS (Most recent)
Boulder City
Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year:
2018
% Change
Median Home Value $475,200 $753,300 59%
Median Contract Rent $948 $1,478 56%
Table 29 – Cost of Housing
Data Source: 2006-2010 ACS (Base Year), 2018 1-Year ACS (Most recent)
Boulder County
Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year:
2018
% Change
Median Home Value $353,300 $554,100 57%
Median Contract Rent $948 $1,418 58%
Table 30 – Cost of Housing
Data Source: 2006-2010 ACS (Base Year), 2018 1-Year ACS (Most recent)
Consortium
Rent Paid Number Percentage
Less than $500 2,204 3.97%
$500-999 8,444 15.22%
$1,000-1,499 19,487 35.13%
$1,500-1,999 15,276 27.54%
$2,000 or more 10,060 18.14%
Total 55,471 100%
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
73
Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 2,023 4.34%
$500-999 7,503 16.09%
$1,000-1,499 16,776 35.97%
$1,500-1,999 11,762 25.22%
$2,000 or more 8,580 18.39% Total 46,644 100%
Table 33 -Rent Paid
Table 31 - Rent Paid
Data Source: 2018 ACS 1-Year
Boulder City
Rent Paid Number Percentage
Less than $500 622 2.86%
$500-999 2,787 12.80%
$1,000-1,499 8,019 36.84%
$1,500-1,999 5,539 25.44%
$2,000 or more 4,802 22.06%
Total 21,769 100%
Table 32 -Rent Paid
Data Source: 2018 ACS 1-Year
Boulder County
Data Source: 2018 ACS 1-Year
Housing Affordability--Consortium
% Units affordable to
Households earning
Renter Owner
30% HAMFI 3,175 No Data
50% HAMFI 13,658 4,129
80% HAMFI 27,103 10,131
100% HAMFI No Data 18,224
Total 43,936 32,484
Table 34 – Housing Affordability
Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS
Monthly Rent—Boulder County
Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no
bedroom)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Fair Market Rent 1,273 1,412 1,717 2,381 2,686
High HOME Rent 1,130 1,242 1,516 1,887 2,085
Low HOME Rent 995 1,065 1,278 1,476 1,647
Table 35 – Monthly Rent
Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents
Consolidated Plan BOULDER 74
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Monthly Rent—Broomfield City and County
Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no
bedroom)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Fair Market Rent 1,114 1,260 1,566 2,163 2,488
High HOME Rent 1,029 1,111 1,336 1,534 1,691
Low HOME Rent 812 870 1,045 1,206 1,346
Table 36 – Monthly Rent
Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents
Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels?
No. Please see the discussions on housing needs in NA-05, MA-05 and MA-10.
How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or
rents?
In the near term, the Consortium is unlikely to see much relief from the gaps in affordable
homes available for rent or purchase. It is difficult for supply to keep up with continued demand
by households moving to the region and, in addition, many communities constrain the supply of
new housing through ordinances that control unit growth.
How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this
impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?
HUD FMRs for 2020 are slightly lower than the area median rent. When FMRs lag behind
market rents, Housing Choice Voucher holders typically have difficulty finding rental units that
can accommodate the allowable payment standard. This may change slightly with a softening
in the rental market due to COVID-19 and an increase in landlord interest in accepting vouchers
(typical of a down market). However, given the Consortium’s extraordinarily tight rental
market, it is unlikely that rents will decrease to a point where they fall below FMRs. Consortium
members will continue to prioritize the preservation of affordable housing, especially
considering the loss of NOAH rentals in the last 5 years.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
75
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing -91.410, 91.210(a)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the condition of housing throughout Boulder County and
Broomfield.
The region overall has a very small number of vacant units. According to the most recent rent
and vacancy report by the Apartment Association of Metro Denver rental vacancy rates in the
Boulder—Longmont-Broomfield submarkets ranged between 1.1 percent (Boulder other than
the University area) to 3.7 percent (Longmont), with an overall vacancy rate of 3.8 percent.
Overall, the Census reports 9,170 vacant units in Boulder County as of 2018 and 962 in
Broomfield as of 2016. Of those in Boulder County, a signficant share—2,400 of the vacant units
were used seasonally. Of the balance, 2,654 of the vacant units for rent and 970 were vacant
units for sale.
Describe the jurisdiction's definition for "substandard condition" and "substandard condition
but suitable for rehabilitation:
The Consortium provides the following definitions of “substandard condition” and
“substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation."
Substandard Condition: Structure/dwelling unit that does not meet the Uniform Physical
Condition Standard (UPCS) and/or local or state codes.
Substandard Condition but Suitable for Rehabilitation: Structure/dwelling unit that does not
meet the Uniform Physical Condition Standard (UPCS) and/or local or state codes but is both
financially and structurally feasible for rehabilitation.
Condition of Units
Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected Condition 19,829 20.85% 28,431 50.91%
With two selected Conditions 326 0.34% 1,466 2.63%
With three selected
Conditions
12 0.01% 69 0.12%
With four selected Conditions 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
No selected Conditions 74,955 78.80% 25,876 46.34%
Total 95,122 100.00% 55,842 100.00%
Table 37 -Condition of Units
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
76
Year Unit Built
Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 23,291 23.89% 14,397 24.54%
1980-1999 34,763 35.65% 17,846 30.42%
1950-1979 34,437 35.32% 20,974 35.75%
Before 1950 5,009 5.14% 5,445 9.28%
Total 97,500 100.00% 58,662 100.00%
Table 38 – Year Unit Built
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 39,446 40% 26,419 45%
Housing Units build before 1980 with children
present 12,715 13% 9,083 17%
Table 39 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Data Source: 2017 1-Year ACS (Total Units) 2011-2015 CHAS (Units with Children present)
Vacant Units
Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Not Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Total
Vacant Units Unknown Unknown 9,170
Abandoned Vacant Units Unknown Unknown Unknown
REO Properties Unknown Unknown Unknown
Abandoned REO Properties Unknown Unknown Unknown
Table 40 -Vacant Units
Data Source: 2018 1-Year ACS.
Describe the need for owner and rental rehabilitation based on the condition of the
jurisdiction's housing.
As shown in the table above, most of the housing in Boulder County and Broomfield were built
between 1980 and 1999 (35%) and 1950 to 1979 (35%). Overall, most of the properties in the
Consortium area are in good condition, regardless of age, due to strong market demand and
home improvement activity.
The resident survey allowed condition issues to be analyzed by protected class, and found that
households with extremely low income and Hispanic households are most likely to report
condition issues. Repairs are most needed for renters, mobile home residents, and residents
living in precarious housing situations.
•Overall, 18 percent of respondents in the Consortium rated the condition of their home
as fair or poor.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
77
•Forty-one percent of precariously housed residents were the most likely to be
unsatisfied with the condition of their home.
•Compared to homeowners, renters and mobile home residents were three times as
likely to rate the condition of their home as fair or poor.
•Around 30 percent of households who are Hispanic, or have income below $25,000,
rated the condition of their home as fair or poor, compared to 16 percent of Non-
Hispanic White households and 18 percent of households with income between $50,000
to $100,000.
Estimate the number of housing units within the jurisdiction that are occupied by low or
moderate income families that contain lead-based paint hazards. 91.205(e), 91.405
Lead-based paint has been recognized as a major environmental hazard facing children.
Elevated blood lead levels in young children can lead to a range of problems from relatively
subtle developmental disabilities to severe impairment or even death. Common health effects
of lead-based paint exposure include impaired cognition and functioning, slowed learning
abilities and behavioral disorders. Often these manifestations are subtle during early childhood
but become more pronounced as children progress through school.
The HUD table above shows that there are approximately 40,000 owner units in the region built
before 1978, when the federal government banned consumer uses. Of those, 40 percent may
be subject to lead-based paint hazards. Of the 26,419 rental units built before 1978, 45 percent
may be subject to lead-based paint hazards. These potential hazards are at HUD upper bounds
of risk. It is important to note that Boulder’s hazards, in particular, may be lower due to
remodeled units driven by high demand for housing.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
78
MA-25 Public And Assisted Housing -91.410, 91.210(b) Introduction Renters with low and moderate income seeking housing assistance in the Consortium area are primarily served by housing authorities and nonprofit housing providers, through subsidies provided by the HUD Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. The housing authorities of Boulder and Longmont have jurisdiction over their cities, although all three areas allow cross-jurisdictional residency through an Interjurisdictional Agreement. Broomfield Housing Authority administers a small number of vouchers for the State of Colorado Division of Housing. Totals Number of Units—Boulder County (as of 4/30/20) Program Type Certificate Mod-Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers available 0 896 161 735 67 92 35 # of accessible units *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 41 – Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Totals Number of Units—Longmont Housing Authority (as of 12/31/19) Program Type Certificate Mod-Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers available 8 399 81 318 0 0 0 # of accessible units Consolidated Plan BOULDER 79 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 42 – Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Describe the supply of public housing developments: As Boulder’s largest holder of affordable housing assets, Boulder Housing Partners’ inventory offers 1,442 of units. Of this inventory, BHP has two communities with public housing in Boulder which offer one to four-bedroom apartments and townhomes for income-qualified and eligible community members. Arapahoe Court offers one-bedroom apartment homes for adults age 62+ and people with disabilities. Madison offers one, two and three-bedroom apartments and townhomes for adults 62+, people with disabilities, and families. Longmont Housing Authority does not have any Public Housing units in its portfolio. It does have 461 affordable rental homes in 7 different developments which includes 91 units for single individuals, 28 for families and 342 for older adults. Boulder County Housing Authority’s portfolio no longer includes HUD-funded Public Housing. In 2015, BCHA conducted a RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) conversion of its last property receiving HUD Public Housing funding. This property, Hillside Square, in Louisville, CO, contains 13 units, which were converted to a project-based subsidy. Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: All units are tenable and physically in fair condition (there are seven sites, so condition varies depending on age, etc.). Most units are in original condition since construction with original fixtures, but appliances, flooring, fixtures & HVAC equipment have been replaced on an as-needed basis. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 80 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score
Madison and Arapahoe Court 89c
Table 43 -Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score
Madison and Arapahoe Court 89c
Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction:
Boulder Housing Partners received approval for a Section 18 Disposition for the Madison
Apartments in 2019. BHP is currently working on the disposition and will transition the
property out of Public Housing and into a tax credit entity by the end of 2020. The property will
remain affordable to the residents and will stay within the BHP portfolio as affordable in
perpetuity.
Once BHP closes on the transaction, Madison will be renovated in full including: a new exterior
skin including, roof, siding, window and door replacement; full interior renovation including
new kitchens, bathrooms, painting, flooring, and appliances; creation of a small community
center for the property to facilitate engagement within the community and space for the
provision of resident services; and site work including a new playground, parking areas, and
extensive landscaping. Residents will be able to stay at Madison and continue to pay rent
based on their income with a Project Based Voucher or may choose to relocate from the
property with a Housing Choice Voucher. These actions support the residents with new
facilities and support the asset to continue to be a viable option for deeply affordable housing
for the next 50 years.
Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low-
and moderate-income families residing in public housing:
Arapahoe Court will continue to be in the BHP Public Housing portfolio for at least the next five
years. BHP recently replaced stairs and landings at the building, installed a public art mural,
and will continue to manage the property in a manner that is safe and viable for the
foreseeable future. BHP plans to maintain Arapahoe Court in the Public Housing portfolio so
that it can be the receiving property for Replacement Factor Funds that are owed to BHP for
prior Public Housing Dispositions. BHP anticipates pursuing a disposition for Arapahoe Court
sometime on or after 2025.
Discussion:
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
81
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services -91.410, 91.210(c) Introduction This section provides an overview of the facilities and services available to assist people who are experiencing homelessness in the Consortium area. Facilities Targeted to Homelessness Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year Round Beds (Current & New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 100 327 685 396 16 Households with Only Adults 210* 72 89 0 0 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 135 31 Veterans 0 0 0 0 0 Unaccompanied Youth 16 0 10 0 0 Table 44 -Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Data Source Comments: * The Boulder Shelter for the Homeless (BSH; also referred to as “Shelter”) criteria is geared toward chronic homelessness, (160 beds at BSH) although not entirely. Criteria include length of time in Boulder County of 6+ months and a disability. Path to Home (the balance of units) serves people in Boulder County who have been homeless 6+ months without a disability. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 82 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the
extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons
Please see information about services below.
List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly
chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their
families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40
Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services,
describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations.
Boulder County provides rapid rehousing and rental assistance through tenant- and project-
based vouchers, newly-constructed housing developments serving households with income at
or below 60 percent AMI, and rental assistance coupons for transitional housing and
permanent housing. In 2016, BCHA was awarded 20 Section 811 project-based vouchers from
the State for its newest development in Louisville, providing permanent supportive housing for
individuals with significant and long-term disabilities to live independently in the community
through affordable housing linked with voluntary services and supports. Longmont provides
services through its Human Agency funding, including access to healthcare, legal
representation, food pantries, shelter, housing, self-sufficiency programs, anti-poverty
programs, basic needs, child care, safe exchanges for children, transitional housing, veterans
services, transportation and early childhood learning programs.
The City of Boulder’s Human Services Fund (HSF) provides roughly $2.1M annually in support
for services to community members at-risk or experiencing socio-economic disparities, in
alignment with the city’s Human Services Strategy. Services provided through HSF investments
include childcare and early education; physical, dental, mental and behavioral health services;
financial assistance for rent, food and housing; legal services for underrepresented community
members; child and family safety; and other basic needs services for community members of all
ages.
The city’s Health Equity Fund (HEF) provides roughly $5M annually for a wide range of
programs aimed at reducing health disparities. Programs include services for direct physical,
dental, mental and behavioral health care, health systems access and navigation, food security,
nutrition, physical fitness and wellness education, and other special projects impacting social
determinants of health.
The City of Boulder Substance Education and Awareness (SEA) Fund invests in programs to
prevent youth and family substance use and abuse. The Fund supports adult influencer
trainings, youth pro-social events, youth peer education programs, business retail staff training
and education, and collaborative substance abuse program planning and advocacy.
Boulder County, the City of Boulder, the City of Longmont, Boulder Housing Partners, Longmont
Housing Authority, Boulder County Housing Authority, Boulder Shelter for the Homeless,
Mental Health Partners, Metro Denver Homeless Initiative, and other partners consistently
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
83
conduct case conferencing for placement of homeless individuals with housing resources,
implement new initiatives, and monitor system performance. Persons experiencing
homelessness are connected with other wrap-around services in the community.
Representatives from Boulder Community Health and the justice system are also active
participants in the coordination of services for adult individuals experiencing homelessness.
Attention Homes runs a program that includes street outreach, day drop-in and overnight
emergency shelter bed services to homeless teens and recently opened a PSH facility with 40
beds.
Boulder Shelter for the Homeless (BSH) provides year-round, housing-focused sheltering for
disabled individual adults experiencing homelessness. BSH also manages the HSBC coordinated
entry program, outreach in Longmont, and the case management of permanent supportive
housing units in partnership with Boulder Housing Partners. Within the shelter, BSH provides
meals, on-site access to health and mental health services, case management, laundry facilities,
and storage. In January 2020, BSH began providing Diversion Services, a rapid resolution
program, within Boulder County.
Beginning in June 2020, BSH will also provide navigation services that provide year-round short-
term shelter, meals, on-site access to health and mental health services, rental assistance, a
resource center that provides case management, employment training, classes and support
groups, benefits assistance, and linkage to multiple agencies. Bridge House provides multiple
homeless services including the Ready To Work (RTW) program that provides transitional
employment, housing, and training to move on to mainstream employment.
Clinica Family Health/People’s Clinic, Salud Family Health Center, and Dental Aid provide on-site
health and dental care to households with low income, including those experiencing
homelessness. Clinica also provides street medical outreach to the homeless population. Clinica
and Mental Health Partners provide integrated health care at their respective locations.
Family resource centers including Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA), the OUR
Center, and Sister Carmen Community Center, provide basic needs and prevention assistance
through rental and other financial aid, case management and emergency and transitional
housing units.
Mental Health Partners (MHP), serving Boulder and Broomfield Counties, provides behavioral
health services, including substance abuse treatment, life skills and employment. MHP partners
with homeless service providers for on-site services, and provides mental health intervention
(EDGE program) in conjunction with Boulder Police Department. Boulder Housing Partners also
administers a Housing Choice Voucher program (not exclusively CoC vouchers), and partners
with local homeless services providers to develop and manage housing, including permanent
supportive housing programs, for people experiencing homelessness.
Mother House offers shelter and support for pregnant women experiencing homelessness.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
84
HOPE for Longmont provides the only year-round overnight service center for Longmont
community members experiencing homelessness while offering supportive follow-through
services.
Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence (SPAN) and Safe Shelter of St. Vrain Valley
provide support for survivors of domestic violence through a variety of crisis and transition
support services. SPAN also offers emergency shelter beds and transitional housing.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
85
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services -91.410, 91.210(d)
Introduction
This section discusses the needs of people with special needs in the Consortium area. Special
populations with the most significant needs in the Consortium area include:
•Disability. There are around 31,000 residents (8% of the total population) with a
disability living in the Consortium area. According to CHAS data provided by
HUD, 43 percent of households that contain a member with a disability in the
Consortium area experience one or more housing problems. By that measure,
13,330 residents with disabilities in Boulder have at least one type of housing
need. A resident survey conducted found that the top housing challenges for
people with disabilities include finding a unit that meets their accessibility needs
and managing the rent cost.
•Households made up of older adults. In the Consortium area, 70,341 residents
are age 62 years or older, accounting for 18 percent with the Consortium area.
Twenty-two percent of older adult households have some type of housing need.
The 2018 Boulder County Age Well report indicating needs of older adults found
a sharp decline in the proportion of those who gave availability and affordability
of housing a positive rating (27% in 2010 to 9% in 2018). Fewer older adults
stated they will be able to stay in their communities as they age.
•Large families. There are around 10,400 large family households (5 or more
people) in the Consortium. HUD CHAS data indicate that 23 percent of large
households Consortium-wide have some type of housing problem. The most
common housing need is related to cost burden but large households are also
more susceptible to overcrowding (CHAS data do not provide enough detail to
quantify the number of large family households that are overcrowded).
•Female-headed households with children. There are about 6,635 female-headed
households with children in the Consortium area. The poverty rate for these
households is 15 percent—much higher than the area-wide family poverty rate
of 4 percent. The estimated 1,000 female-headed households with children living
in poverty are the most likely to struggle with rising housing costs and may need
unique supports given the challenges they face. In the survey conducted for this
Plan, nearly half of the female-headed household with children respondents said
they struggle to pay their rent or mortgage and one-third said they struggle to
pay utilities.
•Limited English proficient households. About 2,350 Consortium households have
limited English proficiency (LEP), meaning no household members over age 14
speaks English “very well.” Spanish is the most common language spoken by
these households, followed by other Indo-European languages. These
households often have trouble accessing resources and/or housing-related
documents in their native language. The portion of these households living in
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
86
poverty, amounting to 16 percent, are most likely to experience acute housing
needs.
•At risk of homelessness. Households spending 50 percent or more of their
income on their housing are considered at risk of homelessness. These
households have limited capacity to adjust to rising home prices and are
vulnerable to even minor shifts in rents, property taxes, and/or incomes. The
Consortium area has 23,530 households with income of less than 100 percent
AMI (34% of all households with low and moderate income) are severely cost
burdened and therefore are at risk of homelessness.
Including older adults, frail elderly, with disabilities (mental, behavioral, physical,
developmental), people with alcohol or other drug addictions, people who have HIV/AIDS
and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may
specify, and describe their supportive housing needs
The estimates discussed above were derived from a combination of CHAS, U.S. Census, and
population data. Needs were also gathered through the resident survey and interviews and
focus groups with stakeholders.
According to stakeholders who participated in the planning process, priority needs include:
1) Affordable rental housing for households that have extremely low and very low
income;
2) Accessibility improvements to existing homes and expansion of accessible housing
inventory;
3) Preservation of existing affordable rental and for-sale homes;
4) More financial resources to support regional service delivery and better access to
health and dental care;
5) Housing with supportive services for very vulnerable residents, including survivors of
domestic violence;
6) Expansion of emergency shelters beyond Boulder;
7) Expansion of job opportunities for unskilled and underemployed people, including
people with disabilities whose federal assistance is very low;
8) An accessible, efficient and predictable regional transportation system to move
residents to jobs and services; and
9) More affordable child care options.
Residents participating in the survey rated the following supportive services as most needed:
1) Mental health resources (20% said these are needed in the Consortium), especially for
persons with disabilities, precariously housed residents, and children.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
87
2) Resources to help older family members with disabilities (18% said these are needed).
Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health
institutions receive appropriate supportive housing
Mental Health Partners of Boulder and Broomfield Counties provides numerous options for
individuals being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care. These include:
individual therapy, family home-based services, addiction recovery services, medication-
assisted treatment, care coordination and management, employment help, and life skills
training.
In 2019, HSBC was awarded a 5-year, $2.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
to fund services that help chronically homeless individuals obtain and maintain stable housing.
These services, to be implemented by Mental Health Partners in conjunction with the Boulder
County Community Services Department, include case management, housing navigation, and
behavioral health treatment. The project, known as Boulder County Pathways to Housing
Stability, will leverage these supports by connecting them to existing resources for rental
assistance to create new permanent supportive housing opportunities for individuals with long
histories of homelessness and behavioral health needs.
Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address
the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with
respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year
goals. 91.315(e)
N/A
For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to
undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs
identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but
have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2))
Boulder’s key initiatives to support the needs of people experiencing homelessness and special
populations with supportive service needs include:
• Continued implementation of the Homelessness Strategy, including achieving housing
goals, fully implementing integrated data for improved outcome tracking, and refining a
new adult homeless service systems;
• Continued investing city’s housing and human services financial resources, aligning
direct services with expanding partnerships to achieve outcome driven goals as
identified in the Human Services Strategy, Health Equity initiative, Housing Strategy, the
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
88
Economic Sustainability Strategy, Resilience Strategy, and the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP);
• Continued support of the Family Service, which includes the Child Care Subsidy Program,
financial assistance to support low- and lower-middle income families in paying for
quality, affordable childcare and Family Resource Schools, a partnership with the
Boudler Valley School District (BVSD) to provide outreach, direct services and referrals
for families and children to remove academic and non-academic barriers to success in
five Boulder elementary schools.
• Further the development of key affordable housing development and preservation
projects in the city. The completion of various projects will add approximately 380
additional units in 2020.
The city’s Health Equity Fund and Human Services Fund provide upstream investments in
programs that help prevent homelessness, increase the efficacy, sufficiency and resiliency of
individuals and families at-risk, and modify support systems to better address root causes of
inequities and disparities. For example the Emergency Family Assistance Association’s Keep
Families Housed program provides up to three months’ rental assistance for families at risk of
homelessness, and accompanying case management, health and educational support and other
wrap-around services that increase the family’s ability to thrive. $1.7M in 2020 Health Equity
Fund grants were allocated for food security programs. The city also allocates Human Services
Fund and Health Equity Fund dollars for case management and legal services that help people
who are experiencing economic disparities – including older adults, Latinx community
members, disabled individuals, people existing the jail system, pregnant women experiencing
housing insecurity – access federal health, food and emergency financial assistance. Our
investments in childcare, early education and educational support programs help close the
academic achievement gap for low-income, immigrant and people of color community
members, which increases economic mobility through employment, post-secondary education
and financial literacy.
The City of Boulder also intends to allocate local funds to Senior Services which provides
programs and services for older adults at the East and West Senior Centers, including
enrichment programs, resource seminars and support groups, wellness programs, day trips,
resource and referral for community services, and short-term case management for vulnerable
older adults. Senior Services administers the city’s food tax rebate program for families,
individuals with a disability, and older adults with lower incomes. The division collaborates with
Boulder County and community agencies to plan, coordinate, and evaluate services for older
adults, including the Age Well Boulder County Strategic Plan, and staffs the City Manager-
appointed Senior Community Advisory Committee (SCAC). The committee provides
consultation and expertise to city staff on policy and programs related to older adults and
serves as city liaison to the Boulder Seniors Foundation.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
89
The City of Broomfield’s 2020 Budget has set aside a $1 million reserve towards future
affordable housing. While the exact use of the funding has yet to be determined, this available
funding will begin to help meet the increased needs in the community. In addition, the city will
implement The Senior Services Easy Ride program, a door to door transportation service
designed to serve Broomfield residents over the age of 60 and adults with disabilities. In order
to meet increased demand, the division requested funding to assist with the purchase of
software enhancements and one additional bus.
In Longmont, within the 2020 budget there is $1 million of ongoing funding from the General
Fund to continue efforts to capitalize the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. These capital funds
will be made available to for-profit and nonprofit developers to provide a total of
approximately 100 new affordable homes (primarily rental units affordable at or below 60%
AMI). Beginning in 2019, affordable housing development is boosted by 50 percent of the 3
percent special sales tax on the sale of marijuana. This revenue is estimated at $137,000 for
2020. Ongoing support of $106,543 from the General Fund is provided to supplement staffing
and administration costs associated with the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, CDBG and HOME
programs that support and provide affordable housing and community reinvestment efforts
throughout the city. Due to reductions to this transfer amount in the 2019 budget and a
decrease in CDBG and Home administrative funding, staff is estimating that up to an additional
$125,000 in administrative costs in 2020 will need to be covered from the capital funding.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
90
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing -91.410, 91.210(e)
Describe any negative effects of public policies on affordable housing and residential
investment
A strong economy, high quality of life and growth constraints in the Consortium area have
created significant upward pressure on housing prices and rents. The impact on housing
affordability disproportionately affects those households who have lower incomes. In an
environment where there are few affordable options provided by the private market, it is easier
for protected classes to experience housing discrimination under the guise of acceptable
practices such as credit checks and (often) “3x the rent” income requirements by private
landlords.
Responses from a focus group conducted during this Plan process revealed a general consensus
among the group that there is not enough housing for households with low or middle income.
The loss of existing affordable rental and for-sale housing was also of great concern for area
residents.
Jurisdiction members of the Consortium are viewed as leaders in the Denver Metro region for
their concerted efforts to support development of affordable housing. The jurisdictions have
local trust funds, regulatorty requirements benefiting affordable housing efforts (inclusonary
housing, commercial linkage fees, annexation requirements, etc.), and, more recently,
accommodated innovative housing products (e.g., tiny home village for veterans in Longmont).
Without this level of commitment, affordable housing would be much harder to find in the
area, given the high demand for living in the communities.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
91
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets -91.410, 91.210(f) Introduction This section provides an overview of the economic and community development climates in Boulder-Broomfield Consortium. Economic Development Market Analysis Business Activity Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 1,542 737 1% 0% -1% Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 17,759 19,854 11% 10% -1% Construction 7,039 6,342 4% 3% -1% Education and Health Care Services 36,650 43,344 22% 22% -1% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 8,798 8,028 5% 4% -1% Information 7,116 12,414 4% 6% 2% Manufacturing 13,766 22,468 8% 11% 3% Other Services 12,019 11,832 7% 6% -1% Professional, Scientific, Management Services 26,578 36,974 16% 19% 2% Public Administration 6,928 8,322 4% 4% 0% Retail Trade 14,914 19,073 9% 10% 0% Transportation and Warehousing 3,395 1,916 2% 1% -1% Wholesale Trade 7,298 8,288 4% 4% 0% Total 163,802 199,592 100% 100% 0% Table 45 -Business Activity Data Source: 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) Consolidated Plan BOULDER 92 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and 205,918
over
Unemployment Rate 5.00%
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 9.61%
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.98%
Table 46 -Labor Force
Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 216,752
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business and financial 40,990
Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 425
Service 30,914
Sales and office 40,954
Construction, extraction, maintenance and
repair
10,170
Production, transportation and material
moving
13,864
Table 47 – Occupations by Sector
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Travel Time
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 120,688 66%
30-59 Minutes 51,432 28%
60 or More Minutes 10,890 6%
Total 183,010 100%
Table 48 -Travel Time
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Education:
Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 25 to 64)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian
Employed
Unemployed Not in Labor
Force
Less than high school graduate 6,726 398 3,143
High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 16,734 1,053 5,461
Some college or Associate's degree 35,411 1,725 7,954
Bachelor's degree or higher 102,542 3,515 17,174
Table 49 -Educational Attainment by Employment Status
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
93
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less than high school graduate $22,151
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
$25,279
Some college or Associate's degree $30,887
Bachelor's degree $47,144
Graduate or professional degree $72,103
Educational Attainment by Age
Age
18–24
yrs
25–34
yrs
35–44
yrs
45–65
yrs
65+ yrs
Less than 9th grade 164 488 1,642 1,357 1,004
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 2,890 1,263 1,707 2,398 1,329
High school graduate, GED, or
alternative
9,939 6,647 5,610 10,286 8,603
Some college, no degree 30,489 8,137 7,020 14,601 8,976
Associate's degree 1,607 3,552 3,030 8,389 3,261
Bachelor's degree 6,608 23,532 18,805 36,404 13,090
Graduate or professional degree 759 10,367 12,710 28,483 16,702
Table 50 -Educational Attainment by Age
Data Source: 2017 ACS 1-Year
Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Table 51 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Data Source: 2013-2017 ACS
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within
your jurisdiction?
In the Consortium, the tables above show that the employment industries that provide the
greatest share of jobs are Education and Health Care Services (22%), Professional, Scientific,
Management Services (19%), and Manufacturing (11%).
Most workers in the HOME Consortium are employed in Education and Health Care Services
(22%), Professional, Scientific, Management Services (16%), and Arts, Entertainment,
Accommodations (11%).
Overall, the industries of workers and jobs are well-aligned in the Consortium. The Jobs less
Workers column of the Business Activity table suggests that the Consortium has somewhat
fewer workers than jobs in Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific, Management Services.
Conversely, the Consortium has somewhat more workers than jobs in Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate and Other Services.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
94
In Broomfield, the employment industries that provide the greatest share of jobs are
Professional, Scientific, Management Services (25%), Information (13%), and Retail Trade (12%).
Most workers in the Bromfield are employed in Education and Health Care Services (20%),
Professional, Scientific, Management Services (16%), and Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations
(10%).
Overall, the industries of workers and jobs are well-aligned in Broomfield. The Jobs less
Workers column of the Business Activity table suggests that the Consortium has somewhat
fewer workers than jobs in Information and Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific,
Management Services (9 percentage point difference for both sectors). Conversely, the
Consortium has somewhat more workers than jobs in Education and Health Care Services (13
percentage point difference), and Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities (two percentage
point difference.)
The employment industries that provide the greatest share of jobs in Longmont are: Education
and Health Care services (28% all jobs), Professional, Scientific and Management services (16%
of all jobs), Retail (11% of all jobs), Arts, Entertainment and Accommodations (10% of all jobs),
and Manufacturing (9% of all jobs).
Most workers in Longmont are employed in Education and Health care services (21% of
workers), Professional, Scientific and Management services (13% of all workers), Manufacturing
(11% of all workers), Arts, Entertainment and Accommodations (10% of all workers), and Retail
Trade (10% of all workers).
Overall, the industries of workers and jobs are well-aligned in Longmont. The Jobs less Workers
column of the Business Activity table suggests that Longmont has somewhat fewer workers
than jobs in Education and Health Care Services (7 percentage point difference). Conversely,
the City has somewhat more workers than jobs in the Information Business category (3
percentage point difference). In all other industries the difference in workers and jobs is 2
percentage points or less.
Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:
Boulder is an important employment center for the region and offers a diverse and healthy
economy. There is a need to expand housing opportunities for workers to be able to live in the
communities they work in. According to 2017 data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics, over half of workers (52%) employed in Boulder County live outside the county, this
share has gone up from 48 percent in 2010. In Boulder, 77 percent of workers employed in the
city live outside the city, and this share has also increased from 75 percent in 2010. Broomfield
County has been able to add more housing stock in order to reduce the share of commuters
(although the share remains high); in 2010, 99 percent of workers employed in Broomfield
County lived outside the county, however this dropped to 88 percent in 2017. In Longmont, 66
percent of workers employed in the City live outside the city, an increase from 64 percent in
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
95
2010. Longmont has the highest number of people who both live and work in the city when
compared to other members in the Boulder-Broomfield consortium.
In the Consortium area, the need for fast, reliable, and cost-effective transportation and
communications is driven by businesses operating in competitive global markets. Entrepreneurs
are the engines of the economy; there is a crucial need for availability of capital, training, and
technical assistance they need to start-up and grow their business including technical
assistance, financing, legislation, marketing, accounting, and networking. The Consortium area
has already seen the devastating economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic and these will
likely continue into the next several years. While some immediate, short term responses to
business needs have already been deployed, these needs are likely to evolve and grow the
longer social distancing mandates remain in place.
Ongoing needs of the Boulder business community included cost/lack of office space to meet
contemporary standards, limited opportunities for home-grown businesses to remain in
Boulder as their space needs change and the impact of housing costs on employee retention.
Other issues and challenges include: workforce training, amenities in outlying employment
centers, compatibility of home-based businesses with residential uses, transportation
challenges (including congestion and public transit improvement needs), and filling vacancies
from retirees.
The key needs of the business community in Longmont include a talent pipeline in strategic
industries, continued redevelopment of commercial and industrial properties (including the
development of a “vibrant river corridor”), development and preservation of residential
affordability, fostering a collaborative business environment, and improvements to Longmont’s
multi-modal transit system.
The City of Longmont has recently released Advance Longmont 2.0, which outlines a plan for
economic development over the next several years to ensure a strong local economy.
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or
regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect
job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for
workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create.
Workforce training initiatives are delivered through Workforce Boulder County (WfBC), a
division within the Boulder County Community Services Department. WfBC offers services to
residents and businesses throughout the county and maintains offices in Boulder and at the St.
Vrain Community Hub in Longmont. Onsite workshops range from resume and LinkedIn profile
builders to career exploration to interview techniques and practices. WfBC also offers financial
workshops, homebuyer counseling, and GED readiness. The classes are only held on weekdays
during work hours, however, which could create barriers to attendance for families with young
children or employed workers looking to change careers.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
96
According to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, there is a gap between the number of jobs
available in Boulder and the workforce available to fill those positions across all industries and
skill levels. One of the biggest contributing factors to the overall challenge is the lack of training
specific to the needs of local businesses. Trends indicate this gap will only grow in the next few
years, especially as workplace environments continue to evolve and more jobs require higher
levels of technological literacy and professional competencies.
The lack of affordable and accessible housing for households with low, moderate and middle
income is identified as the most problematic issue among employers in Boulder County,
business owners and community members. The lack of housing options forces employees to
commute long distances and some job seekers to reject or ignore employment opportunities in
our community. As a result of a transportation network that has failed to meet the needs of
regional growth, our roadways experience severe traffic congestion from the 250,000 vehicles –
including 50,000 daily work commuters – traveling through Boulder every day. Aside from the
detriment to the environment and the quality of life, continued traffic congestion threatens to
make Boulder isolated and inaccessible to the local workforce.
Front Range Community College (FRCC) maintains a Longmont campus with five academic
departments: Arts and Letters; Business, Information, Technologies & Manufacturing;
Mathematics; Science & Health Professions; and Social Sciences, Education & Public Services.
FRCC also offers a range of English as a Second Language (ESL) classes on the Longmont campus
during the day and in the evening. The FRCC Westminster and Larimer County campuses offer
vocational and technical education programs including automotive technology, machining, and
optics technology.
How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment
opportunities in the jurisdiction?
The region has a highly educated workforce and, as such, is able to meet the demands of
professional and technical industries. The moderate and lower wage jobs that are related to
these industries and needed to support communities in the region are more challenging to fill
due to lack of housing affordable to the workers.
The resident survey demonstrated the desire for residents with lower income and people with
disabilities to receive job training and skill development—and this demand has likely grown
with the economic crises brought on by the COVID-19 virus outbreak. A total of 369 residents in
the survey rated job training opportunities as very or extremely helpful. People with disabilities
and those precariously housed, as well as residents earning between $25,000 and $75,000 per
year, were most likely to say they need job training and skill development.
City of Boulder staff will continue to coordinate with the City’s Community Vitality Program and
other community partners to ensure workforce training continues to expand and be made
available to residents with low and moderate income. This might include participating in
collaborations with employers, universities, colleges, state and local workforce and economic
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
97
development partners to support ongoing development of the workforce. Workforce Boulder
County, which also houses the Housing & Community Education Program, continues to offer
services and training opportunities to prepare individuals to take advantage of existing
employment opportunities. The City’s Community Vitality Program has several business
incentive programs to attract and retain job-generating businesses including a flexible rebate
program and microloan program for companies looking to grow and expand.
As noted earlier, the sustained rates of very low unemployment in Longmont create a very
competitive labor market and can make it difficult for local businesses to retain top talent. As
such the talent-related priorities of Advance Longmont 2.0 are to “Build industry relevant talent
pipelines to respond to current demands;” “Design effective career pathways to meet future
demands;” and “invite new talent into our community from around the nation.”
It is also important to note that recent growth and the tight labor market do not benefit all
Longmont residents equally. Disparities in education and income by race/ethnicity are apparent
and may create challenges in the long-term economic resilience of the community. Engaging
Latino leaders in economic development provides an opportunity to bridge that gap; and the
Latino Chamber of Commerce is working to do just that.
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce
Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts
will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
Workforce Boulder County supports individuals seeking employment and businesses seeking
employees by providing a plethora of resources including career development workshops and
support, workforce training and assistance, and recruitment and placement opportunities.
Boulder County Community Service’s Housing & Community Education team provides
Consortium area residents with educational opportunities through group workshops, building
skills and knowledge base in the areas of money management, housing and employment.
Boulder County Housing Authority, through its Personal Finance Program, offers free individual
financial counseling including foreclosure prevention, homeownership preparation, reverse
mortgages for older adults, and tenant education. The Cities of Boulder and Longmont, and the
City and County of Broomfield support the above-mentioned programming through funding.
Boulder County is incorporating workforce enterprise as part of its upcoming development in
downtown Longmont. Seventy-three affordable apartments wll be rented to households with
income at or below 60 percent AMI including 12 subsidized homes. This development will be
strategically located across the street from the St. Vrain Community Hub, Boulder County’s
“one-stop” integrated services delivery for residents including Workforce Boulder County. The
enterprise will likely be in the form of a café, allowing residents with lower income to learn job
skills and increase their income.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
98
The Colorado Enterprise Fund (CEF) offers a comprehensive microenterprise and small business
development program including access to capital via business loans to establish, stabilize, and
expand microenterprises and small businesses, financing feasibility analysis for entrepreneurs
and business technical assistance and intensive management consulting for entrepreneurs and
businesses obtaining loans from the program, including specialized training workshops.
Boulder is home to the nationally-recognized Ready to Work (RTW) program. RTW creates
employment opportunities for homeless individuals. In 2015, the program expanded by
acquiring and rehabilitating a building to provide approximatley 45 beds of transitional housing
for RTW participants.
Longmont is served by Workforce Boulder County (WfBC). WfBC has its own working
partnership with Front Range Community College to provide machinist training and develop a
new GIS program, to assist current workforce in matching the skills needed for employment.
WfBC has dedicated resources to the establishment of Sector Partnerships in the Machining, IT,
and Healthcare industries, and has been engaged with the Metro Manufacturing Partnership,
Northern Colorado Manufacturing Partnership, Metro Denver Healthcare Sector Partnership
and Metro IT Partnership. Additional training avenues have been established through multi-
region training grants for on-the-job training (a work experience program) and the H-1B grant
(technical skills training for employers, employees and people who have been unemployed for
the long-term). An IT industry-focused on-the-job training grant was awarded to Denver County
in partnership with Workforce Boulder County.
The Colorado First & Existing Industry Customized Job Training grants are available to
companies relocating to or expanding in Colorado and provide training funds to new hires.
Front Range Community College (FRCC) maintains a Longmont campus with five academic
departments: Arts and Letters; Business, Information, Technologies & Manufacturing;
Mathematics; Science & Health Professions; and Social Sciences, Education & Public Services.
FRCC also offers a range of English as a Second Language (ESL) classes on the Longmont campus
during the day and in the evening. The FRCC Westminster and Larimer campuses offer
vocational and technical education programs including automotive technology, machining, and
optics technology.
The programs offered by WfBC and FRCC support Longmont’s goal of stabilizing households. To
the extent that participants in workforce training initiatives are able to improve their economic
situation and move into market rate housing, this frees up subsidized housing to other
households with needs.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
99
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS)?
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated
with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that
impact economic growth.
Boulder City Council adopted the Economic Sustainability Strategy (ESS) in October 2013.
Managed under the city’s Economic Vitality Program, the ESS is an integrated, cross-cutting
approach to Boulder’s continued economic vitality. The strategy is based on simultaneously
maintaining and enhancing the existing community of businesses while also positioning Boulder
to grow new segments of its economy associated with the larger economic, environmental and
social trends.
As Boulder continues to expand housing opportunities for the growing workforce, the city will
ensure strategies align with the goals identified in this Plan. The City will continue to support
opportunities providing residents with low income access to capital, training and technical
assistance. As well, the City will continue to work with local partners to identify future
economic development activities that focus on improving economic/social well-being of people
who have low and moderate incomes. Furthermore, City staff will continue to coordinate with
and support its Economic Sustainability Strategy (ESS).
The City of Longmont does not participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy.
Advance Longmont 2.0, the City’s 5-year economic development plan, outlines economic
development strategies for 2020-2024. The summary of this document is discussed above.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
100
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated?
(include a definition of "concentration")
The HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) Maps specifically allow for the
exploration of the following categories of housing needs and problems: substandard housing,
overcrowding, cost burden, severe cost burden and risk of homelessness (multiple unrelated
family renter households with overcrowding). Each of these categories of housing need and
problems were reviewed for each of the Consortium jurisdictions. For this purpose, a
concentration that is 20 percentage points higher than the rate in the area overall was
considered high.
Substandard housing: In Boulder County, the percent of households who live in substandard
housing is low (1.08%). There is not a concentration of substandard housing in any particular
census tract in the consortium. The highest concentration of substandard housing in a census
tract in Boulder is 4.48 percent. In Broomfield, the percent of households who live in
substandard housing is also low (1%); the census tract with the highest concentration is 4.66
percent, and in Longmont the highest concentration is 5.23 percent.
Overcrowding: Throughout Boulder County and Broomfield, the percent of households who are
overcrowded is around 2 percent. There is not a concentration of overcrowded housing in any
particular census tract in the Consortium. The highest concentration of overcrowding in a
census tract in Boulder is 6.8 percent. In Broomfield, it is 5.53 percent, and in Longmont, it is
11.57 percent.
Cost burden: Around 35 percent of households in Boulder County and 28 percent of households
in Broomfield are cost burdened. In and of itself, this level of burden is a significant problem;
however, the three census tracts (08013012607, 08013012401, and 08013012605), with the
highest percent of cost burdened households (around 70 percent) are all adjacent to the
University of Colorado-Boulder; these tracts have 65 percent or more of the population
between 18 and 24 years of age. In Broomfield County, there is one census tract with a
concentration that is almost 20 percentage points higher than the rate in the area overall; tract
061200 has a percent of cost burdened households of 45 percent; this tract is located on the
east side of the county that is adjacent to Brighton. In Longmont, the two census tracts with the
highest concentrations are 013306 (45%) and 013505 (54%), these tracts are in the north part
of the city, adjacent to Highway 287.
Severe Cost Burden: In Boulder County, 17 percent of households are severely cost burdened,
paying more than 50 percent of monthly income on housing costs. In Boulder, there are several
census tracts with the percent of households severely cost burdened above 35 percent;
however, all of them surround the University. In Longmont, overall severe cost burden is 11
percent, with the highest concentration of severely cost burdened households of 27 percent in
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
101
\.
~ _AFFHT0004 City of Boulder, Esri, HERE , Garmin , NG ..
"
2mi
.bi9fil!l!
Jurisdiction
D
Dem ographics 201 O
1 Dot= 30
~ . , t, White, Non-Hispanic
'ilJi Black, Non-Hispanic
~~ Native American, Non-
~ Hispanic
~ Asian/Pacific Islander, Non
:i..i' Hispanic
~ Hispanic
I\!.~ Other, Non-Hispanic 8 ...
Multi-racia l, Non-Hispanic
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
census tract 013401. In Broomfield, 10 percent of households are severely cost burdened and
the highest concentration per Census tract is 20 percent.
Risk of Homelessness: Risk of homelessness is shown as a count rather than as a percentage in
the HUD CPD maps. In Boulder County, the number of households at risk of homelessness is
195; 60 of those households are in census tracts around the University and another 105 are in
census tracts 013306 (60) and 013505 (45), in the north part of Longmont, adjacent to Highway
287. In Broomfield, the number is 25.
Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income
families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")
Boulder has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated,
by HUD definition. The following figures show cluster in the HUD AFFH-T dot density maps by
race/ethnicity and national origin. As indicated by the maps, there are no strong clusters of
racial minorities in Boulder; however ethnic minorities present some clusters in the southwest
part of the city shown by the limited English proficiency density map. Hispanic minorities are
mostly spread out throughout the city.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
102
.. : .. ·: .. · ... : ... . ... ... ·., .·
.. : ·~ . .. :... t:
• J
... .. •,·
~ AFFHT0004 ~ri, HERE , Garmin, NGA, USGS , NPS
• CV"
I •
Legend
Jurisdiction
D
Limited English Proficiency
(Jurisdiction) (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot = 5 People ...... ,,
--~ Spanish
~Chinese
~ Other lndic Language
~~ Korean
~ Russian
TRACT
• R/ECAP
D
.l&gilll!
Region
D
Demographics 2010
1 Dot=60
• "' White, Non-Hispanic
~ Black, Non -Hispanic
1~~ ... Native American , Non
~ Hispanic
~~ Asian/Pacific Islander, Non
:..~ Hispanic
''°"2 ?ii Hispanic
~ Other, Non-Hispanic
Multi-racial , Non-Hispanic
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Boulder County has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated, by HUD definition. The following figures show cluster in the HUD AFFH-T dot
density maps by race/ethnicity and national origin. As indicated by the maps, there are no
strong clusters of racial minorities in Boulder County; ethnic minorities present some clusters in
the southwest part of Boulder as shown by the limited English proficiency density map.
Hispanic minorities within Boulder County are clustered in the urban areas in Boulder, and
mostly in Longmont.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
103
i ["\ "' . \-.;:::1/
"-z
.r ... -.:r r::. .. L\
,,.,
.. ... .: I •: ., ( ....,, ""' ... · : · ... ~ ·. . .,. .. ..... ..
•• ~ •• , • • .. • • .. : • j • .. # ~ 1~
·>=. '."· . .:: .--·.:·~·. ~t·· ... :-:.: ... ' ... ~
•• ·-... ·~~1..· J,. ••
,r
/ : ,,
,I' • ~-• . ,.. .
.•,_. .. . ....
. ' . . ,. . -~:-.
~ AFFHT0004 I Esn, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS ., • ,. ~
'
., '
\ t • f
0 Sm
-~--+ ... .
"
'() 2mi
·+
..
J.ggMd.
Regio n
D
Limited Englis h Profici ency
[Jurisdic tion) (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot = 15 People ,
Spanish
~Chinese
~ Other lndic Language
t4! Korean
fi,'J Russian
TRACT
R/ECAP
'D
J.ggMd.
Jurisdiction
D
Demographics 2010
1Dot=30
~
White, Non-Hispanic ..... , l!l '?i B lack, Non-Hispanic
~ Native American, Non-
-~·· Hispanic .· '. , i Asian/Pacific Islander, Non-. . . ~ Hispanic
ti;f Hispanic
~~ Other, Non-Hispanic
Multi-racial , Non-Hispanic
··.) r-
TRACT
R/ECAP
~ AFFHTOD04 J Esn, HERE , Garmin, NGA,
0
US~S, NPS ~nl /, •
D
Date created: j /4/2018
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
As shown in the following figures, Longmont has a racially/ethnically diverse population, that is
fairly well-dispersed across neighborhoods. There is, however, some concentration of foreign-
born residents and residents with limited English proficiency in north-central Longmont.
(Concentration in this case is defined simply as a strong cluster in the HUD AFFH-T dot density
maps).
Figure Title: Race/Ethnicity, Longmont
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
104
... .. • .... = .. . .. ., t . ~-..
-":• ; . . ..
~ AFF,H;OO~-, ~.~ H~R~. Ga,;,n
, ........ . . ' . .....
.. # .,. ••
.. ... ·: ... ...._ ........ t ;.•,
.,.
·. I
NGA. USGS, NPS ·' .. : ' . .
!. ~ . . . .. ,r . ...
•
j
2mi
N
--Jt
~ .
..
Date created : ]1412018
2ml
+
Date created: j/412018
.l&!Wllt
Jurisdiction
t:::i
National Origin [Jurisdiction) (Top
5 most populous)
1 Dot = 5 People
Mexico
~~ . ~; India «~ Taiwan
~Germany .......
f~ China excl. Hong Kong &
¥ Taiwan
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
.l&!Wllt
Jurisdiction
t:::i
Limited English Proficiency
(Jurisdiction] (Top 5 most
populous)
1 Dot = 5 People
• Spanish
~ Chinese
~Korean
&~German
~Russian
TRACT
R/ECAP
D
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool
Broomfield has no areas where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated, by HUD definition. According to HUD AFFH-T maps, there is not a substantial
difference in racial/ethnic distribution of census tracts with high housing problems, but there is
a slightly higher representation of foreign-born residents.
What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
105
In Longmont, the level of services, amenities and accessibility in these census tracts are quite
high; access to jobs is also high. The greatest variability factor is the quality of the schools in
and near the tracts. The St. Vrain Valley School District offers open enrollment which provides
students with the opportunity to seek higher quality schools, but can cause the lowest
performing schools to struggle further.
The housing market conditions in these areas reflect higher rates of renters (and fewer
owners), mostly in multi-family and multi-story developments. There are single-family and
duplex units throughout, but often they have been converted to rental properties. Rents are
generally lower in this area than other areas of the city and the units are generally older and in
poorer conditions.
Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?
For Longmont, the Consortium member with the most diversity and slight concentrations:
Shopping and restaurants: On the north end of the corridor adjacent to these tracts are
several grocery shopping centers, including a Walmart Supercenter, King Soopers Supermarket
and Sav-A-Lot market. Many “Mom and Pop” and commercial markets, coffee shops,
restaurants and stores are available along Main Street. A recognized Latino/a commercial
district is located on the east side of Main Street from Ninth Avenue to 15th Avenue with
various other primarily Latino/a food and grocery stores and restaurants scattered in other
locations on Main Street and one to two blocks off Main on various side streets.
Services: A variety of services, including the Longmont Housing Authority, the Senior Center and
Youth Center, and various non-profit headquarters are located in close proximity to these
neighborhoods. Much of the municipal activity, including the library and main City offices, is
located in the southernmost section of these tracts.
Parks and open space: At least seven neighborhood parks, one community park, and three
separate greenways are located in or within walking distance of these tracts, including Athletic
Field, Clark-Centennial, Collyer, Kensington, Lanyon, Rothrock/Dell, Rough and Ready and
Spangler Parks. The greenways are the Oligarchy, Rough and Ready and Spring Gulch #1
Greenways.
Business opportunities: There are many local businesses located in these areas that offer job
opportunities for residents. The city helped to support these by offering a Business
Improvement Program to neighborhood businesses, and offers a Small Business Lending
Program citywide, and has conducted significant outreach in this area.
Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?
Given that housing needs and racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are not
concentrated in one geographic area in the Consortium and high levels of owner and renter
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
106
cost burden persist across the region, funds and resources will be continue to be prioritized and
distributed based on the needs and not defined/limited by geographic location.
Neighborhood revitalization efforts: For the past decade, City of Longmont has invested heavily in
its neighborhoods including the ones located in these census tracts. The neighborhoods of
Historic Eastside, Kensington, Lanyon, Spangler and Kiteley have benefitted from these efforts.
Significant code enforcement activity was concentrated in these areas as a first step in
improving the housing and visual conditions. Some of the physical improvements completed in
the neighborhoods included: significant park improvements and park expansions, street and
alley lighting improvements, alley and neighborhood clean-ups, concentrated housing
rehabilitation and/or “spruce up” programs, traffic calming and crosswalk improvements,
business outreach and improvements, summer camp and art programs, etc. The City continues
to provide support to all of its neighborhoods through its Neighborhood Group Leaders
program, which provides support and training for neighborhood leaders and improvement
grants for neighborhoods.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
107
MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low-and Moderate-Income
Households -91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2)
Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low-and
moderate-income households and neighborhoods.
In the Consortium, around 12,000 households do not have an internet subscription. Around one
third of those households have income below $20,000. In Boulder, around 2,700 households do
not have an internet subscription. Around 40 percent of those households have income below
$20,000. In Longmont, around 3,700 households do not have an internet subscription. Around
30 percent of those households have income below $20,000.
Respondents to the survey who noted that they have broadband needs mentioned the
following challenges:
“I don't have a car or a cell phone/worry that we wont be able to pay for insurance, or pay for
internet.”-Precariously housed resident in Boulder
“I would like to find some inexpensive internet I use Comcast and it is a fortune. I have to spend
almost $100 just for Internet and some cable TV that's crazy they have a program but you have
to quit having television for 3 months and then they will think about giving you internet at a
reduced rate.” - Renter in Longmont
“No cable. No internet service. No WiFi.” – Renter in Broomfield
“Unreliable internet, no cell service.” -Homeowner in Ward
Residents with school-age children who live in some Boulder County Housing Authority-owned
properties receive free access to internet services by the Boulder Valley School District. This
gives these students the same ability to complete homework assignments and projects as their
peers.
Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet
service provider serve the jurisdiction.
According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) database, Boulder County is
served by at least two broadband providers. The map below illustrates high access to multiple
providers throughout the Consortium.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
108
Broomfield is served by at least five broadband providers. The map below illustrates high access
to multiple providers throughout the city.
Figure: Fixed Broadband Deployment Map: All Providers Reporting Service
Source: Federal Communications Commission.
In the community meetings conducted for this Plan, some residents expressed frustration about
their inability to access internet service through NextLight, and its free service for eligible low
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
109
income families funded by the Longmont Community Foundation and the Longmont Children,
Youth and Families Division.
The program, officially called Sharing the NextLight, has provided high-speed Internet (25
Mbps/25 Mbps) to 35 families, which translates to more than 160 children served. Eligibility is
determined by three factors. First, a family must live in a NextLight service area which spans
about 85 percent of Longmont. Second, a family must have children in the St. Vrain Valley
District. Finally, a family must receive free and reduced lunches.
However, barriers to access remain for several reasons. Some rental complexes have exclusive
advertisement contracts with other market rate providers and, as such, do not actively market
NextLight. Also, although exclusive contracts with providers are not allowed, service providers
do need to invest in the infrastructure to bring services to low income residents. Often this
takes place during development construction, limiting access in newer and often more
affordable apartment complexes.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
110
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation -91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.
The Boulder County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (last updated in 2016 and a new update
currently underway) contains a science-based natural hazard risk analysis, considering a broad
range of information and best available data and including a forward-looking analysis of risks to
housing and infrastructure sectors from climate change and other hazards. The Plan outlines
strategies to reduce or eliminate risks from a range of 18 different hazards our communities
face, including pandemic outbreaks that were estimated at the time the report was released in
2016 to have the potential to affect 30 percent of the State’s population and cause the
shutdown of critical services and facilities. Boulder County jurisdictions are already
experiencing the impacts of a warming climate in the form of reduced snowpack, earlier
snowmelt, increased risk of high intensity wildfires, an increased number of high heat days, and
extreme weather events—for example, the September 2013 Boulder County Flood (Flood).
The Flood provided a unique opportunity for communities to begin planning for climate change.
As part of the CDBG-DR (Disaster Recovery) program, the Boulder County Collaborative (BCC),
made up of Boulder County government and all flood impacted communities in Boulder County,
adopted the Resilient Design Performance Standard (RDPS) to ensure that communities could
better withstand climate change. This involved organizing the built environment into clusters to
prioritize recovery systems and instituting a resilience criteria rating system for projects.
Longmont was the first community to adapt the framework for use on non-disaster recovery
capital projects. Projects that implement resilience criteria from the RDPS are incrementally
helping Boulder County communities improve resiliency to perform better in the next hazard
event and reduce risk to such events.
BCC communities also participated in Resiliency For All, also called Resiliencia Para Todos. This
effort identified barriers to resiliency and created a bridge between a vulnerable sector of our
Latino population with community resources in Longmont and Boulder County. This effort too
has served to reduce hazard risk for vulnerable populations in the community.
Broomfield’s Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies a number of potential hazards including
atmospheric, geologic, public health, and other hazards, along with their probability and
consequences. The most likely hazards associated with climate change include extreme
temperatures (both heat and cold), flooding, severe storms (hail, lightning, wind), tornado, and
severe winder (storm/blizzard). Potential consequences of these occurrences range from
moderate to extensive.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
111
Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low-and moderate-income
households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods.
More wildfires, burning twice as many acres each year as compared to before 1980, as well as
increased frequency and intensity of flooding events, are likely to shrink the housing stock by
further constraining growth opportunities.
Other than mountain areas and land in floodplains, there are not geographic areas in the
Consortium area known to have a disproportionately high risk of natural disasters, yet some
residents and businesses may experience disproportionate impacts. Residents most vulnerable
are those that depend on hourly wage employment as they do not receive wages if they cannot
make it to work or their work is closed during or in the wake of a disaster. Small service-
oriented businesses are also vulnerable as they are most impacted by potential closures and are
less likely than larger corporations to be able to weather a stoppage or shortage in cash flow.
Finally, residents with limited access to information—including those with limited English
profiency—may not receive or know where to receive information about impending/imminent
disasters. Many of these barriers can be addressed through cultural brokers and navigators—an
outcome from the City of Longmont and Boulder County Resilency for All Project that examined
disparities in information access following the 2014 floods.
Hotter summer temperatures that lead to reduced air quality may have a disproportionate
impact on households with low income and people of color. Those populations have been
shown to have a higher incidence of respiratory diseases and as such are more affected during
periods of poor air quality. Equitable access to health care and energy efficiency (improving air
quality indoors) are both important factors in addressing this potential disparity.
Low-and moderate- income households may have more difficulty recovering from disasters
that cause housing damage (e.g., fires, tornadoes, flooding, hail storms) and may require
additional resources/support to do so—including home repair programs.
A 2018 Customer Survey of Longmont residents did not find that flood risks were a major
concern; only 6 percent of residents believed that flood issues would be a major challenge in
the next five years. Residents were, however, very concerned about access to and the costs of
drinking water—which could be affected by climate change.
Respondents to the Consortium Consolidated Plan survey who noted that they have broadband
needs mentioned the following challenges:
• “Flood of 2013 was a set back.” – Longmont resident
• “The flood zone changes coming up are a deterrent to buying or selling.” -Lyons resident
• “I worry that I can't get to a hospital from my home as Foothills is surrounded by a
floodplain” -Boulder resident
• “I worry my home will flood and flood insurance will not be available.” – Lyons resident
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
112
• “Currently can't afford to sell as house needs major repairs and I am single, 70 years old
and still working full time just to make ends meet and have little or not retirement
savings. Can't afford to move and can't afford to stay. Major flood damage since 2013
and cracked foundation. Sump pump not completely hooked up right. The situation I am
in is embarrassing, isolating and depressing.” – Boulder resident
• “Worry about evacuation in case of a fire. Only one way in and out from our
neighborhood off Magnolia.” – Nederland resident
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
113
Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview
The Goals established for this Plan will create affordable housing, preserve existing affordable
housing, stabilize low income households at-risk of homelessness and eviction, and help
households experiencing homelessness become stable.
Consortium Five-year Goals
1. Increase the amount and affordability of rental housing, while preserving existing
affordable rental units for the Consortium’s lowest income renters. The limited
availability of affordable rental units was identified as a key issue across the entire
consortium region, underscoring the need to preserve and expand rental housing stock.
2. Preserve existing affordable owner occupied housing stock by keeping houses safe and
habitable, help owners to age in place and provide foreclosure prevention services to all
homeowners.
3. Support low to moderate income home buyers and increase the supply of affordable
ownership units.
4. Reduce homelessness within the Consortium geographic area and provide services to
assist in the transition to housing.
5. Revitalize and invest in the consortium’s communities to ensure that all neighborhoods,
particularly those of low/moderate income, enjoy a high quality of life and health for
their residents.
6. Increase the economic empowerment of residents to secure a stable income and begin
to build wealth; and of businesses to provide and maintain employment opportunities
primarily for low/moderate income residents.
City of Boulder Five-year Goals
1. Rental Housing Preservation and Development. Support the production of rental
housing units affordable to lowest income households, further moving the city toward
its 15 percent Affordable Housing Goal. The gaps analysis conducted for this study
confirmed the critical nature of this need, finding a shortage of 7,630 rental units
affordable to extremely low income households. Likewise, a multitude of surveys
conducted over the past several years, including the resident survey for this
Consolidated Plan, has consistently identified affordable housing as a top priority.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
114
2. Homeownership Preservation and Construction. Support efforts to maintain and
increase the inventory of affordable ownership homes by assisting low income
households with rehabilitation and accessibility needs. Increase the inventory through
innovative housing development models as opportunities arise, and by providing first
time homebuyer classes, budgeting and financial counseling. Across the region and in
Boulder, the vast majority of renters surveyed indicated a desire to buy a home in the
city but cannot due to high prices and large downpayments needed.
3. Housing Stabilization Programs. Work with community partners to provide housing
stability services to individuals and families at-risk of or experiencing homelessness.
Very low income households are increasingly at-risk of homelessness due to rising rents
and stricter qualifying criteria (e.g. evidence documenting legal presence status).
4. Community Investment Programs. Work with regional partners to coordinate
investment strategies that fund programs and projects designed to impact existing
conditions that threaten the health or welfare of the community, particularly for
residents with low income and/or special needs, priority populations identified by social
services providers.
5. Economic Development Programs. Promote job creation through supports for small
businesses. Stakeholders identified a need for job creation and employment
opportunities, as well as skill development and technical assistance, especially for
underskilled residents and residents with disabilities.
City of Longmont Five-year Goals
Rental Housing Preservation and Development: Maintain and produce additional affordable
rental housing, particularly for households with income below 50 percent AMI. This priority
need is evident in the gaps analysis conducted for this study which found a shortage of more
than 2,300 rentals for extremely low income households. Residents participating in a
community meeting for this Plan identified preservation of affordable rental housing the top
“desired outcome” of the Plan.
1. Homeownership Preservation and Construction. Maintain and increase the inventory
of affordable ownership homes by assisting low income households with rehabilitation
and accessibility needs to ensure decent, safe and sanitary housing conditions.
Preservation of existing housing was the third most common priority outcome in the
Longmont community meeting and a resident survey conducted for the AI found a need
for accessibility improvements.
2. New Homebuyer Opportunities. Increase the inventory through innovative housing
development models as opportunities arise, and by providing first time homebuyer
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
115
classes, budgeting and financial counseling. More than half of Longmont renters
surveyed want to buy a home in the city but cannot due to high prices and large
downpayments needed.
3. Housing Stabilization Programs. Work with community partners to provide housing
resources and services to individuals and families at-risk of or experiencing
homelessness. Very low income households are increasingly at-risk of homelessness due
to rising rents and stricter qualifying criteria (e.g., evidence of documented status).
4. Community Investments. Work with regional partners to coordinate investment
strategies that fund programs and projects designed to impact existing conditions that
threaten the health or welfare of the community, particularly for residents with low
income and/or special needs, priority populations identified by social services providers.
Additional neighborhood resources may become a need during the latter years of this
Consolidated Plan.
5. Economic Development. Promote job creation through supports for primarily minro-
enterprises or small businesses. Stakeholders identified a need for job creation and
employment opportunities, as well as skill development and technical assistance,
especially for underskilled residents and residents with disabilities.
City and County of Broomfield Five-year Goals
1. Rental Housing. The Rental Housing Programs goal is to preserve and increase the
amount, quality, affordability and accessibility of rental housing for the lowest income
renters.
2. Homeownership. The Homeownership Programs goal is to preserve existing affordable
owner occupied housing stock by keeping houses safe and habitable, help owners to age
in place and provide foreclosure prevention services to all homeowners.
3. Homebuyer. The Homebuyer Programs goal is to support low-to-moderate income home
buyers and increase the supply, quality and accessibility of affordable housing units.
4. Homeless Assistance. The Homeless Assistance Program goal is to reduce the number of
people experiencing homelessness through supportive services and case management,
development of permanent supportive and transition housing units and supporting
overnight shelters.
5. Community Investment. The Community Investment Programs goal is to revitalize and
invest in the community to ensure that all neighborhoods, particularly those with
residents who have low to moderate income, enjoy a high quality of life. The 15 units in
“Other” represents capital improvements for non-profit service providers.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
116
6. Economic Development. The Economic Development Programs goal is to increase the
economic empowerment of residents to secure a stable income and build wealth.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
117
SP-10 Geographic Priorities -91.415, 91.215(a)(1)
Geographic Area
Table 52 -Geographic Priority Areas
1 Area Name: Boulder/Broomfield HOME
Consortium Region
Area Type: HOME Region
Other Target Area Description: HOME Region
HUD Approval Date:
% of Low/ Mod:
Revital Type:
Other Revital Description:
Identify the neighborhood boundaries for this target area.
Include specific housing and commercial characteristics of
this target area.
How did your consultation and citizen participation
process help you to identify this neighborhood as a target
area?
Identify the needs in this target area.
What are the opportunities for improvement in this
target area?
Are there barriers to improvement in this target area?
General Allocation Priorities
HOME funds received by the Consortium have historically been distributed to its members
based on a percentage (City of Boulder – 44 percent, City of Longmont – 24 percent, Boulder
County – 20 percent, City and County of Broomfield – 11 percent). Boulder oversees
distribution of its HOME funds as well as the funds designated for Boulder County.
The HOME funds are rotated throughout the region with each rotation receiving the majority
of the funds to pursue a project of magnitude. For example, in year one, Longmont would
receive all of the project dollars plus a percentage of the administrative dollars. This would be
followed by year two, with the funds being awarded to Boulder County for housing
development, year three and four HOME allocations flowing to Boulder (each year representing
approximately 50 percent of the funds generally received by the City), and year five’s allocation
going to Broomfield to use for a development opportunity, unless Broomfield chooses to
continue their annual allocation for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program and forgoes
the year five single allocation. The purpose of this approach is threefold: 1) Concentrate HOME
resources to simplify and expedite individual affordable housing projects; 2) Reduce the
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
118
administrative burden of managing multiple HOME projects across the region; 3) Support a
regional approach to provide transitional and permanent housing to individuals experiencing
homelessness.
All CDBG funding allocated to Boulder will be allocated to activities within Boulder. CDBG funds
are prioritized to meet affordable needs as well as the capital improvement needs of
community based service providers serving people who have low and moderate income. The
geographic location of the programs is dependent upon the request for funds, as the city’s
program is driven by an annual competitive application process. The annual allocation process
includes: release of the Notice of Funding Availability, submission of applications from housing
partners and service providers, review of the applications by staff, provision of technical
assistance to ensure eligibility of proposed activities, review by City Manager-appointed
housing and community development Advisory Boards, and submission of Advisory Board
recommendations to the City Manager for approval.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
119
SP-25 Priority Needs -91.415, 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs
Table 53 – Priority Needs Summary
1 Priority Need
Name
Rental Housing Programs
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Large Families
Families with Children
Older Adults
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium area and citywide across Boulder
Associated
Goals
Housing and services
Description Preserve existing rental housing and increase the amount and
affordability of rental housing for the Consortium’s lowest income
renters.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Preserve and create affordable rental housing options for households
with income below 50 percent AMI. Boulder has an extremely low rental
vacancy rate of less than 2 percent for all rental units and near zero for
affordable rental housing units. Vacancy rates throughout the
Consortium are well below 5 percent, the ideal rate for a fluid and
healthy rental market
2 Priority Need
Name
Homeownership Programs – Existing Housing
Priority Level High
Population Low
Moderate
Large Families
Families with Children
Older Adults
Individuals
People with Physical Disabilities
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium Area and citywide across Boulder
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
120
Associated
Goals
Housing rehabilitation programs
Description Preserve existing affordable owner-occupied housing stock by keeping
houses safe and habitable, help owners to age in place and provide
foreclosure prevention services to all homeowners.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Provision of resources and options to low-income homeowners to
maintain and preserve their housing. There are very limited affordable
ownership opportunities in Boulder and throughout the Consortium
overall. Keeping low and moderate owners in existing homes ensures
they can age in place and/or continue to live and work in the city
3 Priority Need
Name
Homebuyer Programs
Priority Level High
Population Low
Moderate
Large Families
Families with Children
Older Adults
Frail Elderly
People with Physical Disabilities
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium area and citywide across Boulder
Associated
Goals
Below-market for-sale homes and down payment assistance
Description Support low-to-moderate income homebuyers and increase the supply of
affordable housing units.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Provision of homeownership opportunities to low-to moderate-income
homebuyers in the Consortium, which features a shortage of affordable
for sale housing with ever escalating housing costs widening the
affordability gap. The gaps analysis completed for this Plan found fewer
than 500 units for sale in Boulder and fewer than 1,500 in the rest of
Boulder County affordable to households with income of less than
$100,000 per year. Both the City of Boulder and the balance of Boulder
County (administered by the city of Longmont) have ongoing down
payment assistance programs.
4 Priority Need
Name
Housing Stabilization Program
Priority Level High
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
121
Population Extremely Low
Large Families
Families with Children
Older Adults
Chronic Homelessness Individuals
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
People who are living with HIV and/or AIDS
Survivors of Domestic Violence situations
Unaccompanied Youth
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium Region and citywide across Boulder
Associated
Goals
Rental Housing Programs and Homeownership Program
Description The city will work with community partners to provide housing resources
and services to individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Very
low- and lower-income households are increasingly at risk of housing
insecurity and eventual homelessness due to rising rents and stricter
qualifying criteria (e.g. evidence of documented status), as well as
inability to reduce debt. Providing housing supports for persons at risk of
homelessness during a health crisis is especially critical.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Increases in homelessness nationwide due to rapidly rising housing costs,
influx of residents and jobs, effects of national disasters, inability to
reduce debt or improve credit.
5 Priority Need
Name
Community Investment
Priority Level Low
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
122
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Large Families
Families with Children
Older Adults
Frail Elderly
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
People who are living with HIV and/or AIDS
Survivors of Domestic Violence situations
Unaccompanied Youth
People with Mental Disabilities
People with Behavioral Disabilities
People with Physical Disabilities
People with Developmental Disabilities
People with Alcohol or Other Addictions
People who are living with HIV/AIDS and their Families
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium area and citywide across Boulder
Associated
Goals
Community Investment Programs
Description Revitalize and invest in the consortium’s communities to ensure that all
neighborhoods, particularly those of low/moderate income, enjoy a high
quality of life for their residents.
Basis for With limited financial resources available to support the capital
Relative improvement needs of public facilities the City of Boulder’s annual
Priority community development funding allocation prioritizes the capital needs,
including facility acquisition and rehabilitation, of agencies that serve
low-income households in Boulder. This priority also encompasses
revitalization needs of low income neighborhoods
6 Priority Need
Name
Economic Development Programs
Priority Level Low
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
123
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic
Areas
Affected
Consortium area and citywide across Boulder
Associated
Goals
Economic Empowerment Programs
Description Promote job creation and retention through supports for
microenterprises or small businesses. Stakeholders identified a need for
job creation and employment opportunities, as well as skill development
and technical assistance, especially for underskilled residents and
residents with disabilities. Increase the economic empowerment of low
income residents to secure a stable income and begin to build wealth.
Increase the economic stability of businesses to provide and maintain
employment opportunities primarily for low/moderate income residents
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Economically vibrant, Boulder is poised to continue on a sustainable path
of economic development. To ensure participation of people who have
low and moderate income in the local economy have expanded
workforce training opportunities and continued access to capital to start
new and expand existing businesses will be critical.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
124
Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence
Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type
Tenant Based Continued tight rental market and difficultly accessing privately
Rental Assistance provided rentals without public subsidies; economic uncertainty
(TBRA)
TBRA for Non- Continued tight rental market and difficultly accessing privately
Homeless Special provided rentals without public subsidies, particularly for residents
Needs with special housing needs; economic uncertainty
New Unit Extremely low vacancies in both rental and ownership market
Production
Rehabilitation Low and moderate income owners without options to move and
increasingly limited NOAH, economic losses and reduced incomes
make it harder to afford needed repairs. Limited capital to
maintain/improve existing affordable rental developments.
Acquisition, Market pressure to convert affordable developments to market rate;
including limited capital to preserve existing affordable developments
preservation
Table 54 – Influence of Market Conditions
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions -91.415, 91.215(b)
Influence of Market Conditions
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
125
SP-35 Anticipated Resources -91.420(b), 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction This section discusses the resources that will be used to meet the goals of this Plan for the City of Boulder (CDBG) and the HOME Consortium. These resources are financial, involve partnership opportunities, and include ability to leverage additional funds. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Funds Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public – federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 824,551 0 89,446 913,997 3,300,000 Federal funds prioritized to improve affordable housing and to address capital improvements of service providers serving low-and moderate-income residents. The expected CDBG available remaining funds are equal to $825,000 x 4 years. CDBG-CV public – federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 485,056 0 0 485,056 0 Federal funds provided in CARES Act to respond to COVID-19 through a range of activities to prevent, prepare for and respond to coronavirus. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 126 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Funds Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ HOME public -federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Federal funds used to create and preserve affordable housing. Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new The expected HOME available remaining funds are equal to $1,187,000 x 4 years. construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA 1,186,669 0 1,417,796.16 2,604,465.16 4,748,000 Table 55 -Anticipated Resources Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied In addition to the receipt of federal CDBG and HOME funds, the City of Boulder has two funding sources generated locally. The Affordable Housing Fund generates an average of $2.5 million as a result of the City of Boulder Inclusionary Housing ordinance. The Community Housing Assistance Program is funded primarily through property tax and a Housing Excise Tax and generates approximately $2 million annually. The City will continue to leverage resources available including the state, local and private dollars. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 127 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Through its competitive fund rounds, the City encourages applicants to seek other funding and in-kind contributions from private and public sources to match city funding. All other things being equal, applications with greater matching sources will receive favorable consideration. Although specific matching requirements are not currently defined, the city may implement them in the future. The city prefers not to be the sole source of funding for a project or program. Eligible match sources include, but are not limited to, non-federal funds, tax credit proceeds, Private Activity Bonds, municipal General Fund monies, lending institutions, foundations, government entities (county or state), earned revenue, volunteer time, and in-kind donations. The Consortium works with Public Housing Authorities and HOME subrecipients to ensure the HOME match requirement is satisfied. In addition to the aforementioned housing sources, the City of Boulder’s Human Services Fund (HSF) provides roughly $2.1M annually in support for services to community members at-risk or experiencing socio-economic disparities, in alignment with the city’s Human Services Strategy. Services provided through HSF investments include childcare and early education; physical, dental, mental and behavioral health services; financial assistance for rent, food and housing; legal services for underrepresented community members; child and family safety; and other basic needs services for community members of all ages. The city’s Health Equity Fund (HEF) provides roughly $5M annually for a wide range of programs aimed at reducing health disparities. Programs include services for direct physical, dental, mental and behavioral health care, health systems access and navigation, food security, nutrition, physical fitness and wellness education, and other special projects impacting social determinants of health. The City of Boulder Substance Education and Awareness (SEA) Fund invests in programs to prevent youth and family substance use and abuse. The Fund supports adult influencer trainings, youth pro-social events, youth peer education programs, business retail staff training and education, and collaborative substance abuse program planning and advocacy. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan During the next five years the City of Boulder is working with partners on the following redevelopment opportunities that will address the needs of the plan including: 30th and Pearl —The city owned the former Pollard Jeep site for several years and has worked with BHP as master developer to formulate development plans and construct the infrastructure. Two of the four quadrants have now been sold, one to BHP and one Consolidated Plan BOULDER 128 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
to a market rate developer. The remaining quadrants will be sold in 2020. BHP’s affordable project consists of 120 permanently affordable units, including some permanent supportive housing units, and has already been awarded local private activity bonds as well as low income housing tax credits. Completion is anticipated in 2021. Ponderosa Mobile Home Park – The City purchased this 68-lot community in 2017 with CDBG-DR (Disaster Recovery) funds. The park’s nearly 200 residents are primarily Latino families and people with special needs. The city expects to use portions of its 2020-2024 CDBG allocations to address funding gaps in infrastructure improvements in the park. Alpine-Balsam – The Alpine-Balsam property, formerly the Boulder Community Health (BCH) hospital, was purchased by the City of Boulder in 2015. The city’s embarking on the multi-year process to redevelop Alpine-Balsam is motivated by the desire to shape the redevelopment of an area that has been focused around a major healthcare facility for decades, to address the city’s decentralized service challenges by creating a City Service Center, and to address critical affordable housing needs. Current plans estimate that the parcel could potentially hold 100-200 affordable housing units. Discussion Please see above. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 129 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure -91.415, 91.215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its individual
Consolidated Plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
City of Boulder Local Government Lead Entity, Rental,
Homelessness,
Ownership, Public
Service, Public
Facilities
Consortium
Boulder Housing
Partners
PHA Rental, Eviction
Prevention and
Move-In Assistance
Jurisdiction
Boulder County
Housing Authority
PHA Ownership (DPA)
Rental
Region
Boulder County
Housing and Human
Services
Government Housing Counseling
Housing Supports
County
Boulder Shelter for
the Homeless
Non-profit
organization
Homelessness Region
Colorado Enterprise
Fund
CDFI Economic
Development
Other
Emergency Family
Assistance
Association
Non-profit
organization
Homelessness Region
Flatirons Habitat for
Humanity
Non-profit
organization &
CHDO
Ownership Other
City of Longmont Local Government Homeownership
Repair
Other
City of Broomfield Local Government Broomfield TBRA
Program
Other
Table 56 -Institutional Delivery Structure
Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System
Stakeholders believe that the region has the right institutional structure in place to provide
needed services, the exception being public transportation services. The greatest challenges in
the region include: limited funding to serve the growing number of residents who need services
and limited transportation options to move residents to major employment centers in the
region and are readily available to access services.
Acccording to the residents who participated in this survey for this Plan,
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
130
Services Community Homeless with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X X
Legal Assistance X X
Mortgage Assistance X
Rental Assistance X X
Utilities Assistance X X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X X
Mobile Clinics (medical
street outreach is available) X
Other Street Outreach
Services X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Substance
Abuse X X
Child Care X X
Education X
Employment and
Employment Job Skills
Training X X
Healthcare X X
HIV/AIDS X X X
Life Skills X X
Mental Health Counseling X X
Transportation X X
Other
Table 57 -Homeless Prevention Services Summary
• Food related services are perceived among the easiest to access;
• Less expensive housing—while not a service—is the top resource gap; and
• A large share of residents are unaware about most services/resources offered by their
jurisdictions.
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services
The table below summarizes the services available in the Consortium and targeted to
individuals and families experiencing homelessness and people living with HIV and/or AIDS and
their families
Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
131
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed
above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
Please see the discussion of services for people experiencing homelessness in SP-60.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population
and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed
above
Strengths in the region’s service delivery system include a cooperative system of providers with
few areas of duplication, centralized areas for delivery services (e.g., the St. Vrain Community
Hub in Longmont), and a region that has a strong reputation for addressing the needs of
residents with very low income.
Gaps are largely due to growing needs and lack of resources to address those needs. According
to service providers consulted for this Plan, the most significant gaps exist in:
•Increased reliance on the faith-based community to deliver services, including providing
parking lots for overnight shelter, as well as restrooms and personal cleaning areas.
These organizations may not be able to sustain these services long term;
•Lack of dedicated funding in many jurisdictions in Boulder County, including those that
are not direct recipients of Block Grant funds and do not dedicate general funds to assist
smaller service providers;
•Resources for families experiencing domestic violence. The severe housing and child
care shortage means that these families will likely remain with the abuser rather than
seek independence;
•Fear by workers who do not have lawful presence and mixed-status families to seek
services or help, leading to unmet needs and living in overcrowded housing situations;
•Undersupply of affordable child care, particularly for swing shift workers; and
•Lack of accessible, frequent, and reliable transportation.
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and
service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs
The jurisdictions will continue to allocate Block Grant funds to needed services and increase
funding for supportive services as local budgets allow. The HOME Consortium partners are also
undertaking a Human Services Needs Assessment to pinpoint specific gaps in service provision
to help prioritize and efficiently allocate resources.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
132
SP-45 Goals -91.415, 91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator (5 years) 1 Rental Housing Programs 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Consortium Region Rental Housing, Housing Stabilization HOME: $3,348,000 Rental Assistance: 250 Households Assisted Boulder CDBG: Rental units constructed: $750,000 TBD Housing Units 2 Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Consortium Rental Housing, CDBG: Individual Assistance: Stabilization Housing Region Housing $850,000 420 Households Assisted Programs Stabilization 3 Community Investment Programs 2020 2024 Non-Housing Community Development Consortium Region Boulder Community Investment CDBG: $1,269,401 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 45 People Assisted Other: 5 Other 4 Homeownership Programs 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Consortium Region Homebuyer Programs HOME: $2,000,000 Homeownership Housing Constructed: 50 Housing Units Boulder CDBG: $250,000 Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 25 units 5 Economic 2020 2024 Economic Consortium Economic CDBG: Businesses assisted: Development Development Region Development $250,000 50 Businesses Assisted Programs Boulder Consolidated Plan BOULDER 133 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator (5 years) 6 Administration 2020 2024 Admin Consortium Region General Administration CDBG: $842,800 General Administration Boulder HOME: $585,345 Table 58 – Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Rental Housing Programs Goal Description The Rental Housing Programs goal is to preserve and increase the amount, quality, affordability and accessibility of rental housing for the lowest income renters. 2 Goal Name Housing Stabilization Programs Goal Description The city will contract with partners to provide rental or other individual assistance to households impacted by COVID-19. 3 Goal Name Community Investment Programs Goal Description The Community Investment Programs goal is to revitalize and invest in the community to ensure that all neighborhoods, particularly those with residents who have low to moderate income, enjoy a high quality of life. The 5 units in “Other” represents capital improvements for non-profit service providers. 4 Goal Name Homeownership Programs Goal Description The Homeownership Programs goal is to preserve existing affordable owner occupied housing stock by keeping houses safe and habitable, help owners to age in place and provide foreclosure prevention services to all homeowners. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Programs Goal Description The Economic Development Programs goal is to increase the economic empowerment of residents to secure a stable income and build wealth. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 134 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
6 Goal Name Administration Goal Description Costs incurred to administer the grant funds Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) From 2020-2024, the Consortium will create an estimated 150 new units for households with low and moderate income, and conduct rehabilitation for at least 50 owner-occupied units using HOME and CDBG funding. Local funds from the Boulder’s Affordable Housing Fund and Community Housing Assistance Programs and the city’s inclusionary housing ordinances will be further utilized to create, preserve or acquire an additional 1,200 new affordable rental homes and 50 affordable homeownership opportunities. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 135 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement -91.415, 91.215(c)
Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary
Compliance Agreement)
N/A
Activities to Increase Resident Involvements
In Boulder, resident councils and advisory groups are active throughout the portfolio including
providing resident services available at some sites.
Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902?
No
Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation
N/A
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
136
SP-55 Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing -91.415, 91.215(h)
Barriers to Affordable Housing
A strong economy, high quality of life and growth constraints in Consortium jurisdictions have
created significant upward pressure on housing prices and rents. According to the resident
survey conducted for this study, about one-third of households would like to move—and the
biggest barrier for owners is finding another home they can afford.
The impact on housing affordability disproportionately affects those who have lower income
and protected classes in the region. In an environment where there are few affordable options
provided by the private market, it is easier for protected classes to experience housing
discrimination under the guise of acceptable practices—e.g., strict background checks and high
security deposits.
For the two-thirds of residents with income below $25,000 and precariously housed who want
to move:
• Their biggest impediment is that they can’t afford rents in other places.
• Half of precariously housed residents noted they can’t afford application fees or security
deposits, and 13 percent indicated they can’t find a place due to their criminal record.
Of those who what to move and are members of a protected class:
• Hispanic residents are more likely to be unable to afford rents in other places (62%);
• Households with a member with a disability are the most likely to be unable to afford
application fees or security deposits (32%); and
• Around half of large families and older adults who want to move own a home they want
to sell but can’t afford to purchase something else at current prices.
Of homeowners who want to move, most say they can’t afford to purchase something else at
current prices.
Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing
The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership established a regional goal of 18,000 homes
affordable to a diverse mix of households with low and moderate income by 2035. This goal is
based on the population and land use projections from each community, and acknowledges
that more than 6,000 homes are already affordable for the long term. The need for affordable
homes exists for people of all ages, life stages, and family sizes across generations. The 12
percent regional goal balances the demand for more homes with the need to increase staffing
and other resources to manage development and acquisition opportunities across the county.
The regional housing plan recommends that the 12 percent goal be comprised of about 30
percent ownership housing and about 70 percent rental housing. This approach responds to
recent needs assessments demonstrating significantly greater need for rental housing as well as
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
137
evaluation of existing organizational and funding capacity to preserve and build affordable
homes.
The following guidelines are recommended:
•Homes acquired or built for ownership will serve households with a maximum income of
120 percent AMI.
•Homes acquired and built for rent will serve households with income between 0 to 80
percent AMI.
•About 200 homes will designated as Permanent Supportive Housing and will be included
as part of the rental housing goal.
•The anticipated income ranges may be updated as local market conditions and housing
policies evolve.
As price appreciation continues for homes both owned and rented throughout Boulder County,
homes that were previously affordable to the local workforce are no longer attainable. The
regional housing plan recommends that market affordability be preserved with the following
strategies:
•Acquire and deed restrict existing housing inventory.
•Adopt One-for-One Replacement ordinances allowing developments currently featuring
more homes than allowed by current zoning to be rebuilt to include up to the existing
unit count with a requirement for included or increased permanently-affordable
housing.
•Adopt Right of First Refusal ordinances for privately-owned multifamily housing,
allowing jurisdictions to be first offered the right to acquire the property by matching
the market-based price negotiated by the owner and a third party.
•Pay to extend existing periods of affordability that might otherwise convert to market.
•Recognize mobile home parks as a market affordable asset and seek preservation
opportunities.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
138
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy -91.415, 91.215(d)
Homeless Solutions for Boulder County (HSBC) was established in October 2017 as the
countywide coordinated response system for individual adults experiencing homelessness. A
collaboration between Boulder County and the Cities of Longmont and Boulder, HSBC’s goals
are to increase access to housing opportunities, particularly for chronically homeless persons.
HSBC exists to reduce barriers for housing placement, to divert people from homelessness, and
to match services with needs in order to effectively allow for transition to independent living
situations. The system monitors performance in an effort to reduce returns to homelessness,
and HSBC makes changes to the system where warranted by data and evidence.
Since the development of Housing Solutions for Boulder county in October of 2017 (and
through Jan. 2020), 817 individuals have exited homelessness (393 to housing options, 295
reunified with support networks, and 128 to other programs).
HSBC staff also led a number of collaborative grant writing efforts with one leading to a $2.4
Million award for Permanent Supportive Housing services from the U.S. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (Department of Health and Human Services).
On June 20, 2017, Boulder City Council approved the Homelessness Strategy. The strategy is
Boulder-specific plan to address homelessness and complement other regional homelessness
efforts. The strategy has been developed based on best practices, research, what’s worked in
other communities, and local issues and needs. The purpose of the strategy is to:
•Clarify city goals in addressing homelessness;
•Maximize efficiency and effectiveness of city resources in reducing homelessness;
•Engage community and regional partners broadly in solutions; and
•Provide a strategic road map for city action on homelessness.
Boulder County’s Department of Housing and Human Services primary focus is investing in early
childhood well-being and education, expanding access to affordable and decent housing, and
integrating data systems in order to accurately assess the needs of their vulnerable population.
The City and County of Broomfield addresses the needs of homelessness individuals through its
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA), a two-year self-sufficiency program that
provides rental assistance and supportive case management for low-income Broomfield
families. Families must be homeless, living with family or friends, or have unsafe/unstable
housing; families who need rental assistance to sustain a current lease or rental agreement do
not qualify. Broomfield also administers Housing Choice Vouchers as a subrecipient of the
Colorado Division of Housing, the waitlist priority for those vouchers are homeless individuals
or families.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
139
The City of Longmont focuses on a Housing First strategy, developing deeply subsidized housing
for persons experiencing and at-risk of homelessness and investing in transitional housing.
Describe how the jurisdiction's strategic plan goals contribute to:
1) Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs
2) Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
Boulder County provides an array of services targeted to addressing emergency and transitional
housing needs. Some of these include:
•Emergency or transitional housing for families with a focus in child and family stability.
•Tenant-based housing vouchers for homeless veterans and their families in Boulder
County.
•Boulder County funds longer-term stability for household transitioning from a Rapid
Rehousing Program by issuing up to 50 Homeless Admission Vouchers for households
meeting the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act definition or a revised definition
of “homeless” as defined by the HEARTH Act (Homeless Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition Act of 2009).
•Housing Stabilization Program, providing rental and security deposit assistance for
residents working toward self-sufficiency, and targeted to those facing eviction and/or
at risk of homelessness.
•In 2016, BCHA was awarded 20 Section 811 project-based vouchers from the State for
its newest development in Louisville, providing permanent supportive housing for
individuals with significant and long-term disabilities to live independently in the
community through affordable housing linked with voluntary services and supports.
In Longmont, the Homeless Outreach Providing Encouragement (HOPE) nonprofit
announced it will be offering year-round sheltering services in 2019. They are only open to
those who have been assigned to Longmont navigation through the Homeless Solutions for
Boulder County (HSBC) coordinated entry process, which synchronizes all of the homeless
services in Boulder County to help homeless people find employment and permanent
housing. In the first year of HOPE's partnership with HSBC, 35 clients have successfully
gotten off the streets and into housing.
The City of Boulder has made a significant investment in permanent supportive housing,
providing funding for 48 vouchers and associated case management services. Single adults
in Boulder are served by two sheltering, and entry for those shelters is controlled by the
HSBC Coordinated Entry Process. The Housing Focused Shelter program focuses on the long
term housing needs of people with disabilities while the Navigation program focuses on
short term sheltering and creative housing solutions. The City also provides a Severe
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
140
Weather Shelter (SWS) in periods of inclement weather. There are 160 beds available for
year-round programs and 72 beds for SWS.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
Chronically homeless. As discussed earlier, HSBC, a collaboration between Boulder County and
the Cities of Longmont and Boulder, exists to reduce barriers connecting the county’s most
vulnerable residents with housing more efficiently and quickly. This is carried out by matching
services with specific resident’s needs to effectively allow them to transition to independent
living situations.. Interventions such as permanent supportive housing are prioritized for the
chronically homeless and coordinated through HSBC efforts.
Families. In 2017, the City of Boulder partnered with the Emergency Family Assistance
Association (EFAA) on Keep Families Housed, a pilot program with a funding investment of
$263,000. The program aims to prevent families from falling into homelessness by providing
them with up to three short-term rental assistance payments throughout the year to stay
current in their housing. The second and third payments are tied to families completing actions
to improve family stability and long-term well-being for children.
In 2017, 332 families received a first rental assistance payment, 268 a second payment and 160
a third payment. OMNI Institute conducted an evaluation of the Keep Families Housed pilot
year (2017). None of the families surveyed for the OMNI evaluation became homeless after
participating in the program. The evaluation also found significant improvements in the
percentage of families who indicated a safe, stable, or thriving situation in the areas of
employment, income, food and money management when assessed via the Self Sufficiency
Matrix (SSM) tool.
Funding for the program continued in 2018 and 2019. The City also provides ongoing support
for families experiencing or at risk of homelessness through the City’s Family Resource Schools
program and funding support to Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence (SPAN),
Mother House, which offers shelter and support for pregnant women experiencing
homelessness, and other EFAA programs. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the need for
family supports and has led the city to deepen and expand the relationships with EFAA and
Keep Families Housed, and other service providers, in hopes of serving more families in need.
Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low-income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being
discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
141
assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services,
employment, education or youth needs
The City of Boulder, Boulder County and City of Longmont fund the FOCUS Re-entry Program,
which helps people being discharged from Boulder County jail. FOCUS recruits and trains
mentors to support offenders by meeting their basic and socio-emotional needs, particularly
during the first 72 hours following release. This support continues throughout their transition
from incarceration to civilian life, from reentry to full reintegration and eventually self-
sufficiency without recidivism.
Mental Health Partners, serving Boulder and Broomfield Counties, provides numerous options
for individuals being discharged from a publicly-funded institution or system of care. MHP
provides Brief Housing Support (BHS) to assist individuals with not only finding but maintaining
housing.
Clients who are newly-homeless or experiencing a first time major crisis are often in need of
lighter touch housing assistance. To address needs of these clients, Boulder County Department
of Housing & Human Services created the Housing Stabilization Program to provide
homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing services accessible via Boulder County’s
community-based organizations. Boulder County contracts with seven external organizations to
provide HSP services: EFAA, Sister Carmen, OUR Center, Bridge House, SPAN, Safe Shelter of St.
Vrain Valley, Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, and Mental Health Partner’s Community Infant
Program (CIP). In addition, the HSBC provides Diversion Services and reunification services for
persons who are newly homeless.
Families make up a large portion (45%) of people experiencing homelessness in Boulder.
Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA) is the primary local provider of shelter,
housing and related emergency services to Boulder’s homeless and near-homeless families. The
agency provides 18 units of housing targeted to homeless families (six emergency shelter units
and 12 transitional housing units) and an additional 38 units elsewhere in the county. EFAA’s
current eligibility criteria require families to have incomes of at least $1,000/month before they
can qualify for services and transitional housing.
In partnership with EFAA and other community partners, Boulder Housing Partners offers
Bringing School Home, a new program that brings together affordable housing and educational
opportunities for the whole family. Families who meet eligibility requirements and are
committed to participating in educational programming to support their children’s long-term
success may apply to Bringing School Home through EFAA. Supportive services start at the time
a family moves into a Bringing School Home community and continues as children move along
their educational path toward high school graduation.
Other initiatives include:
• Expansion of the Bridge House master leasing program for graduates of its Ready to
Work Program
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
142
• Changes to shelter eligibility requirements to allow more tailored response to specific
sheltering and case management programs, with the ultimate goal of increasing housing
exits
• Development of a more robust diversion program for immediate resolution of housing
crises
• Increased funding for Bridge House Rapid Re-housing programming
• Significantly increased local (City of Boulder) funding for permanent supportive housing
vouchers
• Award of SAHMA grant in the amount of $2.4 million to provide case management and
mental health services to persons experiencing homelessness, which is leveraged with
local and state rental vouchers
• Utilized 20 percent of local housing authority voucher vacancies for permanent
supportive housing
• Development requirements for the creation of PSH units
• Creation of a landlord risk mitigation fund for individuals assisted through PSH programs
• PHA set asides for PSH
• Municipal Court navigation services to connect high court utilizers who are experiencing
homelessness with housing and shelter options
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
143
SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards -91.415, 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards
The City of Boulder has complied and continues to comply with lead-based paint regulation
since the enactment of Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The
Act requires all State and local jurisdictions that receive funding from the CDBG and HOME
programs adhere to all federal lead-based paint regulations. Other organizations which receive
federal funds are also required to adhere to these regulations.
How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?
Integrating lead-based paint hazard identification and mitigation into existing programs is the
most efficient and effective strategy to lessen hazards, given budget constraints and limited
HUD Block Grant funding. In addition, the City is committed to distributing educational
materials whenever possible.
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?
The City incorporates Lead-Based Paint visual assessments, testing and mitigation for all
housing built before 1978. Compliance staff is required to attend training and renew
certification on a regular basis.
The City has worked closely with Boulder Housing Partners to reduce and/or eliminate exposure
to lead-based paint in housing units by providing funding to mitigate it as part of the overall
rehabilitation of rental properties. The City will continue this effort over the next five years.
The City and County of Broomfield updated their lead-based paint policies and procedures for
the home rehabilitation program to ensure compliance with new requirements, as well as
requiring repair contractors to be re-certified on a regular basis.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
144
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy -91.415, 91.215(j)
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families
The Consortium is committed to reducing the number of households with income below the
poverty level (roughly $25,000 for a household of four) by providing them with programs to
motivate and assist them to move toward self-sufficiency. Jurisdictions work with various
service providers and other units of local government to provide supportive services to
residents with low income. As housing is one of the most critical issues for these households,
the Consortium will continue to provide and seek additional resources to preserve and create
housing opportunities.
The City of Boulder will continue to focus its efforts and resources to reduce the number of
poverty-level families though the preservation and creation of safe and affordable housing. The
foundational importance of meeting the housing needs of poverty-level families will support
them moving toward self-sufficiency. Continued and expanded coordination with the city’s
Human Service Fund provides the opportunity to support the agencies serving poverty-level
families. Expanded coordination with the city’s Economic Vitality Program will provide
opportunities for poverty-level families to gain the training and skill-building, resources and
supports that can lead them to achieving self-sufficiency.
Boulder’s Community Mediation Services program also provides mediation, restorative justice
and meeting facilitation services for all city residents, including neutral information regarding
landlord-tenant matters. In conjunction with Longmont’s Mediation Services program, these
services have been expanded to cover the entirety of Boulder County during the COVID crisis,
with the goal of preventing or minimizing evictions.
Each year, the City of Boulder also provides rebates to help compensate residents with lower
incomes for the city sales tax they pay on food. Those seeking a rebate must fill out an
application documenting their eligibility. In 2020, rebates will be $87 for individuals and $265
for families. Application deadlines have been extended to Sept. 30, 2020. To be eligible to
receive a refund, applicants must meet financial eligibility guidelines, have been a resident of
Boulder for the entire 2019 calendar year, and be: age 62 or over for the entire 2019 calendar
year; or a person with a disability; or a family with children under 18 years of age in the
household for the entire 2019 calendar year;
City residents who do not have permanent shelter are eligible for the refund and can meet the
residency requirement by providing documentation that they are receiving services from a city-
recognized homelessness services agency.
Boulder County recently developed a guiding document for Housing & Human Services
investments: Building a Community of HOPE, which can be found here
https://www.bouldercounty.org/departments/housing-and-human-services/
The county’s strategy to address poverty includes:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
145
1) Addressing the root causes of crisis and instability by getting services to residents as
quickly as possible;
2) Promoting health care and child care coverage;
3) Building affordable housing;
4) Working toward alternatives to detention and institutionalization;
This is accomplished through delivery of programs that focus on health care, food assistance,
child services, housing, emergency financial assistance, education and skill development, and
elder services.
The City of Longmont's Anti-poverty efforts during the next 5 years will consist of continuing to
support and fund agencies/programs that address the City’s six human services goals based on
the social determinants of health
• Housing Stability: supporting a continuum of emergency and transitional housing
options; helping people find and sustain stable housing.
• Health & Well-being: ensuring access to affordable medical, dental and mental health
care.
• Food & Nutrition: helping households obtain adequate quantity and quality of food.
• Self-sufficiency & Resilience: supporting households during tough economic times;
helping households attain steady employment with livable wages and move toward self-
sufficiency; and helping households remain as self-reliant as possible.
• Education & Skill Building: starting young and continuing throughout all stages of life,
offering education, and skills training that are the building blocks of self-sufficiency.
• Safety & Justice: ensuring safe and supportive environments for vulnerable children and
adults.
The City of Longmont also administers the City Assistance and Rebate System (CAReS). The
program offers financial assistance and rebates for a number of resident expenses including:
1. The City portion of property tax paid in the previous year or 20 percent of average monthly
rent paid by the applicant during the preceding year.
2. The Park & Greenway Maintenance Fee paid by the applicant during the preceding year.
3. $4 for each month the applicant paid an electric bill to the City of Longmont in the preceding
year.
4. The monthly service charge for water paid to the City of Longmont in the preceding year.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
146
5. A new grocery sales tax rebate of $78 for one person, $156 for two people in the same
household who file taxes together, and $204 for three or more people in the same household
who file taxes together.
Qualifying residents include residents who receive LEAP, SNAP, SLMB, 104PTC, USDA’s free
lunch, or other income qualified assistance.
The City and County of Broomfield will support anti-poverty efforts by continuing to fund legal
services that work to avoid evictions of low income households. The Broomfield Health and
Human Services (HHS) Department follows a Whole Family Success model which utilizes a multi
generational approach, creates a thriving community that promotes individual and whole family
success, employment and economic resiliency, and healthy childhood development. Broomfield
HHS also administers multiple self-sufficiency programs including Colorado Works and TANF,
Employment First, LEAP, and emergency rental assistance for families who are able to sustain
stable housing.
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this
affordable housing plan?
As discussed above, Consortium members include housing stabilization programs as part of
their jurisdictional efforts to address poverty. The Boulder Countywide Regional Housing
Strategy established a goal to secure 12 percent of the county’s housing inventory as
permanently affordable, serving a diverse mix of low, moderate- and middle-income
households by 2035.
The resident survey conducted for this plan included questions about resident access to
services that will help inform coordination of housing and access to services during this Plan
period.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
147
SP-80 Monitoring -91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities
carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with
requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the
comprehensive planning requirements
Monitoring responsibilities associated with the use of CDBG and HOME funds is carried out by the
Department of Housing & Human Services compliance staff. All federally funded projects and
programs are monitored for compliance with regulatory and statutory requirements from award
of funds through project completion.
Compliance staff conduct an annual Risk Assessment to determine the level and frequency
monitoring. The on-site monitoring schedule is developed based on the outcome of the Risk
Assessment. Any rental housing property determined to be a high risk for non-compliance is
placed on the monitoring schedule regardless of whether they have recently been monitored. At
minimum, all rental housing properties are monitored on-site every three years.
On-site monitoring consists of unit/property inspections as well as a review of the Affirmative
Marketing Plan, Tenant Selection Plan, Lease Agreement and a sample of tenant files. Additional
on-site visits are conducted if findings in the initial on-site visit deem it necessary. Analysis of
recipient records and activity may indicate a need for special monitoring visits by compliance
staff to resolve or prevent further problems.
Desk monitoring is conducted on a quarterly and annual basis to ensure compliance with
regulatory and statutory requirements as well as long-term compliance with civil rights and
minority business outreach requirements. Desk monitoring consists of a review of Quarterly
Progress Reports, Annual Tenant Reports, Annual Beneficiary Reports, Affirmative Marketing
Compliance Reports, Financial Statements and Single Audits.
The city requires grant recipients to collect data on all individuals/households that have applied
for, participated in or benefitted from federally assisted projects/programs. Recipients submit
annual reports which document race, ethnicity, single female head of household, senior/elderly
head of household and disabled head of households by utilizing the HUD-27061 Racial and Ethnic
Data Reporting Form. Recipients are also required to submit an Affirmative Marketing
Compliance report which demonstrates their efforts to affirmatively market federally assisted
units to ensure compliance with affirmative marketing requirements.
The city has developed procurement procedures that facilitate opportunities to minority and
women owned businesses. Compliance staff monitor the procurement process for each federally
assisted project to ensure minority and women owned businesses were provided the opportunity
to participate in the procurement process and awarding of contracts. On-gong training and
technical assistance is provided to grant recipients on minority and women owned business
outreach requirements and procurement procedures.
Compliance staff maintain a list of minority and women owned businesses. This list is
reviewed/updated annually and provided to grant recipients to assist them in conducting
outreach to minority and women owned businesses regarding the availability of contracts and
subcontracts through the procurement process. Compliance staff collect data which documents
racial, ethnic and gender characteristics of all contractors and subcontractors awarded a contract
for federally assisted projects and submits the data to HUD on the Contract & Subcontract
Activity Report.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
148
In addition to the City’s monitoring of federally funded programs and projects, the City also
monitors HOME Consortium members to ensure the projects they fund are in compliance with
applicable regulations.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
149
Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources -91.420(b), 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction This section discusses the resources that will be used to meet the goals of this Plan for the City of Boulder (CDBG), as lead agency, and individual Consortium jurisdictions. These resources are financial, involve partnership opportunities, and include ability to leverage additional funds. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Descri Funds Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public -federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 824,551 0 89,446 913,997 3,300,000 Federal funds prioritized affordable housing and to capital improvements of providers serving low- an income residents. The expected CDBG avai remaining funds are equ x 4 years. CDBG-Public – Housing Federal funds provided i CV federal Public to respond to COVID-19 Improvements range of activities to pre Public Services 485,056 0 0 485,056 0 for and respond to coron Consolidated Plan BOULDER 150 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Program Source of Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Descri Funds Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ HOME public -federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Federal funds used to cr preserve affordable hou Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new The expected HOME avai remaining funds are equ $1,187,000 x 4 years. construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA 1,186,669 0 1,417,796.16 2,604,465.16 4,748,000 Table 59 -Anticipated Resources Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied In addition to the receipt of federal CDBG and HOME funds, the City of Boulder has two funding sources generated locally. The Affordable Housing Fund generates an average of $2.5 million as a result of the City of Boulder Inclusionary Housing ordinance. The Community Housing Assistance Program is funded primarily through property tax and a Housing Excise Tax and generates approximately $2 million annually. The city will continue to leverage resources available including the state, local and private dollars. Through its competitive fund rounds, the city encourages applicants to seek other funding and in-kind contributions from private and public sources to match city funding. Other things being equal, applications with greater matching sources will receive favorable consideration. Although specific matching requirements are not currently defined, the city may implement them in the future. The city prefers not to be the sole source of funding for a project or program. Eligible match sources include, but are not limited to, non-Consolidated Plan BOULDER 151 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
federal funds, tax credit proceeds, Private Activity Bonds, municipal General Fund monies, lending institutions, foundations, government entities (county or state), earned revenue, volunteer time, and in-kind donations. The Consortium works with public housing authorities and HOME subrecipients to ensure the HOME match requirement is satisfied In addition to the aforementioned housing sources, the City of Boulder’s Human Services Fund (HSF) provides roughly $2.1M annually in support for services to community members at-risk or experiencing socio-economic disparities, in alignment with the city’s Human Services Strategy. Services provided through HSF investments include childcare and early education; physical, dental, mental and behavioral health services; financial assistance for rent, food and housing; legal services for underrepresented community members; child and family safety; and other basic needs services for community members of all ages. The city’s Health Equity Fund (HEF) provides roughly $5M annually for a wide range of programs aimed at reducing health disparities. Programs include services for direct physical, dental, mental and behavioral health care, health systems access and navigation, food security, nutrition, physical fitness and wellness education, and other special projects impacting social determinants of health. The City of Boulder Substance Education and Awareness (SEA) Fund invests in programs to prevent youth and family substance use and abuse. The Fund supports adult influencer trainings, youth pro-social events, youth peer education programs, business retail staff training and education, and collaborative substance abuse program planning and advocacy. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 152 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that
may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
During the next five years the City of Boulder is working with partners on the following
redevelopment opportunities that will address the needs of the plan including:
30th and Pearl —The city owned the former Pollard Jeep site for several years and has worked
with BHP as master developer to formulate development plans and construct the
infrastructure. Two of the four quadrants have now been sold, one to BHP and one to a market
rate developer. The remaining quadrants will be sold in 2020. BHP’s affordable project consists
of 120 permanently affordable units, including permanent supportive housing units, and has
already been awarded local private activity bonds as well as low income housing tax credits.
Ponderosa Mobile Home Park – The City purchased this 68-lot community in 2017 with CDBG-
DR (Disaster Recovery) funds. The park’s nearly 200 residents are primarily Latino families and
people with special needs. The city expects to use portions of its 2020-2024 CDBG allocations to
address funding gaps in infrastructure improvements in the park.
Alpine-Balsam – The Alpine-Balsam property, formerly the Boulder Community Health (BCH) hospital, was
purchased by the City of Boulder in 2015. The city’s embarking on the multi-year process to redevelop
Alpine-Balsam is motivated by the desire to shape the redevelopment of an area that has been focused
around a major healthcare facility for decades, to address the city’s decentralized service challenges by
creating a City Service Center, and to address critical affordable housing needs. Current plans estimate
that the parcel could potentially hold 100-200 affordable housing units.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
153
Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives -91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Rental Housing Programs 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Consortium Region Boulder Homeless Assistance Programs Rental Housing Programs HOME: $249,684 Rental units constructed: 73 Household Housing Units TBRA/Rapid Rehousing: 10 Households Assisted 2 Housing Stabilization Programs 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Consortium Region Boulder Rental Housing Eviction Prevention CDBG: $385,638 CDBG-CV: Individual Assistance: 420 Households $288,045 3 Community Investment Programs 2020 2021 Non-Housing Community Development Consortium Region Boulder Community Investment CDBG: $223,449 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 25 People Assisted Other: 1 Other Consolidated Plan BOULDER 154 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 4 Homeownership Programs 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Consortium Region Boulder Home Buyer Programs HOME: $750,000 CDBG: Homeowner Housing Constructed: 19 Household Housing Units $40,000 Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 5 Household Housing Unit 5 Economic 2020 2021 Economic Consortium Economic CDBG: Businesses assisted: 10 Development Programs Development Region Boulder Development $100,000 CDBG-CV: Businesses Assisted $100,000 6 Administration 2020 2021 Administration Consortium Region Administration CDBG: $164,910 Boulder CDBG-CV: $97,011 HOME: $186,985 Table 60 – Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Rental Housing Programs Goal Description Preserve existing and increase the amount and affordability of rental housing for the Consortium's lowest income renters. Activities include Broomfield TBRA Program and CV Eviction Prevention and Move-In Assistance Program. Consolidated Plan BOULDER 155 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
2 Goal Name Housing Stabilization Program Goal Description The city will contract with partners to provide rental or other individual assistance to households impacted by COVID-19. 3 Goal Name Community Investment Programs Goal Description Revitalize and invest in the Consortium's communities to ensure that all neighborhoods, particularly those of low/moderate income, enjoy a high qulaity of life for their residents. Activities include support to non-profit agencies impacted by COVID-19 as well as reimbursement of costs associated with standing up a regional COVID Recovery Center for person’s experiencing homelessness that did not have a place to isolate or recover from the virus. 4 Goal Name Homeownership Programs Goal Description New and Existing Owner- Occupied Housing Assistance Programs-Preserve existing affordable owner-occupied housing stock by keeping houses safe and habitable, help owners to age in place and provide foreclosure prevention services to all homeowners. Increase the supply of affordable housing units through the construction of new homeownership units affordable to low- and moderate income home buyers. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Programs Goal Description Increase the economic empowerment of residents to secure a stable income and begin to build wealth. 6 Goal Name Administration Goal Description Costs incurred to administer the grant funds Consolidated Plan BOULDER 156 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
# Project Name
1 CDBG Administration
2 HOME Administration
3 Family Resource Schools
4 Eviction Prevention & Move In Assistance
5 Community Ambassador/Ranger Program
6 Minor Home Repair
7 Economic Development Assistance
8 Habitat Violet
9 General Public Service
10 COVID Recovery Center (CRC)
11 2020 HOME Broomfield TBRA
12 2020 BCHA Coffman
Table 61 – Project Information
AP-35 Projects -91.420, 91.220(d)
Introduction
The projects proposed for the 2020 program year are as follows:
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved
needs
The allocation of funds is closely aligned with the top housing and community development
needs identified in the needs assessment, housing market analysis, and contributions by
stakeholders and citizens who participated in the development of this Plan. The primary
obstacle to addressing underserved needs is a lack of funds.
In Program Year 2020, the City of Boulder will allocate a total of $913,997 in CDBG funds and
$485,056 in Cares Act CDBG funds to meet these objectives.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
157
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
1 Project Name 2020 CDBG Admin
Target Area
Goals Supported
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $164,910; CDBG-CV: $97,011 (Total: $118,667)
Description Administration costs.
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
Administration
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities
Administration
2 Project Name 2020 HOME Admin
Target Area
Goals Supported
Needs Addressed
Funding HOME: $118,667
Description Administration
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
Administration
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Administration
3 Project Name 2020 FRS
Target Area
Goals Supported Housing Stabilization & Rental Housing
Needs Addressed Housing Stabilization Programs
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
158
Funding CDBG: $123,683
Description FRS Public Service
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
200 families either at risk or homeless.
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Public Service dollars for the FRS program.
4 Project Name 2020 Eviction Prevention and Move-in Assistance
Target Area
Goals Supported Rental Housing & Housing Stabilization
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $200,000; CDBG-CV: $200,000 (Total: $400,000)
Description Individual assistance to households impacted by COVID-19
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
200 families or individuals at risk of homelessness due to
the COVID-19 crisis.
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Public service dollars for a short term rental assistance
program (NTE 3 consecutive months) in response to
COVID-19 pandemic, to be administered by local partners
BHP and EFAA.
5 Project Name 2020 Community Ambassador Program
Target Area
Goals Supported Housing Stabilization
Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Assistance
Funding CDBG: $61,955; CDBG-CV: $88,045 (Total: $150,000)
Description
Target Date 7/1/2021
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
159
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
20 individuals and families
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Outreach and service provision to the homeless
6 Project Name 2020 Minor Home Repair
Target Area
Goals Supported Homeownership Preservation and Construction Programs
Needs Addressed Existing Owner-Occupied Hsg Assistance Program
Funding CDBG: $40,000
Description Home Repair Program administered by the City of
Longmont for low income homeowners with property
located within the city limits of Boulder.
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
4- 6 Households.
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Minor Home Repair in the City of Boulder
7 Project Name 2020 Economic Development Assistance
Target Area
Goals Supported Economic Development Programs
Needs Addressed Economic Development
Funding CDBG: $50,000; CDBG-CV: $85,056 (Total: $135,056)
Description Micro enterprise Program
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
20
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Microenterprise program & payment relief
8 Project Name 2020 Habitat Violet
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
160
Target Area Boulder
Goals Supported Homeownership Preservation andConstruction
Needs Addressed Homeowner Housing
Funding HOME: $818,318
Description New construction of 19 units in Boulder
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
19
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities New construction for homeowners
9 Project Name 2020 General Public Service Program
Target Area
Goals Supported Public Service – Community Investment Programs
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $235,404
Description Support nonprofit organizations that provide services to
target populations and to meet priority needs.
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
5
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Operating support
10 Project Name 2020 COVID Recovery Center (CRC)
Target Area
Goals Supported Community Investment Programs
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $150,000
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
161
Description Contribution to Boulder’s share of costs associated with
the regional COVID Recovery Center for persons
experiencing homelessness that did not have a place to
isolate, rest and recover from COVID-19 symptoms.
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
20
Location Description Boulder
Planned Activities Operating support
11 Project Name 2020 Broomfield TBRA Program
Target Area
Goals Supported Rental Housing
Needs Addressed
Funding HOME: $117,480
Description Continued funding of Broomfield’s TBRA Program
Target Date 7/1/2021
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
10
Location Description Broomfield
Planned Activities TBRA funds
12 Project Name 2020 BCHA Coffman
Target Area
Goals Supported Rental Housing
Needs Addressed
Funding HOME: $1,550,000
Description New construction of 73 units in Downtown Longmont.
Target Date 7/1/2020
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
73
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
162
Location Description Longmont
Planned Activities New construction for renters
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
163
AP-50 Geographic Distribution -91.420, 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and
minority concentration) where assistance will be directed
Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Boulder Broomfield HOME Consortium Region 100
Table 62 -Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
Please see the Discussion section below for complete details of geographic areas of
entitlement.
Discussion
HOME funds received by the Consortium have historically been distributed to the Consortium
jurisdiction members based on a set percentage (City of Boulder – 44%, City of Longmont –
24%, Boulder County – 20%, City and County of Broomfield – 11%). Longmont oversees its own
distribution of HOME funds. Broomfield has used its funds to support a Tenant Based Rental
Program. Boulder oversees distribution of its HOME funds as well as the funds designated for
Boulder County.
This historical distribution process is being re-evaluated by the Consortium members who are
exploring transitioning to a rotational distribution. If adopted by the Consortium members the
funds would rotate throughout the region with each rotation receiving the majority of the
funds to pursue a project of magnitude. For example, in year one Longmont would receive all of
the project dollars plus a percentage of the administrative dollars. This would be followed by
year two with the funds being awarded to Boulder County, year three and four HOME
allocations flowing to the City of Boulder (representing approximately 50 percent of the funds
generally received by the city), and year five’s allocation going to Broomfield to use for a
development opportunity unless Broomfield chooses to continue their annual allocation for the
Tenant Based Rental Assistance program and forgoes the year five single allocation. The
purpose of this adjustment is threefold: 1) Concentrate HOME resources to simplify and
expedite individual affordable housing projects; 2) Reduce the administrative burden of
managing multiple HOME projects across the region; 3) Support the Ten-Year Plan to Address
Homelessness by supporting a regional approach to provide transitional and permanent
housing to individuals experiencing homelessness. The feasibility and structure of this form of
distribution is still under discussion.
All CDBG funding allocated to Boulder will be allocated to activities within Boulder. CDBG funds
are prioritized to meet affordable needs as well as the capital improvement needs of
community based service providers serving people with low and moderate income. The
geographic location of the programs is dependent upon the request for funds, as the city’s
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
164
program is driven by an annual competitive application process. The annual allocation process
includes: release of the Notice of Funding Availability, submission of applications from housing
partners and service providers, review of the applications by staff, provision of technical
assistance to ensure eligibility of proposed activities, review by City Manager-appointed
housing and community development Advisory Boards, and submission of Advisory Board
recommendations to the City Manager for approval.
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing -91.420, 91.220(g)
Introduction
Please see below for information related to the one year affordable housing goals for the Boulder
Broomfield HOME Consortium.
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be
Supported
Homeless
Non-Homeless
0
92
Special Needs
Total 92
Table 63 -One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement
One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported
Through
Rental Assistance
The Production of New Units 92
Rehab of Existing Units
Acquisition of Existing Units
Total 92
Table 64 -One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type
Discussion
The above numbers only reflect HOME defined units and do not include a number of units
supported through CDBG funding.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
165
AP-60 Public Housing -91.420, 91.220(h)
Introduction
Publicly-supported housing plays a critical role in the provision of affordable housing, and this
role expands in high cost housing markets. This includes provision of rental housing for
residents with lower income as well as ownership housing for residents with moderate income
created through public incentives or requirements. The Consortium is fortunate to have three
public housing entities that own and operate affordable rental and deed-restricted for sale
housing and administer housing choice voucher programs. Broomfield’s Housing Authority
administers a small number of vouchers allocated by the Colorado Department of Housing; the
housing authority does not own or manage affordable rentals.
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing
See Section MA-25.
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership
According to the regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), which utilized
data from area public housing authorities, housing authority clients largely have extremely low
incomes. Many are older adults and are unlikely candidates for ownership housing. For those
interested in ownership, the most effective programs are likely land trusts and/or stabilizing
ownership within mobile home park communities.
• Residents living in BCHA properties have predominately extremely low- to very low-
income—63 percent make an income of 30 percent AMI or less and 17 percent make an
income of 31 to 40 percent AMI.
• Residents living in BHP properties have income ranging from extremely low to moderate
income, with slightly more residents making between 50 percent AMI or more. Twenty-
one percent of BHP residents live with a disability and these residents are mainly older
adults.
• Longmont Housing Authority clients are slightly higher income with the majority of
residents making between 31 and 59 percent AMI. Twenty-eight percent have a
disability.
All housing authorities connect clients expressing an interest in ownership to area nonprofits
specializing in homeownership and self-sufficiency.
If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
166
provided or other assistance
N/A
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
167
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities -91.420, 91.220(i)
Introduction
Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness
including:
Reaching out to people experiencing homelessness (especially those who are unsheltered)
and assessing their individual needs
The City of Boulder participates in the HSBC Coordinated Entry program which assesses
individual adults for program and sheltering assignment. One-year goals for outreach and
assessment include:
• Coordinated outreach efforts between providers
• Increased connection between Homeless Outreach Team, Municipal Court Navigation,
and HSBC housing options
• Targeted encampment outreach
The City of Longmont will participate in the annual PIT Survey. Also, the City will fund the OUR
Center to continue to provide intake, assessment and basic needs for people experiencing and
those at risk of homelessness and HOPE for Longmont, which provides street outreach,
navigation services, and sheltering . Furthermore, the City is working with the Boulder Shelter
for the Homeless (BSH) to deliver housing focused outreach, diversion services, and
assessment.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
Emergency sheltering is coordinated across Boulder County, and sheltering services are aligned
with the particular needs of individuals. In PY2020, the City of Boulder will be consolidating the
year-round programs to one physical location in an effort to repurpose funding toward housing.
Providers have spent 2019 improving housing exits from shelters to make this consolidation
possible without any loss of service.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
Homeless Action Plan initiatives being explored and implemented include:
•Alternative financing mechanisms such as Pay for Success projects to reduce
homelessness, including helping people obtain and retain housing;
•Improving a community dashboard on goals for housing homeless people in the
community, and
•Strengthening landlord relationships to increase options for homeless
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
168
individuals/families to gain housing, and for at-risk or formerly homeless people
to retain housing.
The City has a comprehensive housing strategy under development that includes a commitment
to affordable housing for low-income individuals and families.
The City of Boulder is also a lead partner in coordinating local efforts around development of a
Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (CAHPS) through the Metro Denver 25
Cities Initiative pilot project. This assesses individuals for housing needs based on a
standardized evaluation of vulnerability and other characteristics, and matches them with
housing resources available throughout the region.
Boulder County HHS will continue the following programs to help formerly homeless individuals
and families transition from homelessness into permanent housing:
•Financial literacy classes;
•Public benefits screening, eligibility and enrollment – Families and individuals are
screened for eligibility and enrolled in public benefits via PEAK (online benefits
enrolment);
•Follow-up is provided by case worker to ensure families receive benefits (i.e.
food assistance, Medicaid, Child Health Plus, cash assistance, etc.);
•Childcare Assistance Program enrollment;
•Access to domestic violence advocacy, counseling and support; and
•Access to Family Resource Centers (FRC), substance abuse and mental health
services.
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly
funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities,
foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving
assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services,
employment, education, or youth needs.
Boulder County has significant prevention services and subsidies for housing stabilization. Its
Housing Stabilization Program (HSP), funded by local tax revenue, administers funding to
provide short-term rental and deposit assistance to community members experiencing
homelessness or requiring temporary housing stability. The county funds longer-term stability
for household transitioning from a Rapid Rehousing Program by issuing up to 50 Homeless
Admission Vouchers for households meeting the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
definition or a revised definition of “homeless” as defined by the HEARTH Act. In addition, the
Family Unification Program (FUP), offers a supportive housing early intervention program
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
169
providing housing and case management services to families with identified child welfare
concerns and youth transitioning out of the foster care system.
Boulder complements this system by funding and providing a wide range of supports for
extremely low-income individuals and families, to help them avoid becoming homeless. This
support includes:
Direct services
•Childcare subsidies for families who have low-income families
•School-based wrap-around support for families
•Community resource referrals and case management for older adults
•Resources, including mediation, for landlords, tenants, and roommates
•Enforcement of “Failure to Pay Wages” ordinance
Community funding – local funds support
•Asset and income-building models such as Bridges Out of Poverty
Program
•Access to physical, behavioral and mental health care
•Access to quality childcare and preschool for children in households with low-
income
•Legal services to avoid eviction or other issues leading to homelessness
•Re-entry mentoring and resoures (e.g., ReFocus)
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
170
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing -91.420, 91.220(j)
Introduction
The most prevalent barrier to affordable housing in the Consortium region is extremely low
vacancy rates. Lack of availability of housing in general continues to put upward pressure on
already high prices to own and to rent in the region. The economic challenges related to the
COVID-19 virus were unknown at the time this Plan was written. However, it is likely that the
barriers to affordable housing reported by the residents with low and moderate income
surveyed—particularly the inability to find units they can afford and challenges managing rents
and household debt—are exacerbated with job losses.
Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve
as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the
return on residential investment
The Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (2017) contains the following housing policies:
• HO 1.01 The housing needs for low and moderate income families and senior citizens in Boulder
County shall be determined periodically.
• HO 1.02 Federal, state, local government and/or public cooperative effort housing programs
should be utilized to meet the housing needs of low and moderate income families and senior
citizens. These programs should include the construction of new units, utilization of existing
units, and the renovation of substandard units.
• HO 1.03 Standard housing should be maintained at that level and substandard housing should
be improved to standard condition if it appears economically feasible. If housing units are
dilapidated and unsuitable for rehabilitation, the units should be removed from the housing
stock.
• HO 1.04 Special attention should be directed to providing for dispersal of housing for low and
moderate income families and low income senior citizens throughout the residential areas of
the county with due consideration to other elements of the county Comprehensive Plan and the
availability of water and sewer service, fire protection, public transportation, employment,
shopping, schools, social services, and recreational activities.
• HO 1.05 The enactment of state enabling legislation should be encouraged allowing counties to
adopt a housing code and/or Warranty of Habitability, and other legislation enabling the
Housing Authority to achieve its long range goals.
• HO 1.06 Legislation and policies that enhance equal housing opportunities shall be encouraged
and supported.
• HO 1.07 The use of energy conservation and innovative home building techniques in order to
reduce construction and/or operating costs without sacrificing safety or desirability of the
housing shall be encouraged and supported. When appropriate, the revision or adoption of
building and housing codes will be encouraged to meet this objective. For county Housing
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
171
Authority projects, a preference will be given to developers and contractors that utilize such
techniques.
• HO 1.08 Zoning, planned unit development regulations, and building codes should be promoted
to provide quality residential developments of innovative design that offer a good social and
economic mix of families through a broad range of prices and rents.
• HO 1.09 The efficient and effective management of housing units owned by the Housing
Authority, and proper administration of the Housing Assistance programs should be ensured.
• HO 1.10 Housing counseling services, advice, and assistance concerning housing problems to
consumers shall be provided.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
172
AP-85 Other Actions -91.420, 91.220(k)
Introduction
Other actions that the City of Boulder will undertake to address housing and community
development needs are summarized in this section.
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
Despite the City of Boulder’s targeted use of federal and local resources to meet the
underserved needs of the community, obstacles to meeting these needs will continue and
require focus. The goals set forth in this plan position the city to continue its focus on meeting
needs in the areas of rental housing, owner-occupied housing, homeownership opportunities,
homelessness assistance, and investing in target communities. The city will continue to focus
federal and local resources to meet these needs and work with partners to devise and support
creative solutions—and additional federal resources associated with the CARES Act and
subsequent relief packages will be instrumental in meeting new and increasing needs.
Since the last Plan, covering years 2015-2019, the City has initiated a regional housing plan with
Consortium partner jurisdictions, developed a middle income strategy, a manufactured home
strategy, and executed a housing work plan. That work plan contains several elements intended
to address underserved needs by removing obstacles and leveraging opportunities in the built
environment, including:
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing
Similar to the obstacles faced in meeting the underserved needs of Boulder residents, meeting
the affordable housing needs of the community will continue to be a challenge. There are many
causes for this in Boulder—the tale of two Boulder housing types: detached single-family
homes that are increasingly only affordable to the wealthy; and attached homes, such as
condos and apartments, that provide better affordability for middle-income households but are
less attractive to families and often have repair needs; the challenge of limited land supply and
how to redevelop existing areas in ways that respond to the community’s evolving housing
needs in a manner consistent with other community values and priorities; and a finite amount
of financial resources to meet these needs.
The City will continue to leverage federal resources with local funds by enforcing its local
affordable housing ordinance. In addition, it will explore other tools and opportunities to
preserve and create affordable housing options as discussed in the above section. The city will
continue its close coordination with Boulder Housing Partners and other nonprofit housing
providers, and coordinate with other Consortium members, while nurturing relationships with
for-profit developers able to help meet the affordable housing needs of low and moderate
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
173
income households.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City of Boulder will continue to support efforts that reduce the hazards of lead-based paint
utilizing HUD funds in conjunction with other available resources. Activities will include testing
and evaluation, community education, and abatement of hazards.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families
The City of Boulder will continue to focus its efforts and resources to reduce the number of
families with income at or below the poverty-level though the preservation and creation of safe
and affordable housing. The foundational importance of meeting the housing needs of these
families will support their moves toward self-sufficiency. Continued and expanded coordination
with the City’s Human Services Fund provides the opportunity to support the agencies serving
these families. Expanded coordination with the city’s Economic Vitality Program will provide
opportunities for these families to gain the training and skill-building, resources and supports
that can lead them to achieving self-sufficiency.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City of Boulder Department of Housing and Human Services will continue to administer the
CDBG program. Activity selection and funding decisions will continue to be made in close
coordination with the City’s Human Services and Health Equity funds and the Community
Vitality program. These decisions will continue to be influenced by the expertise of two
Advisory Boards, appointed by the City Manager. The City will also continue its regular
coordination meetings with housing and service providers.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social
service agencies
Already working closely and effectively with Boulder Housing Partners and nonprofit housing
providers, the City will continue its close coordination while nurturing relationships with for-
profit developers able to help meet the affordable housing needs of residents. The City will
continue to focus HUD Block Grant dollars on affordable housing opportunities and capital
improvement needs of service providers, as well as continue to partner with community-based
agencies to devise and support creative solutions to meet their capital improvements needs.
Furthermore, the City will continue to work closely with the Human Services Fund to ensure
service providers’ access to the service dollars available.
Discussion
Please see above.
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
174
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements -91.420, 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in
the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is
included in projects to be carried out.
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of
the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the
year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's
strategic plan. 0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use
has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0
Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities 0
2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities
that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A
consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine
that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit
persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include
this Annual Action Plan. 100.00%
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)
1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section
92.205 is as follows:
The Consortium leverages its HOME funds with other forms of investment including Low
Income Housing Tax Credits, private interest-bearing debt for rental housing development,
grants of State of Colorado HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank Board grant funds, other
private grant funds, and fundraising proceeds. Homeowners assisted by the HOME program
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
175
use private interest-bearing debt to purchase homes.
2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds
when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:
The City of Boulder applies resale provisions in all homeownership programs where HOME
funds are used. Home buyers receiving HOME funds for down payment assistance will be
subject to the requirements at 24 C.F.R. Part 92.254(a)(4) which include resale provisions
for a period of years consistent with the program regulations. The resale provisions will
provide owners with fair returns on their investments, including any improvements. Loans
will be secured by a signed mortgage, promissory note, and lien filed against the property.
The City of Boulder will place an index-based resale restriction on each unit assisted. In
addition to the HOME affordability requirements, in accordance with the City of Boulder’s
funding policies, a covenant will be placed on the unit that will maintain its affordability in
perpetuity.
The City of Boulder reserves the right to allow lease-purchase options in conjunction with
our homebuyer program on an as-needed basis for Habitat for Humanity clients. In such
cases, ownership will be conveyed to an eligible homebuyer within 36 months of signing the
lease-purchase agreement, or within 42 months of project completion. The affordability
period of the unit will commence when ownership of the unit is conveyed to the
homebuyer.
At the end of the 36-month period, if the household occupying the lease-purchase unit is
not eligible or able to purchase the unit, the PJ has an additional six months to identify a
different eligible homebuyer to purchase the unit. In all cases, if a homebuyer does not
purchase the unit by the end of the 42-month period, it must be converted to a HOME
rental unit. In all cases, lease-purchase participants will receive housing counseling, in
accordance with the HOME requirement that homebuyers receiving HOME assistance or
living in HOME-assisted units must receive housing counseling.
Any homebuyer unit that is not under ratified sales agreement to an eligible homebuyer
within nine months of construction completion must be converted to rental housing or the
HOME funds must be repaid.
Longmont uses recapture for the HOME DPA program and these provisions are contained in
AP-90 of Longmont’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan.
3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units
acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:
As stated above, the City of Boulder applies resale provisions when HOME funds are used
including application of the prescribed affordability period. HOME funds are secured by an
executed and recorded promissory note and lien filed against the property. In addition to
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
176
the HOME affordability requirements, in accordance with the City of Boulder’s funding
policies, a covenant will be placed on the unit that will maintain its affordability in
perpetuity.
4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that
is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines
required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:
Per the HOME rules, existing debt on a property may be refinanced when HOME funds will
be used for rehabilitation to permit or continue affordability. To be considered for HOME
funds, the application for rehabilitation and refinance must, at a minimum: Demonstrate
that rehabilitation is the primary eligible activity and ensure that this requirement is met by
establishing a minimum level of rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between
rehabilitation and refinancing; Require a review of management practices to demonstrate
that disinvestment in the property has not occurred, that the long term needs of the project
can be met and that the feasibility of serving the targeted population over an extended
affordability period can be demonstrated; State whether the new investment is being made
to maintain current affordable units, create additional affordable units, or both; Specify the
required period of affordability, whether it is the minimum 15 years or longer; Specify
whether the investment of HOME funds may be jurisdiction-wide or limited to a specific
geographic area, such as a neighborhood identified in a neighborhood revitalization strategy
under 24 CFR 91.215(e)(2) or a Federally designated Empowerment Zone or Enterprise
Community; and State that HOME funds cannot be used to refinance multifamily loans
made or insured by any Federal program, including CDBG.
Discussion
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)
The City of Longmont applies the recapture provisions at 92.524(5)(B)(ii) for its administration
of the Boulder County Down Payment Assistance Program when HOME funds are used for
homebuyer assistance. Homebuyers are subject to the provisions under 92.524 (4), which
include an affordability period consistent with the program regulations. Loans are secured by a
promissory note and a deed of trust secured against the property.
If a property purchased with HOME assistance is sold or transferred (including foreclosure),
prior to the end of the HOME period of affordability, the borrower repays the City the entire
balance due from the borrower’s net proceeds. Net proceeds are defined as the sales price
minus the remaining first mortgage balance and seller paid closing costs. If the net proceeds are
insufficient to pay the City the entire balance due at the time of sale and return to the borrower
their down payment on the property and the cost of any capital improvements, then the
borrower and the City will share the net proceeds according to the following formula:
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
177
Loan Amount x Net Proceeds = Amount to Lender
Loan Amount + Borrower’ Investment
Borrower’s Investment x Net Proceeds = Amount to Borrower
Loan Amount + Borrower’s Investment
Consolidated Plan BOULDER
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
178
SECTION II.
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS & NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUPPLEMENT
Housing Market Analysis & Needs
Assessment Supplement
Introduction
This section complements the Consortium Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 (Plan) for the
Boulder Broomfield Regional HOME Consortium (Consortium) by providing a more detailed
analysis of the housing market in the region. It addresses trends in housing costs relative
to income, changes in affordability of rental and for-sale housing, and housing challenges
of special populations.
This section also contains the findings from a survey that was conducted during February
and March 2020, in the early stages of the of the COVID-19 outbreak. The housing situation
and needs of residents during that period can help inform short-and long-term policy
responses to stabilize households and preserve and add to the supply of affordable
housing.
The needs in this study reflect pre-COVID economic conditions and should be considered
baseline needs.
Indicators of housing needs. For the purposes of this analysis, housing needs are
analyzed and measured using the following indicators:
•Household cost burden and severe cost burden;1
•Trends in housing supply (vacancies, homes for sale) and costs (rents, purchase prices)
compared to income and as related to commute patterns;
•Specific housing needs of households with lower income and people of all abilities and
needs; and
•How housing supply compares with demand by household income levels. This is
measured by a “gaps analysis” modeling exercise.
Why addressing housing needs is important. Addressing housing needs has
become an increasing priority among local and state governments. This is related, in part,
to the federal government’s reduced investment and role in providing publicly subsidized
housing. In addition,
1 Cost burden occurs when households pay more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income toward housing costs.
This is the industry standard for affordability. Severe cost burden occurs when households pay more than 50 percent of
their monthly gross income toward housing costs and also indicates risk of eviction, foreclosure, and/or homelessness.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 1
paying
>30% for housing
are "cost burdened"
Households paying
>50% for housing
are "severely cost
burdened"
•Recent academic studies have consistently demonstrated that stabilizing housing costs
for households with lower income, especially those with children, facilitates upward
mobility and reduces long-term public sector human services costs.
•Housing investments that allow workers to live closer to their places of employment
can reduce commuting impacts—including wear-and-tear on roads, the opportunity
for vehicular accidents—and help to address climate change.
•Households living in stable housing environments are more likely to spend money in
the local economy, through direct spending on goods and services. The negative
impact of retracted spending on local economies has, unfortunately, been dramatically
exposed with the outbreak of the covid-19 virus.
In sum, housing investments and stability bolster local revenues, increase job readiness,
help renters become homeowners, lower the public costs of eviction and foreclosure, and,
most importantly, increase the economic opportunity for children.
Cost Burden
Cost burden exists when households pay more than 30 percent of their monthly gross
income for housing costs. Housing costs include the rent or mortgage payment,
homeowners’ association (HOA) fees, utilities, mortgage insurance, renter or homeowner
insurance, and property taxes.
Severe cost burden—paying more than 50 percent of monthly gross income on a
household rent or mortgage—is an indicator of critical housing needs. Severe cost burden
is also linked to a high risk of eviction or foreclosure, and homelessness.
Cost burden does not take into account transportation costs. When transportation costs
are included, housing affordability is further beyond the reach of many Consortium
households. A typical measure of “housing+transportation” cost burden is 40 percent of
household income.
Figure 1 shows the number and proportion of households experiencing cost burden and
severe cost burden by jurisdiction.
For renters, severe cost burden ranges from a low of 20 percent in Broomfield to a high of
38 percent in Boulder. Boulder’s number includes the burden experienced by college
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 2
■
■
students of the University of Colorado, to the extent that they report the city as their place
of residence. Non-severe cost burden is similar across jurisdictions, with Longmont the
highest at 28 percent.
Altogether in the Consortium, nearly 17,000 renters face severe cost burden and 30,000
renters face cost burden in 2018. Of these, half reside in Boulder.
Far fewer owners experience cost burden than renters, with just 12-14 percent of owners
cost burdened and 6-10 percent severely cost burdened. Owner cost burden is more
similar across jurisdictions. Altogether in the Consortium, approximately 18,000 owners are
cost burdened with 3,500 severely cost burdened.
Figure 1.
Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure
RENTERS (NUMBER AND PERCENT)
City of Boulder Broomfield City of
Boulder County City & County Longmont
25%
20%
21%
38%
23%
31%
28%
25%
Cost Burdened
Severely Cost Burdened
Remainder
13,000 26,000 4,000 7,500 # COST BURDENED
8,500 15,000 1,900 3,500 # SEVERELY COST BURDENED
OWNERS (NUMBER AND PERCENT)
City of Boulder Broomfield City of
Boulder County City & County Longmont
13% 6% 14%
10%
13%
9%
12% 8% Cost Burdened
Severely Cost Burdened
Remainder
4,000 14,500 3,500 4,000 # COST BURDENED
700 2,750 776 750 # SEVERELY COST BURDENED
Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
The number of cost burdened households has changed only modestly since 2013. The
largest changes (more than 2 percentage points variance) include:
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 3
•In Boulder, the percent of severely cost burdened renters dropped by 4 percentage
points;
•In Boulder County, the percent of cost burdened owners declined by 4 percentage
points;
•Broomfield saw the percent of cost burdened renters rise (by 4 percentage points) and
drop for owners (by 3 percentage points); and
•In Longmont, the percent of cost burdened owners dropped by 4 percentage points.
Income
Housing programs use income categories defined the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to determine eligibility. Those categories, defined by each
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), are based on the Area Median Income, or AMI.
Although AMI categories can vary by specific housing program, in general, they include:
•Households with income at or below 30 percent AMI are considered “extremely” low
income. These households can also be defined as those living under the Federal
poverty threshold.2
•Households with income between 31 and 50 percent AMI are defined as having “very
low” income.
•Households with income between 51 and 80 percent AMI are defined as having “low”
income.
•Those with income greater than 80 percent AMI are defined as having “moderate”
income and, in most high cost markets, are eligible for housing programs.
Figure 2 shows the income thresholds by household size and compares the 2020 income
levels to 2015.
Incomes by AMI have increased modestly for all categories, based on increases in each
MSA’s area median incomes—yet still lag far behind increases in housing costs and costs of
living overall. For low income households, these increases translate to about $200 per
month per person—or about $2,400 per person per year—a 22 percent increase over 5
years.
2 The federal poverty threshold is not based on the AMI and, as such, does not vary by city and state except for Alaska
and Hawaii. For that reason, poverty and 30 percent AMI are generally similar.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 4
--• ■ • ■ --
-■ -
Figure 2.
HUD Income Categories, 2015 and 2020
Extremely Low
2015
Extremely Low
2020
Very Low
2015
Very Low
2020
Low
2015
Low
2020
1-person $20,900 $24,200 $34,800 $40,300 $46,100 $56,100
2-person $23,850 $27,650 $39,800 $46,050 $52,650 $64,100
3-person $26,850 $31,100 $44,750 $51,800 $59,250 $72,100
4-person $29,800 $34,550 $49,700 $57,550 $65,800 $80,100
Source: HUD Income Data, huduser.gov.
Figure 3 shows changes in median income by tenure between 2013 and 2018. The incomes
of renters increased much more than incomes of owners and is likely due to two factors: 1)
increases in existing renters’ incomes, and 2) an influx of renters with higher income into
the Consortium market.
Although Figure 3 reflects a slightly different time period, overall increases were higher
than those reflected in the AMI chart above, suggesting that housing program income
thresholds may lag behind actual increases in incomes.
Figure 3.
Change in Median Income by Tenure, 2013 to 2018
City of Boulder Broomfield City of
Boulder County City & County Longmont
All Households 17% 16% 15% 19%
Owner Households 13% 15% 13% 13%
Renter Households 24% 26% 34% 25%
Source: 2013 and 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
In most markets, housing challenges vary by resident race and ethnicity. Differences in
household incomes are often a factor, as are past limitations on access to economic
opportunity. As Figure 4 demonstrates, incomes vary significantly by race and ethnicity:
Non-Hispanic White households and Asian households have the highest incomes in most
jurisdictions, with African American, Hispanic, and mixed-race households earning much
less. Broomfield stands out for the relatively high incomes of its African American
households.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 5
-
Figure 4.
Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
All
Households
African
American
Households
Asian
Households
Hispanic
Households
Two or
more Race
Households
Non Hispanic
White
Households
City of Boulder $66,117 $42,692 $52,660 $39,076 $40,636 $71,503
Boulder County $78,642 $49,314 $90,234 $49,192 $62,796 $83,417
Broomfield City
and County $89,624 $89,875 $111,401 $65,854 $68,393 $92,860
City of Longmont $69,857 $53,107 $75,000 $48,438 $54,038 $73,621
Note: Shaded boxes indicate median incomes that are higher than the median for all households.
Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
The following pie charts examine how renters and owners are distributed throughout the
region based on their income levels.
For renters, Boulder houses the largest share—50 percent—of all renters in the
Consortium with gross household income at or below $25,000. This is partially related to
the lower income of the student population. This compares to 39 percent of renters
overall. Longmont houses about the same share of < $25,000 income renters and all
renters (23% v. 24%).
Longmont and Boulder house the largest shares of renters with income between very low
to moderate, with Broomfield housing the least.
For owners, Boulder County houses the largest share across all income categories, and
proportionately more < $25,000 income owners than its share of all owners (27% v. 21%).
Longmont also provides a relatively large share of ownership housing for households with
low to moderate income (26-27% low and moderate income owners v. 23% of all owners).
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 6
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Figure 5.
Share of Households by Income and Jurisdiction, 2018
RENTERS
< $25,000 $25,000 -$49,999 $50,000 -$74,999
51%
16%
10%
23% 36%
18%
14%
32% 33%
21%
19%
27%
$75,000 -$99,999 $100,000+ City of Boulder
37%
27%
20%
16% Balance of Boulder County
Broomfield City and County
City of Longmont
31%
24%
23%
23%
OWNERS
< $25,000 $25,000 -$49,999 $50,000 -$74,999
27%
32%
14%
27% 20%
34%18%
28% 21%
32%20%
27%
$75,000 -$99,999 $100,000+ City of Boulder
22%
41%
19%
19% Balance of Boulder County
Broomfield City and County
City of Longmont
18%
36%19%
26%
Source: 2013 and 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 7
Rental Market
Between 2013 and 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey (ACS), rents in the Consortium area rose by no less than 25 percent, or by an
average of 5 percent per year.
$1,583 36% 5-year change; 6% annual change Figure 6.
Median Rent, 2013 $1,466 25% 5-year change; 5% annual change to 2018 $1,411 27% 5-year change; 5% annual change
Source: $1,233 27% 5-year change; 5% annual change 2013 and 2018 1-year American $1,172
Community Survey (ACS); 5-year $1,165
for Broomfield in 2013. $1,113
$968
2013 2018
City of Boulder
Boulder County
City and County of Broomfield
City of Longmont
According to the most recent rent and vacancy report by the Apartment Association of
Metro Denver rental vacancy rates in the Boulder—Longmont-Broomfield submarkets
ranged between 1.1 percent (Boulder other than the University area) to 3.7 percent
(Longmont), with an overall vacancy rate of 3.8 percent. These rates were similar to 2Q19,
except for Longmont, which had a lower (2.6%) vacancy rate in 2Q19 due to new units
becoming available that had received certificates of occupancy in prior quarters.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4-....... Figure 7.
Vacant Units
and Vacancy
Rate, 3Q2019
Source:
Denver Metro
Apartment Vacancy and
Rent Q3 2019 Report.
450
400
350
300
250
200
1.1150
100
50 7
0
City of Boulder
except
University
submarket
Rental Units Vacant (3Q2019) Vacancy Rate (3Q2019)
3.8 3.7
3 389 3
112 93
33
City of Boulder Ma rket Area Broomfield City City of
University and County Longmont
submarket
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 9
As demonstrated by the figure, the Consortium had fewer than 400 vacant units as of
3Q19, according to self-reporting data provided by members of the Apartment Association
that are 50 units or larger. These vacancies largely represent privately-provided rentals in
multifamily buildings. Vacancies for affordable rentals are generally much lower due to
extreme demand.
Figure 8 shows vacancy trends by submarket area between 3Q11 and 2Q19.
Overall in the Consortium area, renter vacancy rates have been stable since 2011, and on a
declining trend since early 2017, when they peaked. Multifamily vacancies are now well
below what is considered a healthy rate of around 5 percent, which allows renters to move
into and out of the market and manage moderate rent increases.
Vacancies fluctuate by submarket area as units become available (indicated by the large
peaks) and, for Boulder submarkets, as students move in and out of the city. The University
submarket for Boulder is the only one with an upward trend—a positive development from
the near-zero vacancies between 2011 and 2013.
Multifamily vacancies in the submarket areas of Broomfield, Longmont, and the balance of
Boulder County, outside of Boulder and Longmont, have been the most stable over time.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 10
Figure 8.
Multifamily Vacancy Trends, 3Q2011 -2Q2019
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Broomfield City and County City of Longmont
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 11
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0 2011 2011 14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Boulder Broomfield Market Area City of Boulder except University
City of Boulder University Balance of Boulder County
Broomfield City and County City of Longmont 2011 2011 4th 3rd 2012 University submarket
City of Boulder except University submarket 2012 2013 2013 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 2017 2017 2018 2018 4th 2019 2019 1st 2nd 3rd 2012 2012 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 2013 2014 Boulder County 2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 4th 1st 2019 2019 2nd
The Consortium’s historically low multifamily vacancies are related to consistent demand to
live in Consortium jurisdictions, as well as limited development of rental housing that
occurred after the recession in the mid-2000s.
Figure 9 shows trends in the inventory of new apartments in the Consortium market area
between 2011 and 2019. On average, about 1,270 apartment units were added annually, or
a little more than 100 per month. At two persons per unit, this addition could
accommodate growth of about 2,500 residents who rent annually. This compares to a
population growth of about 5,100 residents and 3,500 workers.
Figure 9.
Estimate of New Apartments by Quarter for Boulder County and Broomfield
County Market Area, 3Q2011 -2Q2019
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
Figure 10 shows the median rent by submarket area as of 3Q19 as well as the household
income needed to afford the median rent. Of all jurisdictions, Longmont provides the best
opportunity for renters with low to very low income. Based on current AMI levels, Boulder
and the balance of Boulder County are out of reach for households with low income that
have less than three income-producers.
Figure 11 shows median rents by unit type. Both graphics accentuate Longmont’s relative
affordability.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 12
Figure 10.
Average Rent and Income
Required to Afford,
3Q2019
Note:
Average rents do not always include utilities;
as such, actual monthly costs are likely higher.
Balance of Boulder County refers to the area
outside of the City of Boulder and Longmont.
Source:
Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent
Q3 2019 Report.
Average
Rent
Lowest Income
Required to
Afford
Boulder Broomfield Market Area $1,597 $63,880
City of Boulder except University $1,728 $69,120
City of Boulder University $1,959 $78,360
Balance of Boulder County $1,740 $69,600
Broomfield City and County $1,636 $65,440
City of Longmont $1,418 $56,720
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 13
RENTS BY TYPE AND SUBAREA t Efficiency J:.ai l Bedroom CITY OF BOULDER except University submarket CITY OF BOULDER University submarket $2,188 2 Bed room/1 Bath 3 Bedroom BALANCE OF BOULDER COUNTY $2,461 BROOMFIELD CITY AND COUNTY $2,225 CITY OF LONGMONT $2,212 Figure 11. Median Rents by Type and Subarea, 3Q2019 Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q2 2019 Report. ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 14
$753,300 5096 5-year change; 996 annual change
$554, oo 5.996 5-year change; 1096 annual change
$500,700
$444,600
$349,100 ✓ ~ $40l,7 00
$275,900 ~
61 5-year change; 1096 annual change
6496 5-year change; 1096 annual change
$244,600
2013 2018
-+-Oty of Boulder
-Bou Ider County
_. Oty and County of Broomf
-aty of Longmont
4 ~ ··----..... 4896
2013 2018
-aty of Boulder
~Boulder County
Oty and county of Broomf Id
...... aty of Longmont
Ownership Market
Home values reported in the ACS highlight the significant rise in home values during the
past 5 years. The most affordable Consortium submarkets—Broomfield and Longmont—
experienced the largest increases. Although high by most market standards, Broomfield
and Longmont offer the most affordable ownership opportunities in the Consortium, as
demonstrated by Figure 12.
Figure 12.
Home Values,
2013 to 2018
Source:
2013 and 2018 1-year American
Community Survey (ACS); 5-year
for Broomfield in 2013.
Since 2013, ownership has changed very little. Yet ownership in the HOME Consortium
varies among jurisdictions, and for different types of residents.
Figure 12.
Homeownership Rate, 2013 and 2018
Source:
2013 and 2018 1-year American Community Survey (ACS); 5-year
for Broomfield in 2013.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 15
I ■ -■ ----■ -------■ ---
As shown below, 68 percent of Non-Hispanic White residents own their homes in
Broomfield and Longmont, compared to 51 percent in Boulder. Broomfield is notable for
its relatively high rates of ownership across many racial and ethnic categories.
Figure 14.
Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
City of Boulder Broomfield City of
Boulder County City & County Longmont
African American 15% 31% 50% 25%
Asian 40% 55% 71% 53%
Hispanic 29% 42% 52% 39%
Non-Hispanic White 51% 65% 68% 68%
Two or more Races 31% 49% 65% 50%
Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Moderate-income buyers shopping for homes between 2018 and 2019 had few choices in
the for-sale market. Overall, attainable units listed as for-sale in the Consortium area
totaled about 2,600—representing just 3 percent of all owner-occupied units in the
Consortium.
The following figure shows the types of homes listed for sale and sold between second
quarter 2018 and 2019, and the number of attainable units available:
•Units priced at $280,000 and less are affordable to households earning approximately
$75,000 per year—about 80 percent AMI for a 4-person household.
•Units priced between $280,000 and $375,000 are affordable to households earning
between $75,000 and $100,000—roughly between 80 and 120 percent AMI.
A buyer earning $75,000 and less has very little inventory in all Consortium jurisdictions,
with the market in Broomfield the most constrained. Longmont and Broomfield offer the
largest homes, which are slightly newer, than those on the market in Boulder and the
balance of Boulder County.
Buyers with slightly higher incomes ($75,000 to $100,000) have more inventory from which
to choose, particularly in Longmont, and can find slightly larger units in their price range. It
is unclear from the data if improvements are needed to these homes and/or if they have
basements that would offer more square footage.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 16
Figure 15.
Options for Buying an Affordable Home, 2018 -2019
Options for buying < $280,000 home between 2Q2018 and 2Q2019
Price Range Average Sq.Ft.
Average #
Bedrooms
Average #
Baths
Average Year
Built No. of Units
City of Boulder 747 1.4 1.2 1981 193
Boulder County -excluding City
of Boulder and Longmont 839 1.6 1.1 1971 177
City and County of Broomfield 1,284 2.3 2.0 1984 55
City of Longmont 1,236 2.1 1.7 1986 175
Options for buying $280,000-$375,000 home between 2Q2018 and 2Q2019
Price Range Average Sq.Ft.
Average #
Bedrooms
Average #
Baths
Average Year
Built No. of Units
City of Boulder 822 1.7 1.5 1978 357
Boulder County -excluding City
of Boulder and Longmont 1,236 2.3 1.9 1979 389
City and County of Broomfield 1,603 2.9 2.0 1977 454
City of Longmont 1,609 2.8 2.2 1987 825
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
A considerable challenge for buyers in high cost markets is the level of downpayment
required, as well as competition from investors, many of whom can offer immediate cash
sales. According to the survey of residents in the Consortium, 70 percent of renters cannot
afford the downpayment required to buy a home. One-third had too much other debt to
buy and one-fourth had been told by a financial institution that they are not qualified for a
mortgage.
Transportation and Commuting
Population in the Consortium area grew modestly during the past 5-7 years, determined, in
large part, by limitations on the growth of housing stock. As discussed above, home values
rose 50 to 60 percent between 2013 and 2018, yet there was little fluctuation in
homeownership levels, indicating that owners remained in their homes or sold their
homes to high income buyers.
Rents increased by approximately 25 percent, and matched increases in the median
income of renters almost exactly. This is because the Consortium gained higher income
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 17
15: 2015 BOULDER COUNTY TRIP PATTERNS
~ ..
~Trlpt, COunlrto~T ...
Trips Patterns •~1~3
-
0 2.5 15 10 --==--• MHea
I
!
I
i"f :-L.
.J
2040 BOULDER COUNTY TRIP PATTERNS
~
lntr.Co,,ny Tr!pa CountytoCounty T'l)S
Trip s Patterns
'~~
~
75.000-150.000
i i--
i
i
¢> i
'r--===--=--' - -~ ' . ~ I
\. { 1 6,000 S% I .,~ ·-- - --- -------,,~---- -
f
r ,
I ,...,
·'
}
\
<
'-,
,.-.i
~ l Nearland
·7------·-·
/
~ G1LP111COU11TY 1%
)
.J·-·> 65'
{ '-•.,.·-. 81Kk
' c~wi C11u11 Coutm {._~ l H-it
\ L.
........
~-i
j Au.Pl\
0 2.5 5 10 . I DOI.IGLH
Miles i IELll!n C
renters over the past 5 years who can afford rent levels—those earning around $75,000—
perhaps displacing existing renters.3
Even so, with increases in home prices, these renters have trouble buying. These trends
suggest that many new households have been willing to trade ownership for living in the
Consortium market area.
Still, many workers remain priced out of the market and commute to jobs in the
Consortium area from surrounding counties. The Boulder County Transportation Master
Plan from 2019 estimates a significant increase in commuters from the counties of Weld,
Adams, and, less so, Jefferson, between now and 2040, as shown below.
Figure 16.
Boulder County Trip Patterns, 2015 and 2040
Source: Boulder County Transportation Master Plan, Technical Version, December 2019.
3 Time series data can be used to track such trends; however, that was beyond the scope of this study.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 18
..
• • •
A jobs/housing ratio is a simple way of tracking how well the housing market is
accommodating employment. A ratio of 1.0 means that jobs and housing are perfectly
matched—i.e., there is an equal number of jobs and housing units.4
As shown in Figure 17, jobs in Boulder County have grown by an estimated 11 percent
between 2013 and 2018, while housing units increased by 6 percent. This has resulted in an
increase in the jobs/housing ratio in Boulder County from 1.23 to 1.28.
In contrast, the ratio in Broomfield has decreased, as housing units have grown to meet
employment demands. In Broomfield, the jobs/housing ratio has declined from 1.48 to
1.33.
Figure 17.
Growth of Jobs v. Growth of Housing Units, 2013 to 2018
158,601
176,127 11% change
129,230 137,465 6% change
33,140 38,507 16% change
23,211 28,935 25% change
2013 2018 2013 2018
Boulder County Boulder County
City and County of Broomfield City and County of Broomfield
Source: 2013 and 2018, second quarter LEHD data, and 2013 and 2018 ACS.
The remainder of this report provides a picture of housing needs for each Consortium
jurisdiction.
4 The ratio provides is an easy indicator for understanding the mismatch between jobs and housing units for workers.
Yet it oversimplifies markets in that assumes one local worker per housing unit, and, as such, does not reflect multiple
earner households and/or split commutes or retired residents.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 19
City of Boulder
The Boulder housing market remains extremely tight, with rental vacancies fluctuating
between 1 and 3 percent, and very few rental units available regardless of price. The
number of deeply subsidized rentals—defined for this study as those affordable to
households earning less than $25,000 per year—in Boulder declined slightly and the
number of households with very low income also decreased, as affordable rentals provided
by the private market became harder to find.
Home values have continued to rise, although at a slower pace than in other Consortium
jurisdictions. The city’s median home value is well above the county’s value overall at
$750,000, increasing by 50 percent from 2013. Yet the city’s homeownership rate hasn’t
changed and the proportion of owners who are cost burdened has remained stable,
indicating that new owners are very high income or are participating in the city’s deed-
restricted ownership program.
The city’s primary housing needs include:
•A shortage of 7,630 units renting for less than $875 per month—the rent level under
which the rental unit gap exists.
•A shortage of homes to buy priced at less than $375,000 per month.
•Housing subsidies to assist 1,500 people with disabilities, many of whom are older
adults, who struggle to pay their monthly rent and mortgage.
Rental Market Summary
Average rent 3Q19: $1,728 (excludes University submarket); $1,959 (University
submarket only)
Income required to afford the average rent: $69,120 -$78,360
Cost burdened renters: 13,000, or 21 percent of all renters, down 4 percentage points
from 2013
Severely cost burdened renters: 8,500, or 38 percent of all renters
Rental vacancy 3Q19: 1.1 percent (excludes University submarket) – 3.0 percent
(University submarket only)
No. of vacant rentals 3Q19: 40 total
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 20
Figure 18.
City of Boulder Multifamily Vacancy Trends, 3Q2011 -2Q2019
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Boulder Broomfield Market Area Balance of Boulder County
Broomfield City and County City of Longmont
City of Boulder except University City of Boulder University
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
Ownership Market Summary
Homeownership rate 2018: 48 percent, stable from 2013
Median home value 2018: $753,000, up 50 percent from 2013. Income required to
afford > $200,000
Cost burdened owners: 4,000, or 14 percent of all owners, stable from 2013
Severely cost burdened owners: 700, or 10 percent of all owners
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $75,000 income: 55
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $100,000 income: 454
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 21
Figure 19.
City of Boulder Summary Statistics for Units Listed and Sold, 2Q2018 -2Q2019
Average # Average # Average
Price Range Average Sq.Ft. Bedrooms Baths Year Built No. of Units
< $280,000 1,236 2 2 1986 55
$280,000 to $375,000 1,609 3 2 1987 454
> $375,000 3,353 4 3 2000 1,612
Attached homes 1,627 2 2 2003 391
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,174 2 2 1987 49
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,331 2 2 2002 190
Detached homes 3,218 4 3 1995 1,730
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,743 3 2 1975 6
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,809 3 2 1976 264
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 22
I • I • I •1 1
I -I
•
• • • ,. . ~
I I • ·I •• • --,· .. .. .i . • • • • • •• -.. ~' , ~
•
•
•• ~-:,
\' ••c. ,, ..
... _., .
I
I • I • ,---....
I •
••
I '
! -~,:i·
I ,. •c••• ---, ..
I .__
I r----
1 I
L~ I l ____ .J
• ' -~ .. . ..,
• '• • . ' • ~···
•
• •
r-----1
' .r •• ) J .. , ..
•
• • •
I • ----1
L) ~ f-,,
\ \ ). I
--....::~oC"'"'
•
•
Highways
Listed/Sold Prices
02 2018 to 02 2019
• $0 to $280K
• $280K to $375K
$375K to $500k
• $500k to $2 .2M
Figure 20.
Listed and Sold Prices, City of Boulder, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019
Source: MLS and IRES.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 23
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 24
Populations with disproportionate needs
Hispanic households. Boulder’s Hispanic households are cost burdened at twice
the rate of White, non-Hispanic households, according to the 2018 Census survey.
The resident survey gathered responses from 355 residents who self-identified as
Hispanic and living in the City of Boulder. Fifty-seven percent of them worry about
their rent going up to a level they cannot afford. A much lower proportion—17
percent—struggle to pay their rent or mortgage payment each month. Two out of five
live in housing that is in “fair” or “poor” condition. Seventy percent of them cannot
afford the downpayment to purchase a home.
Compared to Non-Hispanic White survey respondents, Hispanic households are more
likely to live in housing that is in “fair” or “poor” condition (40% v. 20% for Non-Hispanic
White)—however, they are less likely to struggle to pay their rent or mortgage
payment each month (17% v. 23% for Non-Hispanic White).
People with disabilities. Forty-four percent of households that contain a member
with a disability experience one or more housing problems; this equates to
approximately 2,600 residents with disabilities with housing needs.
In the resident survey,100 respondents indicated living in the City of Boulder and
being or living with a household member who has a disability. Of these, 26 percent
said they struggle to pay their rent or mortgage—an equivalent of 1,500 households.
Forty-four percent of survey respondents being or living with a household member
who has a disability are over the age of 60 or live with a household member over the
age of 60. Of those, 10 respondents indicated their current home does not meet their
needs and half of them indicated the modifications needed were grab bars in the
bathroom.
Voucher holders. Private housing market factors combined with a lack of federal
funding for public housing create extra challenges for housing authorities. A small
sample of Boulder City residents with housing vouchers who participated in the survey
(18 total) said they found it “very difficult” (44%) or “somewhat difficult” (56%) to find a
landlord to accept their voucher.
People experiencing homelessness and people who are precariously
housed. Of the Boulder City residents responding to the survey, 3.4 percent were
living with family or friends because they cannot afford an apartment of their own. A
When considering the experience of members of certain groups, the sample sizes are too small (n<40 respondents) to
express results quantitatively. In these cases, we describe the survey findings as representative of those who
responded to the survey, but that the magnitude of the estimate may vary significantly in the overall population (i.e.,
large margin of error). Survey data from small samples are suggestive of an experience or preference, rather than
conclusive.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 25
large proportion of these residents live paycheck to paycheck and need assistance
paying for food, utilities, and transportation, and accessing mental health services.
• Older adult households. 15,000 residents are 62 years or older, accounting for 14
percent of Boulder City’s population, with an estimated 22 percent—approximately
3,300—having some type of housing need.
Older adults are less likely than other types of residents to have housing challenges,
according to the resident survey. This is likely due to the high share of homeowners
among older adult survey respondents, over 70 percent of older adult respondents for
the City of Boulder are homeowners. Almost 30 percent of homeowner households
with an older adult owns a home that they want to sell but cannot afford to purchase
something else at current home prices.
Around one in five older adults indicated having repair needs, with the most important
repairs relating to roofs and weatherization. Almost 60 percent of those in need of
repair cannot afford them.
Overall 21 percent of older adults indicated they struggle to pay their rent or
mortgage. Applying survey proportions to the older adult population translates to
around 3,000 older adult residents struggling to pay they rent/mortgage and property
taxes. The degree of cost burden varied by tenure; 15 percent of older homeowners
indicated they struggle to pay their mortgage while 36 percent of older renters
struggle to pay rent.
Many respondents to the resident survey expressed an interest in home share
situations to help them manage housing costs and repair and maintenance challenges.
• Large families with 5 or more members. Approximately 1,700 households are
large family households (5 or more people) with 23 percent, or 400 households, with
housing problems including cost burden and overcrowding. The primary challenges of
large families in the City of Boulder, according to those who participated in the
resident survey (31 families), are: worries about rent increasing to an unaffordable
level (35%), living in crowded conditions (29%); living paycheck to paycheck (29%), and
living in fair or poor condition housing (39%).
• Female-headed households with children. There are approximately 1,100
female headed households with children in the City of Boulder and 12 percent live in
poverty. These 140 female headed households with children living in poverty are the
most likely to struggle with rising housing costs. Of the 19 female-heads of household
who participated in the resident survey, about 40 percent said they struggle to pay
their rent, and 58 percent they worry about their rent increase. About half of them live
paycheck to paycheck.
• Households who have limited English language proficiency (LEP). About
670 Boulder City households have limited English proficiency (LEP), meaning no one
over the age of 14 speaks English “very well”; the majority speak Spanish. The 20
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 26
percent of limited English proficient households living in poverty are most likely to
have acute housing needs, equaling 135 households.
Service needs
The resident survey used to support this housing analysis also collected information on
human services needs of residents. The primary needs captured in the survey include:
• 37 percent of Boulder City residents worry that an unexpected health issue would
strain their savings and put them in debt;
• 34 percent say they could not pay for an unexpected doctor bill;
• 32 percent live paycheck to paycheck.
• When residents need to skip services because they cannot afford them, they are
mostly likely to skip dental care and car repairs.
• Over 40 percent of residents needing services say they could use information about
the types of jobs they are qualified for and/or financial help to pay for educational
development, and better transportation options.
Rental Housing Gaps
A rental gap compares the supply of rental housing to demand, based on household
income. In 2018, Boulder had a shortage of 7,630 units affordable to households with
income at or below $35,000 per year. Specifically,
• 45 percent of renters (10,002) in Boulder have an annual income of less than $35,000.
These households can afford units that rent for less than $875 per month to avoid
being cost burdened.
• Only 10 percent of rental units (2,372) are priced below $875 per month.
• This leaves a “gap,” or shortage, of 7,630 units for these households with extremely
low income.
Based on the same methodology used in 2013, the rental gap was a bit smaller than
current data—7,331 units—but only existed for households with annual income of less
than $25,000.6 Between 2013 and 2018, the number of renters with annual income of less
than $25,000 decreased slightly, by 1,146. The number of units affordable to these renters
also declined, but only modestly (370 units).
A 2013 housing choice survey conducted by the City of Boulder concluded that half of the
city’s rental gap could be related to the college student population. This would put the 2013
“non-student rental gap” at 3,800 units.
6 A 2013 market study that was based on 2012 data and a slightly different methodology using Public Use Microsample
(PUMS) Data found a larger gap when calculated by household size.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 27
The biggest change in the rental market between 2013 and 2018, shown in Figure 21, is in
units affordable to renters with annual income between $25,000 and $35,000. The number
of these units declined by 2,606—dropping the number of rental units affordable to
households with annual income of less than $35,000 in 2013 by nearly half.
The following figures provide a visual representation of the rental gaps trends.
Figure 21.
Change in Renter Households and Rental Units, City of Boulder, 2013-2018
Source: 2013-2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Income Range
Less than $5,000 1,950 1,928 -22 37 55 18
$5,000 to $9,999 1,992 1,635 -357 295 195 -100
$10,000 to $14,999 1,804 1,471 -333 231 137 -94
$15,000 to $19,999 1,699 1,245 -454 262 272 10
$20,000 to $24,999 1,195 1,215 20 484 280 -204
$25,000 to $34,999 2,621 2,508 -113 3,669 1,433 -2,236
$35,000 to $49,999 2,810 2,777 -33 7,210 5,563 -1,647
$50,000 to $74,999 2,978 3,331 353 5,585 8,596 3,011
$75,000 or more 3,943 6,055 2,112 3,895 6,564 2,669
< $25,000 change -1,146 -370
< $35,000 change -1,259 -2,606
Change
2013
Renters
2018
Renters Change
2013
Units
2018
Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 28 Figure 22. Rental Gaps, City of Boulder, 2013 Source: 2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -1,913-1,697-1,573-1,437-7111,0484,4002,607-4801,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 29 Figure 23. Rental Gaps, City of Boulder, 2018 Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). Count (Units or Households)-1,873-1,440-1,334-973-935-1,0752,7865,26550901,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit Surplus0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 30 Figure 24. Change in Rental Gaps, City of Boulder, 2010 to 2018 Source: 5 Year ACS Estimatesvi' ::J e-::J l/1 '--0 ..., ·c; (i:::: QJ 0 C ::J QJ :c ru "E i ..., C ::J 0 u Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 e2014 e201 s e2016 e2017 e2018 6,000 4,000 2,000 I Surplus 0 ---------------------------------2,000 ·4,000 t Deficit Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 31
Boulder County
Boulder County’s housing market reflects housing options and needs for its broad areas of
urban, rural and suburban environments. Housing trends track closely with the county’s
largest communities, Boulder and Longmont. The rural nature of much of the county
provides little relief for meeting housing demand: the multifamily market outside of the
cities and towns is small, and most affordable ownership units are located in very remote
areas and many take the form of mountain cabins.
Rental Market Summary
Average rent 3Q19: $1,740 (excludes Boulder and Longmont)
Annual income required to afford the average rent: $69,600
Cost burdened renters: 41,000, or 54 percent of all renters, about the same as in 2013
Severely cost burdened renters: 26,000, or 23 percent of all renters
Rental vacancy 3Q19: 5.4 percent (excludes Boulder and Longmont)
Number of vacant rentals 3Q19: 127 vacant rentals (excludes Boulder and Longmont)
Figure 25.
Boulder County Multifamily Vacancy Trends, 3Q2011 - 2Q2019
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Boulder Broomfield Market Area Broomfield City and County
City of Longmont City of Boulder except University
City of Boulder University Balance of Boulder County
-
-
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 32
Ownership Market Summary
Homeownership rate 2018: 62 percent, stable from 2013
Median home value 2018: $554,100, up 59 percent from 2013. Income required to
afford = $150,000
Cost burdened owners: 17,250, or 22 percent of all owners, a 4 percentage point
decrease from 2013
Severely cost burdened owners: 2,750, or 9 percent of all owners
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $75,000 income: 177
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $100,000 income: 389
Figure 26.
Boulder County - Excluding City of Boulder and Longmont - Summary
Statistics for Units Listed and Sold, 2Q2018 - 2Q2019
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
Price Range
< $280,000 839 2 1 1971 177
$280,000 to $375,000 1,236 2 2 1979 389
> $375,000 3,362 4 3 1988 3,962
Attached homes 1,602 2 2 1980 129
Affordable to 80% AMI 868 2 1 1984 423
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,196 2 2 1987 293
Detached homes 3,407 4 3 1985 3,710
Affordable to 80% AMI 764 2 1 1946 48
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,359 2 2 1956 96
Average Sq.Ft.
Average #
Bedrooms
Average #
Baths
Average
Year Built No. of Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 33 Figure 27. Listed and Sold Prices, Boulder County, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019 Source: MLS and IRES• • • • • • • • • • .c -• • • • • • • • •• ' . • I: •• ... '· • • • -. • •• ••• •• Arvada , .. -••• • • • •• ••• ·-.. , • r· ' • • • • • ' .. • Westmi Meac iJil I ,---' I -L I, 1-~-J ;::_1 _:::i Fred Erie -Highways Listed/Sold Prices Q2 2018 to Q2 2019 • $0 to $280K • $280K to $375K $375K to $500k • $500k to $2.2M
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 34
Housing and Service needs
The largest number of special needs populations captured in Boulder County (excluding
the City of Boulder, Broomfield, and Longmont) were older adults and persons with
disabilities.
¾ Of the older adult households represented in the survey, one third has a disability, and
21 percent of those with a disability need some modification to their homes, the most
common being grab bars in the bathroom.
¾ Fifteen percent of older adult homeowners struggle to pay their property taxes, and 20
percent want to sell their home but cannot afford to purchase something else at
current prices.
¾ Overall, 20 percent of older residents indicated they struggle to pay their
rent/mortgage. Renters are around three times more likely to struggle to pay their rent
(31%) compared to homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage (11%). Sixty percent
of older adults who rent are worried about rent increasing to an unaffordable level.
The resident survey used to support this housing analysis also collected information on
human services needs of residents. The primary needs captured in the survey include:
¾ 32 percent of Boulder County residents who live outside of major cities within the
county worry that an unexpected health issue would strain their savings and put them
in debt;
¾ 29 percent say they could not pay for an unexpected doctor bill;
¾ 26 percent live paycheck to paycheck.
¾ When residents need to skip services because they cannot afford them, they are
mostly likely to skip dental care and car repairs.
¾ Half of residents needing services say they could use information about the types of
jobs they are qualified for and/or financial help to pay for educational development.
Rental Housing Gaps
The Boulder County rental gaps analysis provides a picture of how the market in the county
overall has changed since 2013.
There was little fluctuation in the number of deeply affordable units, serving renters with
annual income of less than $20,000. These units are owned and operated by the public
housing authorities of Boulder County, Boulder and Longmont and, between 2013 and
2018, increased in number: Census data estimate that there are 185 more units serving
households with annual income of less than $20,000 per year than in 2013.
There were slightly fewer units for households with annual income between $20,000 and
$25,000.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 35
Units for renters with annual income $25,000 to $35,000 declined significantly.
By 2018, Boulder County had 5,249 fewer units priced affordably for renters with annual
income of less than $35,000 per year than in 2013. The number of renters who have lower
income also declined, either because they left the market (due to a loss of available units
affordable to them) or experienced an increase in incomes.
Overall, the Boulder County rental gap—which is indicated by the area and numbers in rent
in the following two infographics—decreased from 12,351 affordable rental units in 2013 to
11,948 in 2018. The gap widened to include renter households with annual income of up to
$35,000 as units that were affordable to them in 2013 increased rents.
If college students renting in Boulder are removed from the gap, this number is closer to
8,100.
The final infographic shows how the gap has shifted over time to encompass a wider
segment of low—and now moderate—income renters.
Figure 28.
Change in Renter Households and Rental Units, Boulder County, 2013-2018
Source: 2013-2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Income Range
Less than $5,000 2,887 2,976 89 125 232 107
$5,000 to $9,999 3,376 2,691 -685 606 513 -93
$10,000 to $14,999 3,154 2,742 -412 579 571 -8
$15,000 to $19,999 3,509 2,487 -1,022 669 848 179
$20,000 to $24,999 2,710 2,375 -335 1,306 757 -549
$25,000 to $34,999 5,863 5,363 -500 8,650 3,765 -4,885
$35,000 to $49,999 7,107 7,208 101 16,643 12,459 -4,184
$50,000 to $74,999 7,018 8,102 1,084 11,296 18,429 7,133
$75,000 or more 8,751 13,857 5,106 5,999 12,324 6,325
< $25,000 change -2,365 -364
< $35,000 change -2,865 -5,249
Change
2013
Renters
2018
Renters Change
2013
Units
2018
Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 36 Figure 29. Rental Gaps, Boulder County, 2013 Source: 2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). 0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +-2,762-2,770-2,575-2,840-1,4042,7879,5364,278-2,75205,00010,00015,00020,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 37 Figure 30. Rental Gaps, Boulder County, 2018 Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -2,744-2,178-2,171-1,639-1,618-1,5985,25110,327-1,53305,00010,00015,00020,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormore0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +Households inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 38 Figure 31. Change in Rental Gaps, Boulder County, 2010 to 2018 Source: 5 Year ACS Estimates vi' ::J e-10,000 ~ 5,000 .... 0 ..., ·c; (i:::: QJ 0 C ::J QJ :c Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 e2014 e201s e2016 e2017 e2018 I Surplus ru "E 0 --------·----------------------------------i ..., C ::J 0 u -5,000 t Deficit Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 39
City and County of Broomfield
Broomfield’s housing market has shifted as it has grown to meet the needs of workers and
residents in the Consortium market area. Since 2010, Broomfield has grown faster than
any of the other Consortium jurisdictions. As a result, and as discussed above, Broomfield’s
job-housing ratio has decreased—potentially reducing workers’ commutes.
Broomfield continues to experience increases in housing costs each year. Annual Census
data indicate the median contract rent has increased 8.0 percent per year since 2010 (this is
consistent with market data from the Metro Denver Apartment Association). Census data
also show that median home values have increased 6.4 percent per year since 2010. That
said, Broomfield has the highest ownership rate of any Consortium jurisdiction, overall,
and for racial and ethnic minorities.
Broomfield’s primary housing needs include:
¾ A shortage of 1,400 units renting for less than $875 per month.
¾ A shortage of for-sale homes priced at less than $375,000 per month, especially less
than $280,000.
¾ Housing subsidies to assist 2,500 people with disabilities, many of whom are older
adults, who are cost burdened.
¾ According to the resident survey conducted for this study, about one-third of
households would like to move—and the biggest barrier for owners is finding another
home they can afford.
Rental Market Summary
Average rent 3Q19: $1,636
Annual income required to afford the average rent: $65,440
Cost burdened renters: 5,900, or 45 percent of all renters, up 4 percentage points from
2013
Severely cost burdened renters: 1,900, or 20 percent of all renters
Rental vacancy 3Q19: 3.0 percent
No. of vacant rentals 3Q19: 112 vacant rentals
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 40
Figure 32.
Broomfield City and County Multifamily Vacancy Trends, 3Q2011 - 2Q2019
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
Ownership Market Summary
Homeownership rate 2018: 66 percent, stable from 2013
Median home value 2018: $444,600, up 61 percent from 2013. Income required to
afford = $115,000
Cost burdened owners: 4,275, or 19 percent of all owners, a 3 percentage point
decrease from 2013
Severely cost burdened owners: 775, or 9 percent of all owners
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $75,000 income: 55
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $100,000 income: 454
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Boulder Broomfield Market Area City of Longmont
City of Boulder except University City of Boulder University
Balance of Boulder County Broomfield City and County I I I_J_~LJ
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 41
Figure 33.
Broomfield Summary Statistics for Units Listed and Sold, 2Q2018 - 2Q2019
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
Populations with disproportionate housing needs
¾ People with disabilities. There are 6,000 residents with a disability living in
Broomfield (9% of the total population) and 41 percent have one or more housing
problems. By that measure, 2,460 Broomfield residents with disabilities, including
physical, developmental, and mental/behavioral, have some type of housing need.
Many of these residents are also older adults: In Broomfield, 10,961 residents are age
62 years or older, accounting for 16 percent of Broomfield’s population.
In the resident survey, 26 percent of households that include a member with a
disability said they struggle to pay their mortgage or rent. This translates to
approximately 1,500 residents with disabilities who struggle to pay their rent or
mortgage. Forty-three percent of survey respondents being or living with a household
member who has a disability are over the age of 60 or live with a household member
over the age of 60; almost 80 percent of them indicated their home meets their
disability needs.
¾ Large families of 5 or more members. There are 1,643 large family households
in Broomfield. HUD CHAS data indicate that 23 percent of these households
Consortium-wide have some type of housing problem—suggesting that as many as
375 large families could have housing challenges. The primary challenges of large
families, as expressed by the 21 large family survey participants in Broomfield, are
living in crowded conditions (24%), and paying for housing costs (20%).
Price Range
< $280,000 1,236 2 2 1986 55
$280,000 to $375,000 1,609 3 2 1987 454
> $375,000 3,353 4 3 2000 1,612
Attached homes 1,627 2 2 2003 391
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,174 2 2 1987 49
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,331 2 2 2002 190
Detached homes 3,218 4 3 1995 1,730
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,743 3 2 1975 6
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,809 3 2 1976 264
Average Sq.Ft.
Average #
Bedrooms
Average #
Baths
Average
Year Built No. of Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 42
¾ Older adult households. 11,700 residents are 62 years or older, accounting for 17
percent of Broomfield’s population, with an estimated 22 percent—approximately
2,500—having some type of housing need.
Older adults are less likely than other types of residents to have housing challenges,
according to the resident survey. This is likely due to the high share of homeowners
among older adult survey respondents, 90 percent of older adult respondents in
Broomfield are homeowners. Ten percent of them struggle to pay property taxes and
another 20 percent owns a home that they want to sell but cannot afford to purchase
something else at current home prices. Their most significant challenge was “I want to
use the bus, but the stop is too far away from my home to use it,” with 26 percent of
them indicating that. Applying this rate to the older population translates to 3,000
older residents having a transportation challenge.
¾ Female-headed households with children. There are about 1,115 female-
headed households with children in Broomfield. The poverty rate for these
households is 17 percent—much higher than the family poverty rate of 2 percent, but
lower than the poverty rate for female-headed households in other Consortium
jurisdictions. The 190 female-headed households with children living in poverty are the
most likely to struggle with rising housing costs and may need unique supports given
the challenges they face.
¾ Limited English proficient households. About 526 Broomfield households have
limited English language proficiency (LEP), meaning no one over the age of 14 speaks
English “very well.” Asian and Pacific Islander languages are the most common
languages spoken by these households in Broomfield (62% of all LEP households in
Broomfield), followed by Spanish (28% of all households with LEP in Broomfield).
These households may have trouble accessing resources and/or housing-related
documents in their native language. The 5 percent of households with limited English
proficiency7 living in poverty are most likely to experience housing challenges.
Service needs
The resident survey used to support this housing analysis also collected information on
human services needs of residents. The primary needs captured in the survey include:
¾ 31 percent of Broomfield residents worry that an unexpected health issue would
strain their savings and put them in debt;
¾ 20 percent say they could not pay for an unexpected doctor bill;
¾ 18 percent live paycheck to paycheck.
7 Limited English proficiency, or LEP, is defined as a resident who does not live in a household where someone older
than 14 years old speaks English “well” or “very well” and is based on self-reported Census data.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 43
¾ When residents need to skip services because they cannot afford them, they are
mostly likely to skip dental care and car repairs.
¾ Half of residents needing services say they could use information about the types of
jobs they are qualified for; 40 percent said they could use financial help to pay for
educational development, and better transportation options.
Rental Housing Gaps
A rental gaps analysis, which compares supply and demand of rental housing at specified
affordability levels, shows that 24 percent of renters (2,164 households) living in
Broomfield had annual income of less than $35,000. These renters need units with monthly
rent for less than $875 to avoid being cost burdened. Only 8 percent of rental units (782
units) in the area rent for less than $875 per month. This leaves a “gap,” or shortage, of
1,382 units for these households with lower income.
The gap two years ago, in the most recent City and County of Broomfield study (using 2016
ACS data) was smaller, at 1,286, and was confined to renters earning less than $20,000 per
year (needing units priced below $500).
The gap in the last regional market study (based on 2013 data), was 1,036, and was
confined to renters earning less than $20,000 per year (needing units priced below $500).
The expansion of Broomfield’s gap to include households with annual income between
$20,000 and $35,000 is due to a substantial decline in the number of rental units priced in
those households’ affordability ranges.
The private rental market in Broomfield—by far the most significant provider of rental
units to Broomfield households—largely serves renters with annual income between
$50,000 and $75,000: 50 percent of rental units are priced within that group’s affordability
range. Another 27 percent of rental units are serving households with higher income (of
more than $75,000 per year) and have monthly rent amounts of at least $1,875.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 44
Figure 34.
Change in Renter Households and Rental Units, City and County of
Broomfield, 2013-2018
Source: 2013-2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Income Range
Less than $5,000 251 255 4 0 26 26
$5,000 to $9,999 300 304 4 140 30 -110
$10,000 to $14,999 419 257 -162 83 104 21
$15,000 to $19,999 384 229 -155 95 32 -63
$20,000 to $24,999 433 362 -71 470 75 -395
$25,000 to $34,999 859 757 -102 1,183 515 -668
$35,000 to $49,999 964 1,264 300 2,214 1,364 -850
$50,000 to $74,999 1,355 1,875 520 2,385 4,742 2,357
$75,000 or more 2,019 3,696 1,677 856 2,512 1,656
< $25,000 change -380 -521
< $35,000 change -482 -1,189
Change
2013
Renters
2018
Renters Change
2013
Units
2018
Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 45 Figure 35. Rental Gaps, City and County of Broomfield, 2013 Source: 2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -251-160-336-289373241,2501,030-1,16305001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 46 Figure 36. Rental Gaps, City and County of Broomfield, 2018 Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -229-274-153-197-287-2421002,867-1,18405001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 47 Figure 37. Rental Gaps, City and County of Broomfield, 2018 Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). V, :J D.. I... :J l/1 I... 0 C ::J 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Year 2010 2011 2012 e2013 e2014 e201s e2016 e2011 e201a I Surplus ~ .0 ro "O 0 -----------------------------------i ..., § -1,000 0 u -2,000 -3,000 J Deficit Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 48
City of Longmont
As of late 2019, Longmont’s housing market was strong and stable. Rents increased by 27
percent between 2013 and 2017—an average of 5 percent per year—keeping pace with
Boulder County overall. Rental vacancy rates were near zero in 2013 and 2014 following
the flood, after which they increased slightly, yet remain very low. Fewer than 100 rentals
were vacant as of third quarter 2019—and fewer than 50 as of second quarter 2019.
Home values increased by 64 percent between 2013 and 2018—an average of 13 percent
per year. This was the largest increase of any HOME Consortium jurisdiction. Although
prices have increased rapidly during the past 5 years, Longmont remains one of the most
affordable jurisdictions in the HOME Consortium, especially for moderate income
workers—if they can find a home to buy. Affordable for sale inventory is very low.
Overall, compared to communities in the region, the resident survey conducted for this
study suggests that Longmont residents experience relative low rates of housing
discrimination (9% in Longmont v. 14% in the City of Boulder); occupy housing in good or
excellent condition (81%, about the same as the region overall); and feel they are on a good
financial path (36%, about the same as the region overall).
The city’s primary housing needs include:
¾ A shortage of 2,100 units renting at less than $625 per month (market gaps analysis).
¾ A shortage of homes to buy priced at less than $375,000 per month (market gaps
analysis).
¾ Housing subsidies to assist 3,700 persons with disabilities, many of whom are seniors,
who are cost burdened (Census data).
¾ Housing subsidies to assist the 600 large families in Longmont with housing burden
(Census data).
¾ Housing subsidies to assist the 1,400 female-headed households with housing burden
(Census data).
¾ Housing assistance for the 1,500 Hispanic households who struggle to pay their rent
on a monthly basis and are vulnerable to losing their rental units (resident survey).
Range of rental needs: 2,000 to 2,500 units priced at less than $875 per month, with
most priced at less than $625 per month.
Range of ownership needs: 2,500 owners in Longmont live in housing in fair or poor
condition and cannot afford to make needed repairs. 7,500 renters want to buy but cannot
afford the downpayment required.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 49
Rental Market Summary
Average rent 3Q19: $1,418
Income required to afford the average rent: $56,720
Cost burdened renters: 7,500, or 53% of all renters, stable from 2013
Severely cost burdened renters: 3,500, or 25% of all renters
Rental vacancy 3Q19: 3.7%
No. of vacant rentals 3Q19: 93 vacant rentals
Figure 38.
City of Longmont Multifamily Vacancy Trends, 3Q2011 - 2Q2019
Source: Denver Metro Apartment Vacancy and Rent Q3 2019 Report.
Ownership Market Summary
Homeownership rate 2018: 62%, stable from 2013
Median home value 2018: $401,700, up 64% from 2013. Income required to afford =
$105,000
Cost burdened owners: 4,000, or 20% of all owners, a 4 percentage point decrease
from 2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd3rd4th1st2nd2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Boulder Broomfield Market Area City of Boulder except University
City of Boulder University Balance of Boulder County
Broomfield City and County City of Longmont
--11 I I I I I lJ
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 50
Severely cost burdened owners: 750, or 8% of all owners
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $75,000 income: 175
Number of homes affordable to buyers at $100,000 income: 825
Figure 39.
City of Longmont Summary Statistics for Units Listed and Sold, 2Q2018 -
2Q2019
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
Price Range
< $280,000 1,284 2 2 1984 175
$280,000 to $375,000 1,603 3 2 1977 825
> $375,000 3,063 4 3 1989 1,705
Attached homes 1,784 2 3 1999 503
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,293 2 2 1991 136
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,675 2 3 1999 218
Detached homes 2,667 4 3 1982 2,202
Affordable to 80% AMI 1,250 3 1 1959 39
Affordable to 120% AMI 1,577 3 2 1969 607
Average Sq.Ft.
Average #
Bedrooms
Average #
Baths
Average
Year Built No. of Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 51
Figure 40.
Location of Listed and Sold Homes, City of Longmont, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019
Source: MLS and IRES, Q2 2018 to Q2 2019.
•
-•
•
•
•
•
. ,
• •• • • •
' . •
• •
I Erie
-Highways
Listed/Sold Price s
Q2 2018 to Q2 2019
• $0 to $280K
• $280K to $375K
$375K to $500k
• $500k to $2.2M
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 52
Populations with disproportionate needs
¾ Hispanic households. According to the survey conducted for this study, 40 percent
of Hispanic households worry about their rent going up to an amount they cannot
afford. An equal proportion (40%) struggle to pay their rent or mortgage payment each
month. One third live in housing that is in “fair” or “poor” condition. Nearly all say they
cannot afford the downpayment to purchase a home.
These numbers are much higher than for Non-Hispanic White households who
struggle to pay rent 18 percent of the time (v. 40% for Hispanic households). Non-
Hispanic White households are also less likely to live in housing in fair or poor
condition (16%).
¾ Persons with disabilities. 44 percent of households that contain a member with a
disability experience one or more housing problems; this equates to approximately
3,700 residents with disabilities with housing needs.
In the resident survey, 28 percent of persons with disabilities said they struggle to pay
their mortgage or rent—approximately 2,400 households. Sixty-five percent of survey
respondents being or living with a household member who has a disability are over
the age of 60 or live with a household member over the age of 60. Of those, 23 percent
respondents indicated their current home does not meet their needs and over 40
percent of them indicated the modifications needed were grab bars in the bathroom,
and another 30 percent indicated ramps and wider doorways were needed.
¾ Voucher holders. Private housing market factors combined with a lack of federal
funding for public housing create extra challenges for housing authorities. Nearly half
of Longmont residents with housing vouchers found it “very difficult” to find a landlord
to accept their voucher.
¾ At-risk of homelessness/precariously housed. Of the residents responding to
the survey for this study, 3.5 percent were living with family or friends because they
cannot afford an apartment of their own. These residents—most of whom live
paycheck to paycheck—need assistance paying for food and transportation, and
accessing mental health services.
¾ Older adult households. 19,000 residents are 62 years or older, with an estimated
22 percent—approximately 4,000—having some type of housing need. Older adults
are less likely than other types of residents to have housing challenges, according to
the resident survey. This is likely due to the high share of homeowners among older
adult survey respondents; 75 percent of older adult respondents for the City of
Longmont are homeowners. Fifteen percent of older homeowners struggle to pay
their property taxes, and almost one in four indicated they want to sell their home but
cannot afford to purchase something else at current home prices.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 53
Around one in ten older adults indicated having repair needs, with the most important
repairs relating to floors and windows. Over 60 percent of those in need of repair
cannot afford them.
Overall 13 percent of older adults indicated they struggle to pay their rent or
mortgage. Applying survey proportions to the older adult population translates to
around 2,400 older adult residents struggling to pay they rent/mortgage and property
taxes. The degree of cost burden varied by tenure; 9 percent of older homeowners
indicated they struggle to pay their mortgage while 25 percent of older renters
struggle to pay rent.
Many respondents to the resident survey expressed an interest in home share
situations to help them manage housing costs and repair and maintenance challenges.
¾ Large families. Approximately 2,800 households are large family households (5 or
more people) with 23 percent, or more than 600 households, with housing problems
including cost burden and overcrowding. The primary challenges of large families,
according to the resident survey, are: paying rent (39% struggle to pay housing costs),
living in crowded conditions (25%); living paycheck to paycheck (53%), and living in fair
or poor condition housing (26%).
¾ Female headed households with children. There are approximately 3,700
female headed households with children in Longmont and 38 percent live in poverty.
These 1,400 female headed households with children living in poverty are the most
likely to struggle with rising housing costs: half struggle to pay their rent and 46
percent say they worry about their rent increase. About 75 percent live paycheck to
paycheck.
¾ Limited English Proficiency households. About 775 Longmont households have
limited English proficiency (LEP), meaning no one over the age of 14 speaks English
“very well”; the majority speak Spanish. The 22 percent of limited English proficient
households living in poverty are most likely to have acute housing needs, equaling 170
households.
Service needs
The resident survey used to support this housing analysis also collected information on
human services needs of residents. The primary needs captured in the survey include:
¾ 36 percent of Longmont residents worry that an unexpected health issue would strain
their savings and put them in debt;
¾ 35 percent say they could not pay for an unexpected doctor bill;
¾ 31 percent live paycheck to paycheck.
¾ When residents need to skip services because they cannot afford them, they are
mostly likely to skip dental care and car repairs.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 54
¾ Half of residents needing services say they could use information about the types of
jobs they are qualified for and/or financial help to pay for educational development.
Rental Housing Gaps
A rental gaps compares the supply of rental housing to demand, based on household
income. In 2018, Longmont had a shortage of 2,526 units affordable to households earning
less than $35,000 per year. Specifically,
¾ 25% of renters (3,378 households) living in Longmont earn less than $25,000 per year.
These renters need units that cost less than $625 per month to avoid being cost
burdened.
¾ 8% of rental units (1,187 units) rent for less than $625 per month.
¾ This leaves a “gap,” or shortage, of 2,191 units for these extremely low-income
households.
¾ Another 1,883 renters earn between $25,000 and $35,000 and also face a shortage, of
335 affordable rental units.
¾ Altogether, the city has a shortage of 2,526 rental units priced to serve households
earning less than $35,000 per year.
The gap five-years ago (2013), based on the same methodology, was larger, at 2,766 rental
units serving households earning less than $25,000 per year. This is due to a modest
decrease in < $25,000 renters.
¾ The inventory of units serving extremely low income renters, earning less than $20,000
per year, actually increased—meaning that the city was successful in stabilizing the
rental gap by adding permanently affordable rental units to the market.
¾ However, the inventory of units serving $25,000 to $35,000 households declined,
leading to a new rental shortage for these households. Renters in this range also
declined, but not by the same amount as units, suggesting that these renters may now
be cost burdened.
¾ Overall, since 2010, the city’s gap has shifted to encompass a wider range of income
brackets as the private market is serving fewer low and moderate income households.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 55
Figure 41.
Change in Renter Households and Rental Units, City of Longmont, 2013-
2018
Source: 2013-2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
The following figures provide a visual representation of the rental gaps trends.
Income Range
Less than $5,000 559 516 -43 50 58 8
$5,000 to $9,999 763 581 -182 233 197 -36
$10,000 to $14,999 864 877 13 291 310 19
$15,000 to $19,999 1,144 784 -360 270 343 73
$20,000 to $24,999 915 620 -295 635 279 -356
$25,000 to $34,999 1,996 1,883 -113 3,324 1,548 -1,776
$35,000 to $49,999 2,466 2,715 249 5,611 4,782 -829
$50,000 to $74,999 2,098 2,679 581 2,320 5,122 2,802
$75,000 or more 1,894 3,245 1,351 395 1,960 1,565
< $25,000 change -867 -292
< $35,000 change -980 -2,068
Change
2013
Renters
2018
Renters Change
2013
Units
2018
Units
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 56 Figure 42. Rental Gaps, City of Longmont, 2013 Source: 2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -509-530-573-874-2801,3283,145222-1,49905001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,5006,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 57 Figure 43. Rental Gaps, City of Longmont, 2018 Source: 2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). -458-384-567-441-341-3352,0672,443-1,28505001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,5006,000Less than$5,000$5,000 to$9,999$10,000 to$14,999$15,000 to$19,999$20,000 to$24,999$25,000 to$34,999$35,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$74,999$75,000 ormoreHouseholds inIncomeGroupRental Units Affordableto Households in Income Group(Unit Deficit)Unit SurplusCount (Units or Households)0-30% AMI31-50% AMI51-80% AMI81 AMI +
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 58 Figure 44. Change in Rental Gaps, City of Longmont, 2010 to 2018 3,000 vi' ::J 2-2,000 ::J l/1 '--0 ..., ·c; (i:::: QJ 0 C ::J QJ :c ro "E 0 1,000 Vear 2010 2011 2012 2013 e2014 e201s e2016 e2017 e2018 I Surplus ~ 0. ····--·--------------------------..., C ::J 0 u -1,000 -2,000 t Deficit Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more Source: 5 Year ACS Estimates
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH HOUSING NEEDS SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 59
APPENDIX A.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 1
APPENDIX A.
Community Engagement Findings
This section reports the findings from the community engagement process that was
conducted in the Boulder Broomfield Regional HOME Consortium (Consortium or region)
to support a variety of housing, community development, and human services strategic
plans. It explores residents’ housing choices and preferences, challenges and experiences
with housing discrimination, access to services and access to opportunity, community
needs, and resources for residents in need.
Primary Findings
The survey reveals differences in housing challenges by household type, housing status,
income, household characteristics, race and ethnicity, and among jurisdictions. The
starkest differences—and most prominent indicators of need—include:
¾ By household type. Households with members of Hispanic descent are most likely
to say they live in poor condition homes/apartments (30%); cannot afford a
downpayment to buy a home (90%); live paycheck to paycheck (50%); have had to use
a payday loan to make ends meet (20%); and have had to go without medical services
or household goods to make ends meet (80%).
Households with a member with a disability have also had to go without medical
services and household goods to make ends meet (75%), struggle to pay their rent and
mortgage payments (29%); and cannot afford security deposits or application fees of
rentals (32%).
¾ By housing status. Sixty percent of renters and over half of mobile home residents
feel they would not be able to pay for an unexpected expense.
Half of precariously housed residents note that they can’t afford application fees or
security deposits to live on their own, and 13 percent indicated they can’t find a place
due to their criminal record.
Over one third of renters and mobile home residents struggle to pay their rent or
mortgage.
Ninety percent of mobile home residents are concerned about rent on lot increasing
to an unaffordable level.
Forty-five percent of voucher holders say it is very difficult to find a landlord that
accepts vouchers. Of those who find it difficult to use vouchers, the greatest
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 2
proportion attribute this to landlords having policies of not renting to voucher holders
(58%) and not enough properties available (58%). By income. Households with
income less than $25,000 and those with income between $25,000 and $50,000 are
almost equally likely to say they worry about their rent increasing and struggle to pay
their rent or mortgage payment each month.
Community Engagement Elements
Open house events. At open house events held in Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont,
and Nederland (four total), residents and stakeholders participated in activities to identify
housing, community development, and human service needs, resources, and gaps
regionally and at the local level. More than 60 residents of the region participated.
Attendees included staff of local government and nonprofit organizations, residents who
identified themselves as unhoused or homeless, members of resident advocacy coalitions
and alliances, and other interested residents. Organizations represented by stakeholders
attending the open house events include:
¾ Association for Community Living;
¾ Broomfield FISH;
¾ The Center for People with
Disabilities;
¾ Emergency Family Assistance
Association;
¾ Imagine!;
¾ Mental Health Partners;
¾ Peak to Peak Housing and Human
Services Alliance;
¾ Recovery Café Longmont; and
¾ The Reentry Initiative.
Focus groups. In addition to the open house events, the community engagement
process included focus groups with Spanish-speaking residents at the Sister Carmen
Community Center; with the Lyons Human Service Commission; and with stakeholders in
the housing and service agencies at the Boulder Public Library.
Resident survey. Residents of Broomfield and Boulder Counties had the opportunity
to share their experiences with housing needs and community resources through a
resident survey. Offered in English and Spanish, the resident survey was available online
and in a postage-paid mail version. A total of 2,357 residents participated. The survey
instrument included questions about residents’ current housing and financial situation,
housing and transportation challenges, community resources, and experience with housing
discrimination.
It is important to note that the resident survey that was conducted during February and
March 2020, in the early stages of the of the COVID-19 outbreak. As such, the survey
primarily reflects pre-COVID economic conditions and should be considered a baseline
measure of resident needs. The housing situation and needs of residents during that
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 3
period can help inform short- and long-term policy responses to stabilize households and
preserve and add to the supply of affordable housing.
Outreach and promotion. Outreach and promotional efforts for open house
events and the resident survey was geared to both the general population in the region,
with focused outreach to low and moderate income residents and members of special
needs groups. In addition to promoting the survey directly to residents, Consortium
partners asked local organizations to extend their reach by encouraging their clients,
residents, consumers, and members to participate in the survey.
Survey distribution included outreach and hand-delivered flyers with links to the survey to:
¾ More than 4,000 Housing Choice
Voucher applicants, property
residents, and voucher holders;
¾ 500 Housing and Human Services
staff within Boulder County;
¾ Area Agency on Aging;
¾ Homeless Solutions for Boulder
County;
¾ Workforce Boulder County;
¾ Boulder County St. Vrain Community
Hub, the County’s “one-stop”
integrated services delivery for
residents;
¾ Family resource centers;
¾ Boulder Shelter for the Homeless;
¾ Emergency Family Assistance
Association (EFAA);
¾ Safehouse Progressive Alliance for
Nonviolence (SPAN);
¾ Boulder County Public Health;
¾ Boulder County Human Services;
¾ Boulder County Transportation’s
Mobility for All program;
¾ Center for People With Disabilities
(CPWD);
¾ Mental Health Partners of Boulder
and Broomfield Counties;
¾ Attention Homes, providing
transitional housing and supportive
services for youth;
¾ Bridge House, connecting people
who are experiencing homelessness
to housing resources and
employment and skill-building
opportunities;
¾ Lafayette Public Library;
¾ Lafayette Senior Services (also
assisted residents complete surveys
in-person);
¾ Lafayette Chamber of Commerce;
¾ Mobile home communities in county
outside of Boulder and Longmont –
San Lazaro, Arbordale Acres, who
offered to email it to their residents;
Boulder Ridge;
¾ Elementary schools serving families
with low and moderate income; and,
¾ Boulder County’s Josephine
Commons Senior Housing during
lunch served by Meals on Wheels.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 4
Altogether, more than 1,500 hard copy surveys were distributed.
Social media postings to promote the survey reached an estimated more than 40,000
followers though these networks:
Timing of survey data collection. Survey data collection closed on March 30,
2020, a few days after the State of Colorado’s first “shelter in place” or “stay home” orders
to support social distancing in response to the COVID-19 crisis. As such, the survey data
characterize housing, economic, community, and human service needs at the onset of the
COVID-19 economic and social shutdowns. The needs demonstrated should be viewed as
the “lower bound” estimate of current need, as they do not include the effects of the
pandemic. The need for assistance with housing costs, landlord/tenant mediation, and
employment assistance has grown since implementation of statewide shutdowns of most
industries.
Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the
HOME Consortium region. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in
the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The self-selected
nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. Important insights
and themes can still be gained from the survey results however, with an understanding of
the differences of the sample from the larger population.
Social Media Networks
Boulder County Department of Housing and Human Services 2,231
Nederland Area News 2,404
What’s Up Longmont 9,391
What’s Up Longmont (official) 3,699
80026 Lafayette on the Verge 5,869
Nederland Area Non-Profit Alliance 72
80027, Neighborhood News, Networking and Joy! 1,085
Lafayette Rocks! 10,141
Longmont Community Group 1,395
All About Longmont 3,726
Lafayette Colorado 4,440
Latinos de Boulder County 737
# Followers
■
■
--
I
I --I
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 5
When evaluating housing needs in Broomfield and Nederland, it is important to note that
the sample from these jurisdictions includes a greater share of homeowners than
responses for other participating partners. Conversely, for Lafayette, the sample includes a
greater share of renters.
Since renters and the precariously housed are more likely to experience housing
challenges, estimates for Broomfield and Nederland as a whole may underestimate needs
and estimates for Lafayette may overstate needs.
Sample size note. When considering the experience of members of certain
subpopulations, the sample sizes are too small (n<40 respondents) to express results
quantitatively. In these cases, we describe the survey findings as representative of those
who responded to the survey, but that the magnitude of the estimate may vary significantly
in the overall population (i.e., large margin of error). Survey data from small samples are
suggestive of an experience or preference, rather than conclusive. Figure A-1 presents the
sample by jurisdiction overall (total responses) and for selected characteristics.
Geographic note. Throughout this section, survey data are reported for several
jurisdictions. These include:
¾ City and County of Broomfield,
¾ City of Boulder,
¾ Lafayette,
¾ City of Longmont,
¾ Lyons,
¾ Nederland,
¾ Elsewhere in Boulder County, and
¾ Region.
Elsewhere in Boulder County exclude responses from residents of Broomfield, Boulder
City, Lafayette, Longmont, Lyons, and Nederland, as such, the Elsewhere in Boulder County
data are inclusive of only the unincorporated areas and the non-entitlement communities
of Erie, Gunbarrel, Jamestown, Louisville, Niwot, Superior, and Ward1. Data for the Region
as reported throughout this section include all survey respondents living in both
incorporated and unincorporated areas in Broomfield and Boulder counties.
1 The sample sizes for residents of the cities of Erie (n=12), Gunbarrel (n=15), Jamestown (n=1), Louisville (n=35), Niwot
(n=3), Superior (n=4), and Ward (n=3) are too small to report individually and were considered qualitatively.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 6 Figure A-1. Resident Survey Sample Sizes by Jurisdiction and Select Characteristics Note: Precariously housed includes residents who are currently homeless, those staying with friends or family, but not on the lease (“couch-surfing”), or living in transitional or temporary housing. Disability indicates that a member of the household has a disability. Numbers do not aggregate either due to multiple response or that respondents did not choose to provide a response to all demographic and socioeconomic questions. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey. Resident Survey Sample SizesTotal Responses293472731,171158631272,357Household CompositionHouseholds with children551031526428428497Large families2131186523149Households with a member over age 609612530406372050764Households with a member with a disability551002327718928510Race/EthnicityHispanic1435363119126Non-Hispanic Minority1835636549110Non-Hispanic White155253446917438721,326TenureHomeowner2452522078212342851,549Renter3318250325291940678Mobile home844131130685Precariously housed1538360622126Household Income< $25,000207423164151512323$25,000 - $50,0002482141739817327$50,000 - $100,00055758221311224426$100,000+7483421625831441BoulderBroomfieldElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegionNederlandLyonsLongmontLafayetteI I I I I I I I
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 7
Housing Choice
This section explores residents’ housing situation including housing type, tenure, and
physical condition. It also explores residents’ desire to change their current housing
situation as well as exploring the major impediments that are keeping them from reaching
their desired housing goals.
Current housing situation. Figure A-2 shows the distribution of housing tenure by
jurisdiction and selected characteristics. Among jurisdictions, the majority of survey
respondents from Broomfield are homeowners. As expected, the lowest homeownership
rate was for residents with income below $25,000 at 28 percent, while over 90 percent of
residents with income above $100,000 were homeowners.
Figure A-2.
Tenure, by Jurisdiction,
Income, and Household
Characteristics
Note:
n=2,357.
The proportion of homeowners from the
Census is lower in Broomfield (66% v. 84%
of survey respondents) and Nederland
(52% v. 67%), and higher in Lafayette (71%
v. 27%) and within 5-7 percentage points
for all other jurisdictions. Difference
between the sum of percentages and 100
is due to precariously housed and
homeless survey respondents.
Source:
Root Policy Research from the 2020
HOME Consortium of Boulder and
Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
Tenure
Jurisdiction
Broomfield 84%11%
Boulder 53%39%
Lafayette 27%68%
Longmont 67%28%
Lyons 78%18%
Nederland 67%30%
Elsewhere in Boulder County 67%31%
Region 66%29%
Household Income
< $25,000 28%55%
$25,000 - $50,000 51%44%
$50,000 - $100,000 69%29%
$100,000+91%6%
Household Characteristics
Children Under 18 62%32%
Large Families 62%26%
Older Adults 73%23%
Disability 50%39%
Hispanic 37%52%
Non-Hispanic Minority 45%44%
Non-Hispanic White 68%28%
Percent
Homeowner
Percent
Renter
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 8
The following figure shows the distribution of housing type by jurisdiction, income, tenure,
and household characteristics.2 A “0%” indicates no respondents lived in that type of
housing.
In the region, around two thirds of respondents live in single family homes. Attached
homes and apartments provide housing to nearly one-fourth of households;
condominiums and mobile homes are less common housing products.
Respondents from Lafayette displayed the most diverse distribution in housing type, with
significant shares of mobile homes, apartment, and attached housing residents; this is due
to the particularly high share of renter responses collected from Lafayette.
2 The groups chosen for analysis represent protected classes that typically have disproportionate housing needs. These
are often compared to Non-Hispanic White residents as a benchmark.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 9 Figure A-3. Where People Live, by Jurisdiction Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey. I live in a…Single family home81%45%22%70%87%83%67%66%Townhome/duplex/triplex/fourplex5%14%22%11%6%3%6%10%Apartment 6%18%34%13%3%2%16%13%Condo unit 3%8%3%3%0%2%6%4%Mobile home3%9%18%1%2%0%5%4%Hotel/motel0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%Tiny home/ADU 0%0%0%0%1%5%0%0%Homeless shelter0%3%0%0%0%0%0%1%On the street/ camping/sleeping in car0%1%0%1%1%0%0%1%Elsewhere in Boulder CountyRegionBroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandSingle familyhomeTownhome/duplex/triplex/fourplexApartmentCondo unitMobile homeTiny home/ADUHomeless shelterOn the street/camping/sleepingin carI I I I I I I I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 10
Tenure. Figure A-4 shows housing type by income and household characteristics. Single
family homes are the most common housing type across income categories and resident
types. The region’s extremely low income households are just as likely to live in single family
detached homes as apartments. Around one half of precariously housed residents live in
single family homes—meaning they are temporarily seeking shelter in the home of a friend or
family members.
Hispanic residents and other non-Hispanic minorities3 are about twice as likely to live in
apartment homes as non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic residents are also twice as likely to live
in mobile homes—9 percent compared to 4 percent.
Doubling up. Around one in five residents responded yes to the question “Does anyone over
the age of 18 live with you because they cannot afford to live on their own?” This share was
roughly the same across jurisdictions. In around 85 percent of cases, the adult living with them
was a family member; 25 percent of the time was this person a student. Households that had
a higher rate of doubling up were large families (50%), households with a member who has a
disability (33%), Hispanic households (33%), and households with income between $25,000 to
$50,000 (28%).
3 Non-Hispanic minorities include African American/Black, Native American, Asian, and Multi-racial.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 11 Figure A-4. Type of Housing, by Income and Household Characteristics Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey. Housing TypeSingle family home33%47%67%92%48%69%81%67%53%47%47%66%Townhome/duplex/triplex/fourplex13%15%11%4%6%12%7%8%12%8%13%10%Apartment 32%19%12%1%10%12%6%13%19%27%24%12%Condo unit 5%6%6%2%3%2%0%5%5%4%3%5%Mobile home6%10%2%0%1%4%3%5%4%9%5%4%Hotel/motel0%1%0%0%2%0%0%0%0%1%0%0%Tiny home/ADU 0%1%0%0%2%0%0%0%1%0%0%0%Homeless shelter5%0%0%0%13%0%3%0%3%3%4%1%On the street/camping/sleeping in car2%1%0%0%11%0%0%0%1%2%1%0%Income Resident Characteristics<$25,000$25,000 - $50,000$50,000 - $100,000$100,000+Precariously HousedChildren Under 18Large FamiliesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic WhiteSingle familyhomeTownhome/duplex/triplex/fourplexApartmentCondo unitMobile homeHotel/motelHomeless shelterOn the street/camping/sleepingin carTiny home/ADU■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 12
Publicly supported housing. There were 190 respondents who indicated they live in
publicly subsidized or deed restricted housing. Of those, 56 indicated they live with children
under age 18. Sixty-six survey participants indicated they have a Section 8 housing voucher.
Among housing voucher holders, nearly 80 percent indicated it is somewhat (33%) or very
difficult (45%) to find a landlord that accepts vouchers.
The majority of respondents indicated that it is difficult because there are not enough
properties available, landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders, and because
tenants have a hard time finding out about landlords who accept vouchers. Other
comments provided by survey respondents included:
¾ “It’s only me and my young son and our service dogs. We need a house with a yard but the
voucher barely covers small apartments in our area”;
¾ “No places that will accept pets (a dog specifically)”; and
¾ “Concerned the landlord may sell property and then difficult to find another place in short
order.”
Mobile home residents. Eighty-five survey respondents indicated they live in a mobile
or manufactured home; over half of them live in Boulder, 15 percent in Lafayette, and 13
percent in Longmont. Over one third of residents living in a mobile home have income
between $25,000 and $50,000.
Almost all respondents who indicated living in a mobile home own the home and rent the
space in the park in which they live. Half indicated they have a signed lease for the lot
space for six months or longer; 34 percent have a month to month lease; and 13 percent
rent month to month without a written lease.
Around one in three mobile home residents rated the condition of their home as fair or
poor. The most common challenges residents indicated are:
¾ Concerns about the lot rent increasing to an unaffordable level (90%);
¾ Park owner and tenant disagree about who is responsible for lot maintenance (e.g.,
tree trimming, landscaping, fence repairs, etc.) (46%); and
¾ Water, sewer, and other infrastructure in mobile home park are in poor condition
(44%).
Other challenges mentioned by mobile home residents in open comment format include:
negligent management practices, abrupt changes in tenant rules, and disruptions after
transition in park management. Some mobile park residents are also concerned about
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 13
changes in the landscape around the park, including tree removal to add more homes in
the park.
Condition. Residents were asked to rate the condition of their home as well as list the
most important repairs they felt were needed. Figure A-5 shows the percent of residents
who rated the condition of their home as fair or poor.
¾ Eighteen percent of respondents in the region overall rated the condition of their
home as fair or poor. Among jurisdictions, residents from Nederland were the most
likely to rate the condition of their home as fair or poor (27%), followed by the City of
Boulder (22%).
¾ Precariously housed residents were most likely to be unsatisfied with the condition of
their home (41%).
¾ Renters and mobile home residents were three times as likely to rate the condition of
their home as fair or poor compared to homeowners.
¾ Around 30 percent of residents who are Hispanic or have income below $25,000 rated
the condition of their home as fair or poor, compared to 16 percent of non-Hispanic
White and 18 percent of residents with income between $50,000 to $100,000.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 14
Figure A-5.
Residents Who
Rate the Condition
of their Home as
Fair or Poor
Note:
n=2,175.
Source:
Root Policy Research from the 2020
HOME Consortium of Boulder and
Broomfield Counties Resident
Survey.
Most important repairs needed. Of respondents who said they were unsatisfied with
the condition of their home the vast majority—80 percent—said their home needed
repairs. The most important repairs needed were related to windows (17%), roof (16%),
and weatherization (14%). Half of respondents indicated they can’t afford the repairs, and
22 percent indicated their landlord refuses to make repairs.
Accessibility modifications and disability-related needs. One in four
households with a member who has a disability said their home/apartment needs some
type of accessibility modification to meet their family’s accessibility needs. Modifications
residents said they needed included grab bars in bathroom (37%), ramps (27%), wider
doorways (24%), and accessible parking (24%). Many residents would like to live in a place
without stairs.
41%
33%
33%
31%
29%
27%
27%
27%
26%
22%
22%
21%
19%
18%
18%
16%
16%
14%
11%
10%
10%
9%
4%
Precariously housed
Hispanic
Mobile home
Income < $25,000
Renter
Nederland
Large families
Disability
Income $25,000 - $50,000
Boulder
Children Under 18
Non-Hispanic Minority
Longmont
Income $50,000 - $100,000
Region
Elsewhere in Boulder County
Non-Hispanic White
Older Adults
Lyons
Homeowner
Broomfield
Lafayette
Income $100,000 or more
----------■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 15
In addition:
¾ Around 30 percent for households with a member with a disability worry about rent
increasing to an unaffordable level;
¾ Around 20 percent feel the bus takes too long to get where they need to go and one in
four indicated they use public transportation;
¾ Over forty percent indicated they have been late to work and missed medical
appointments due to transportation issues; and
¾ People with disabilities said most needed resources are help with acccessible medical
care.
Through the open-ended comments, households with a member with a disability indicated
their most pressing concerns are access to mental and medical care, better transportation
options, help with home repairs, and more affordable housing.
Desire to buy. Respondents were asked about their desire to buy a home within the
Consortium. As Figure A-6 shows, about 70 percent of renters have a desire to buy a home.
The major impediment to ownership for these renters is inability to afford a down
payment. Broomfield and Lyons’ particularly low percent of residents who want to buy a
home is due to the high proportion of homeowners’ responses collected from those areas
(around 80 percent).
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 16
Among particular household groups, several areas stand out:
¾ Around two thirds of large households with a desire to buy a house feel they have too
much debt;
¾ Almost 90 percent of Hispanic residents can’t afford a down payment; and
¾ Almost 40 percent of households with income below $25,000 have been told by a
lender they will not qualify for a loan.
Figure A-6.
Residents with a Desire to Buy a Home and Top Impediments to Buying
Note: n=2,357.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
Jurisdiction
Broomfield 10%48%69%17%
Boulder 27%27%61%14%
Lafayette 37%33%57%23%
Longmont 24%34%70%25%
Lyons 14%27%68%23%
Nederland 24%33%73%20%
Elsewhere in Boulder County 22%32%61%14%
Region 23%33%68%22%
Tenure
Renter 71%32%69%21%
Mobile home 14%25%50%33%
Precariously housed 40%45%61%27%
Income
< $25,000 40%35%63%38%
$25,000 - $50,000 35%35%73%21%
$50,000 - $100,000 27%41%72%16%
$100,000+7%17%59%0%
Household Characteristics
Children Under 18 30%47%77%27%
Large families 26%61%74%34%
Older Adults 14%20%50%27%
Disability 32%34%70%31%
Hispanic 37%51%87%21%
Non-Hispanic Minority 37%37%61%27%
Non-Hispanic White 22%32%67%22%
Have been told by
lenders that I won’t
qualify for a loan
Can’t afford
down payment
Too much
debt
ImpedimentsPercent of
residents who
have a desire to
buy a home
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 17
Survey participants were given the opportunity to list, in their own words, other
impediments to home ownership. The majority of comments listed home prices as a big
impediment to home ownership. Several respondents mentioned concerns about not
having good enough credit scores, and a few residents mentioned not having enough
saving to cover maintenance expenses.
Desire to change housing situation. Survey respondents were asked if they
wanted to move to a different housing situation, and if so, what was keeping them from
moving. As shown in Figure A-7, 39 percent of respondents in the region would change
their housing situation if they could. The vast majority of renters and mobile home park
residents want to move. Those least likely to want to move are households with income
above $100,000 and owners.
Key findings include:
¾ Around 80 percent of renters and residents in mobile homes want to change their
housing situation.
¾ Among households with income below $25,000 and precariously housed residents,
about two-thirds want to move.
¾ Among members of protected classes:
Ø Two in three (65%) Hispanic residents want to move;
Ø More than half of households with a member with a disability (56%); and
Ø More than half of large families (54%) would move if given the opportunity.
Barriers to moving. For the greatest proportion of respondents, those who want to
move stay in their current residence because they cannot afford units to rent, or, for those
who want to buy, the cost of buying. Barriers to moving did vary by respondent segment
and include:
¾ For the two-thirds of residents with income below $25,000 and precariously housed
who want to move:
Ø Their biggest impediment is that they can’t afford rents in other places.
Ø Half of precariously housed residents noted they can’t afford application fees or
security deposits, and 13 percent indicated they can’t find a place due to their
criminal record.
¾ Of those who what to move and are members of a protected class:
Ø Hispanics are more likely to be unable to afford rents in other places (62%);
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 18
Ø Households with a member with a disability are the most likely to be unable to
afford application fees or security deposits (32%); and
Ø Around half of large families and older adults who want to move own a home they
want to sell but can’t afford to purchase something else at current prices.
Ø Of homeowners who want to move, most say they can’t afford to purchase
something else at current prices.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 19 Figure A-7. Residents who Want to Change their Housing Situation and Top Impediments Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.JurisdictionBroomfield32%40%15%0%53%Boulder48%55%22%5%29%Lafayette49%69%39%3%22%Longmont38%45%22%2%43%Lyons23%32%5%0%54%Nederland38%38%25%0%42%Elsewhere in Boulder County37%55%17%4%30%Region39%48%21%2%39%TenureHomeowner25%8%3%1%83%Renter81%61%25%1%5%Mobile home79%61%18%0%57%Precariously housed67%80%51%13%4%Income< $25,00062%68%40%8%20%$25,000 - $50,00057%56%27%1%33%$50,000 - $100,00043%38%11%0%48%$100,000+21%12%3%1%71%Household CharacteristicsChildren Under 1852%46%24%4%41%Large families54%43%24%6%50%Older Adults34%42%17%2%49%Disability56%50%32%4%33%Hispanic65%62%28%4%24%Non-Hispanic Minority50%58%31%5%22%Non-Hispanic White41%44%20%2%43%ImpedimentsPercent of residents who have a desire to change their housing situationI can’t afford rents in other placesI can’t afford application fees or security depositsI have a felony/criminal record and cannot find a place to rentI own a home that I want to sell but I can’t afford to purchase something else at current home prices
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 20
Survey participants were given the opportunity to list other reasons why they haven’t moved.
Notable open ended comments included:
¾ “About to qualify for senior discount on property taxes but if I move, it will be another 10 years
before I qualify - even if just move to a ranch home down the street.”
¾ “Fear that park owner will interfere with the sale of my home.”
¾ “Hard to find a place that's wheelchair accessible and fits my needs.”
¾ “I can technically afford to rent other units but I don't want to have to spend more than 30% of
my take-home pay on housing.”
¾ “I can't drive and I need to live close to places I can work.”
¾ “No family size apartments/condos (3+br); few house choices for buying and high cost.”
Making Ends Meet
This section explores the level of financial stability indicated by survey participants as well as
the major financial challenges residents face. This is particularly important as financial stability
is a good indicator of a household’s ability to endure unexpected shocks. Households without
financial stability can be severely impacted by unexpected shocks—such as the current
pandemic—which can leave them in a precarious situation for many years.
Personal financial condition. Figure A-8 compares the percent of residents who
indicated they feel they are in a good financial path with the percent that indicated they live
paycheck to paycheck.
¾ Overall in the region, 9 percent of households with income below $25,000 feel they are in
a good financial path. Half live paycheck to paycheck.
¾ Mobile home park residents, precariously housed residents, renters, and low income
households are also unlikely to report being on a good financial path.
¾ Among members of selected protected classes, only 20 percent of Hispanic households
feel they are in a good financial path. Over half say they live paycheck to paycheck.
¾ Similarly, 20 percent of households with a member with a disability feel they are on a good
financial path, and 42 percent feel like they live paycheck to paycheck.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 21
Figure A-8.
Personal Financial Conditions of Residents
Note: n=2,045
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
9%
11%
12%
15%
17%
19%
19%
23%
30%
30%
31%
32%
36%
36%
37%
38%
39%
40%
44%
45%
51%
52%
68%
50%
50%
55%
56%
48%
55%
42%
52%
45%
34%
34%
43%
32%
31%
32%
30%
29%
21%
28%
26%
16%
18%
10%
Income < $25,000
Mobile home
Precariously housed
Renter
Income $25,000 - $50,000
Hispanic
Disability
Lafayette
Large Families
Nederland
Non-Hispanic Minority
Children Under 18
Boulder
Longmont
Income $50,000 - $100,000
Region
Non-Hispanic White
Older Adults
Lyons
Elsewhere in Boulder County
Homeowner
Broomfield
Income $100,000+
I feel I am on a good
financial path
I feel like I live paycheck
to paycheck, and can't see
a way to get ahead
■------
----------_.
-----------------
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 22
Indicators of financial stability. Figure A-9 compares the percent of residents who
indicated they save a certain amount of money for emergencies or other goals with the
percent that indicated they feel they will never get out of debt.
Precariously housed residents and residents with income below $25,000 have the lowest level
of financial stability.
¾ Only 11 percent of low income residents are able to save for emergencies. Around a third
are debt burdened.
¾ Only one in five precariously housed residents are able to save. Forty percent are debt
burdened.
Among members of selected protected classes:
¾ Only one in four Hispanic residents is able to save for emergencies and around one in
three feels debt burdened.
¾ Twenty-seven percent of households with a member with a disability are able to save for
emergencies and a similar proportion feel debt burdened (29%).
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 23
Figure A-9.
Personal Financial Stability of Residents
Note: n=2,045.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
11%
21%
24%
25%
25%
26%
27%
27%
29%
30%
30%
31%
32%
35%
35%
36%
36%
37%
37%
37%
38%
41%
58%
31%
41%
14%
33%
24%
32%
29%
23%
20%
13%
21%
34%
16%
23%
20%
29%
16%
17%
20%
17%
24%
13%
12%
Income < $25,000
Precariously housed
Mobile home
Hispanic
Income $25,000 - $50,000
Renter
Disability
Lafayette
Non-Hispanic Minority
Older Adults
Nederland
Large Families
Lyons
City of Longmont
Boulder Region
Children Under 18
Broomfield
Elsewhere in Boulder County
Non-Hispanic White
Boulder
Income $50,000 - $100,000
Homeowner
Income $100,000+
I save a certain amount
of money each month
for emergencies or other
goals
I feel like I/we will never
get out of debt
---■ --------■
--
-■ --------. ----------------------------
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 24
Personal finance—condition and concerns. The following figures show indicators
about residents’ current financial situation by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household
characteristics.
The figures present challenges comparatively through percentages and color coding. The
figures show percentages for the region in gray as a benchmark. The color coding indicates:
Gray—about the same as the region overall;
Blue—lower (doing better) than the region overall, and
Red—higher (doing worse) than the region overall.
Overall, one in three residents in the region worries about potential health issues, unexpected
expenses, and feels they live paycheck to paycheck. Residents in Boulder and Lafayette are
more likely than in other jurisdictions to feel they will never be able to purchase a home, and
residents in Lafayette were more likely to be concerned about their financial situation.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 25 Figure A-10. Personal Financial Situation, by Jurisdiction Note: n=2,045. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)BroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegion31%37%35%36%34%40%32%35%20%34%52%35%25%36%29%32%18%32%52%31%28%34%26%30%17%18%34%23%19%23%17%21%17%24%29%21%20%23%17%21%16%17%23%23%16%21%17%20%10%25%35%18%9%17%21%19%11%15%24%19%15%19%13%17%10%17%26%16%14%9%13%15%8%17%13%14%12%19%13%14%4%4%5%8%2%2%1%6%I worry I won’t ever be able to buy a homeI/we struggle to pay bills, sometimes paying late or paying less than the total amount dueI worry about my credit scoreI/we sometimes need to borrow money from family or friends to pay my housing costs or billsI/we sometimes need to borrow money short-term from a payday lender or pawn shop to be able pay housing costs or billsFinancial SituationI feel like I/we will never get out of debtI worry about a potential health issue for me or a family member, which would drain my savings and put me in debtI/we worry that if we have an unexpected expense, we won’t be able to pay for itI feel like I/we live paycheck to paycheck, and can’t see a way to get aheadI/we got into credit card debt by using credit cards to meet our needs when we had no other way to payI/we had an unexpected expense(s), that we weren’t able to pay or struggled to pay~---------
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 26
By housing situation, income and resident characteristics—notable findings include:
¾ By tenure and income, renters and low income residents are most financially
vulnerable;
¾ Among members of protected classes, large families and Hispanic residents are the
groups most financially vulnerable. These are closely followed by households with
children and households with a member with a disability;
¾ More than half of renters, mobile home residents, and those precariously express
serious financial stress according to the indicators in the survey;
¾ Despite these challenges, the majority of households are able to keep up with their
monthly bills;
¾ Credit card debt is a solution for many residents, including moderate income
residents: Almost 30 percent of residents with income between $50,000 and $100,000
got into credit card debt by using credit cards to meet basic needs; and
¾ Over 20 percent of Hispanic households need to borrow money short-term from a
payday lender or pawn shop to be able pay housing costs or bills.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 27
Figure A-11.
Personal Financial Condition and Concerns, by Housing Situation
Note: n=2,045.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
Homeowner Renter
Mobile
home
Precariously
housed
16%56%50%55%
8%32%28%42%
15%34%30%24%
6%29%30%37%
2%12%11%18%
13%37%34%33%
31%46%53%40%
19%60%53%49%
1%53%33%45%
7%31%17%33%
13%32%14%41%
I/we worry that if we have an unexpected expense
we won’t be able to pay for it
I worry I won’t ever be able to buy a home
I worry about my credit score
I feel like I/we will never get out of debt
I/we sometimes need to borrow money from family
or friends to pay my housing costs or bills
I/we sometimes need to borrow money short-term
from a payday lender or pawn shop to be able pay
housing costs or bills
I/we had an unexpected expense(s) we weren’t able
to pay or struggled to pay
Concerns
I worry about a potential health issue for me or a
family member, which would drain my savings and
put me in debt
Financial Situation
Condition
I feel like I/we live paycheck to paycheck, and can’t
see a way to get ahead
I/we struggle to pay bills, sometimes paying late or
paying less than the total amount due
I/we got into credit card debt by using credit cards to
meet our needs when we had no other way to pay
Housing Situation
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 28
Figure A-12.
Personal Financial Condition and Concerns, by Income Level
Note: n=2,045.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
< $25,000
$25,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 -
$100,000 >$100,000
50%48%32%10%
42%24%13%3%
29%26%27%11%
32%23%11%3%
15%8%4%1%
38%32%22%9%
42%46%40%27%
55%53%33%11%
32%28%21%5%
24%23%14%8%
31%24%24%12%
I worry I won’t ever be able to buy a home
I worry about my credit score
I feel like I/we will never get out of debt
I/we sometimes need to borrow money short-term
from a payday lender or pawn shop to be able pay
housing costs or bills
I/we had an unexpected expense(s) we weren’t able
to pay or struggled to pay
Concerns
I worry about a potential health issue for me or a
family member, which would drain my savings and
I/we worry that if we have an unexpected expense
we won’t be able to pay for it
Condition
I feel like I/we live paycheck to paycheck, and can’t
see a way to get ahead
I/we struggle to pay bills, sometimes paying late or
paying less than the total amount due
I/we got into credit card debt by using credit cards to
meet our needs when we had no other way to pay
I/we sometimes need to borrow money from family
or friends to pay my housing costs or bills
Financial Situation
Income
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 29 Figure A-13. Personal Financial Condition and Concerns, by Household Characteristics Note: n=2,045. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Children Under 18Large familiesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic White43%45%21%42%55%34%29%27%30%12%27%32%27%16%28%34%15%25%31%25%21%24%26%8%22%33%17%13%11%15%4%9%22%9%5%30%41%18%34%36%35%21%38%42%34%48%41%30%38%42%53%27%48%56%36%33%27%27%8%25%46%26%17%23%25%8%23%29%20%14%29%34%13%29%33%20%20%I worry I won’t ever be able to buy a homeI worry about my credit scoreI feel like I/we will never get out of debtHousehold CharacteristicsI/we sometimes need to borrow money short-term from a payday lender or pawn shop to be able pay housing costs or billsI/we had an unexpected expense(s) we weren’t able to pay or struggled to payConcernsI worry about a potential health issue for me or a family member, which would drain my savings and I/we worry that if we have an unexpected expense we won’t be able to pay for itConditionI feel like I/we live paycheck to paycheck, and can’t see a way to get aheadI/we struggle to pay bills, sometimes paying late or paying less than the total amount dueI/we got into credit card debt by using credit cards to meet our needs when we had no other way to payI/we sometimes need to borrow money from family or friends to pay my housing costs or billsFinancial Situation
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 30
Unexpected expenses. Unexpected expenses can create a big drain on the financial
health of households if families turn to high cost loans such as payday loans or credit cards
in order to cover expenses.
Around 20 percent of survey respondents had unexpected expense(s) that they struggled
to pay. The amount of unexpected expenses ranged from several thousand dollars to as
low as $200 and the most cited causes for the expenses were related to medical
treatments, medications, and auto repairs.
Residents were also asked if they had needed other type of financial help over the past
year. The most common answers were help paying for food (12%), help paying medical bills
(10%), and help with paying rent/mortgage (10%).
Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share other aspects of their current
financial situation in open ended comments. Many residents are worried about increasing
cost of living while they live on a fixed income or are about to retire and start living on a
fixed income. Other residents indicate they foresee having to work several years past their
retirement age in order to afford living expenses. Others worry about health insurance
premiums rising and student loans not allowing them to save enough for retirement.
Numerous open ended comments about expected expenses were received. Those
comments that represented the most common themes include:
Living paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for emergencies:
¾ “I'm not in debt but have very little savings, no health insurance (too expensive for poor
policies) and no retirement $.”
¾ “I'm spending 75-100% of my income on home-related expenses and health insurance.”
Worries about children and grandchildren:
¾ “I do not want to leave debt for my children when I die.”
¾ “I worry about my kids' student loans and their ability to buy a home.”
¾ “I worry that my grandchildren won't ever be able to own a home.”
¾ “I worry we can't afford a second child because of daycare costs.”
¾ “Worried about possible recession and how to pay for child's college.”
Trouble adjusting for retirement/caring for elder family members:
“At 67 I still need to work. What would happen if I couldn't?” “House payment is
too high and keeps me working after retirement. I'm exhausted.” “Housing cost
in Longmont have risen far more than social security benefits, forcing our
household to live on credit, often at rates exceeding 12%.” “I Am going to need
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 31
to take care of elderly parent sometime in the near future and need a home big
enough to do that.” Rising cost of living, stagnant incomes:
¾ “I work as much as I possibly can and can’t afford rent. I’m a single parent of three. I have a
master’s degree and multiple skilled labor professions.”
¾ “I worry about uncontrolled financial increases like insurance, even though I don't claim.”
¾ “I worry that property taxes will continue to increase and I won't be able to afford to live in
my house.”
¾ “I worry the economy will take a downturn and we won't be able to afford our home.”
¾ “I live with a family member who lets me pay a small part of rent because I only get a
monthly SSDI check because I’m disabled. If I ever had to loss this security, I wouldn’t be
able to afford a place of my own and my health would let me down also. My fear is where
would I end up.”
¾ “I need to go on disability but we cannot afford health insurance without my employer’s
group plan rates and I am not old enough for Medicare.”
Financial sacrifices. Survey participants were asked to indicate if they have had to go
without any services or necessities during the past year due to their financial situation. The
following figures show the percent of residents who have had to reduce or go without a
certain item and the top five answers by jurisdiction, income, tenure, and household
characteristics.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 32 Around one third to one half of residents had to reduce consumption of some form in the jurisdictions. Most of them were related to medical costs, car repairs, clothing, and transportation. Other items included activities for children in Lafayette, and food in Longmont and Nederland. Figure A-14. In the past year, have you had to reduce or go without any of the following? (Top 5 answers), by Jurisdiction Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey. PERCENT WHO HAD TO REDUCE OR GO WITHOUTBroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegion34%51%56%49%41%54%45%47%WHAT DID YOU REDUCE OR GO WITHOUT? (TOP 5 ANSWERS)1Car repairs or maintenanceDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointments2Dental procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceMedical procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenance3Medical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenanceClothingMedical procedures or appointments4Mental health appointmentsClothingTransportationClothingMental health appointmentsFoodMedical procedures or appointmentsClothing5Medication/ prescriptionsMental health appointmentsPrograms/ activities for children/ teensFoodHealth insuranceClothingMental health appointmentsMental health appointments
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 33 Looking at income and tenure, households with income above $100,000 and homeowners were the least likely to have to make sacrifices in order to makes ends meet—yet a sizable portion of them (over 30%) still had to cut back on consumption of some items. As expected, residents most likely to be forced to reduce consumption are residents with income below $25,000 (85%) and precariously housed residents (74%), who are more likely to have to cut back on food than other groups of residents. Figure A-15. In the past year, have you had to reduce or go without any of the following? (Top 5 answers), by Tenure and Income Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.PERCENT WHO HAD TO REDUCE OR GO WITHOUTHomeownerRenterMobile HomePrecariously HousedIncome <$25,000Income $25,000 - $50,000Income $50,000 - $100,000Income $100,000+35%70%64%74%85%70%57%33%WHAT DID YOU REDUCE OR GO WITHOUT? (TOP 5 ANSWERS)1Dental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointments2Car repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceFoodCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceMedical procedures or appointments3Medical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenance4Mental health appointmentsClothingMedication/prescriptionsCar repairs or maintenanceClothingClothingMental health appointmentsMental health appointments5ClothingFoodClothingTransportationFoodHealth insuranceClothingOther,
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 34 Among resident groups, Hispanic households were the most likely reduce their consumption: 80 percent, compared to 55 percent of non-Hispanic Whites, followed by households with a disability (75%) and large families (74%). Figure A-16. In the past year, have you had to reduce or go without any of the following? (Top 5 answers), Household Characteristics Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.PERCENT WHO HAD TO REDUCE OR GO WITHOUTChildren under 18Large FamiliesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic White67%74%48%75%80%66%55%WHAT DID YOU REDUCE OR GO WITHOUT? (TOP 5 ANSWERS)1Car repairs or maintenanceDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceDental procedures or appointments2Programs/ activities for children/ teensCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceCar repairs or maintenanceDental procedures or appointmentsDental procedures or appointmentsCar repairs or maintenance3Dental procedures or appointmentsPrograms/ activities for children/ teensMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsPrograms/ activities for children/ teensMedical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointments4Medical procedures or appointmentsMedical procedures or appointmentsClothingClothingFoodClothingClothing5ClothingClothingOtherMental health appointmentsClothingFoodMental health appointments
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 35
From the answers above and open-ended comments, residents indicated medical related
expenses and insurance premiums are a big source of concern for them. Most survey
responses were collected before or at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. This problem is
likely to become more salient during the crisis and is likely to persist if health insurance
premiums rise substantially due to the pandemic.
Housing and Community Challenges
This section explores the top housing and community challenges for survey respondents
by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household characteristics. The figures in this section
present challenges comparatively through percentages and color coding.
The figures show percentages for the region in gray as a benchmark. The color coding
indicates:
Gray—about the same as the region overall;
Blue—lower (doing better) than the region overall, and
Red—higher (doing worse) than the region overall.
Housing challenges—jurisdiction, tenure, and income.
Primary findings include:
¾ The number one housing challenge in the region and across most jurisdictions was
worrying about rent increasing to an unaffordable level.
¾ Residents from Boulder and Lafayette were more likely to be concerned about rent
increasing than the region overall;
¾ Residents in Lafayette—who are largely low income residents—were one and a half
times more likely to be concerned about eviction than in the region;
¾ Residents in Lyons were slightly more likely to be concerned about property taxes; and
¾ Residents in Nederland were more likely to struggle to pay utilities and feel their home
is not big enough for their household size.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 36 Figure A-17. Housing Challenges, by Jurisdiction Note: n-2,129. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)BroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegion10%33%49%20%11%16%23%22%9%21%21%18%17%19%16%17%3%4%6%3%2%0%1%3%5%9%12%11%11%19%6%10%9%8%0%8%16%12%7%8%11%17%9%12%6%5%11%12%6%11%9%8%3%16%7%8%5%7%3%7%4%11%8%7%1%2%0%2%0%2%0%2%3%7%9%7%4%11%8%6%3%10%15%4%2%5%5%5%0%3%4%2%0%0%0%2%1%1%1%2%2%2%2%1%I am afraid I may get evicted or kicked outI have Section 8 or a housing choice voucher and I am worried my landlord will stop accepting itI’m worried about my home going into foreclosureCrowded ConditionsI want to get my own place/live with fewer people, but I can’t afford itMy home isn’t big enough for my family membersI need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someoneI have a mobility disability and can’t find an accessible place to liveI worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increaseSpecial NeedsConcernsI struggle to pay my property taxesDifficulty Making PaymentsHousing ChallengeI worry about my rent going up to an amount I can’t affordI struggle to pay my rent/mortgageI struggle to pay my Homeowners’ Association (HOA) dues/fees or assessmentsI struggle to pay my utilities1111 1111 1111 =========-------:== --------------
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 37
Residents with income below $25,000 are more likely to experience housing challenges,
followed by renters and mobile home residents.
¾ Mobile home residents are almost four times as likely to worry about rent increases as
residents in the region overall,
¾ Renters are three times as likely to worry about rent increases;
¾ Over half of precariously housed residents would like to live with fewer people but
cannot afford it; and
¾ Over one third of renters, mobile home residents, and residents with income below
$50,000 struggle to pay their rent or mortgage.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 38 Figure A-18. Housing Challenges, by Tenure and Income Note: n-2,129. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)HomeownerRenterMobile homePrecariously housedIncome <$25,000Income $25,000 - $50,000Income $50,000 - $100,000Income $100,000+ Region3%65%82%16%39%39%23%4%22%8%36%32%24%39%30%17%3%17%1%27%13%56%21%19%13%3%12%6%18%23%13%24%16%9%2%10%13%0%7%3%10%10%9%6%8%5%16%16%9%11%10%10%5%8%6%7%15%10%16%11%5%2%7%1%19%26%4%12%12%6%2%6%1%13%24%18%16%9%3%1%5%4%1%4%2%3%3%5%2%3%0%5%4%1%7%2%0%0%2%0%3%2%8%7%1%0%0%2%2%0%0%3%3%1%1%1%1%I am afraid I may get evicted or kicked outI struggle to pay my Homeowners’ Association (HOA) dues/fees or I have Section 8 or a housing choice voucher and I am worried my landlord will I have a mobility disability and can’t find an accessible place to liveI’m worried about my home going into foreclosureI struggle to pay my property taxesMy home isn’t big enough for my family membersI need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increaseHousing ChallengeI worry about my rent going up to an amount I can’t affordI struggle to pay my rent/mortgageI want to get my own place/live with fewer people, but I can’t afford itI struggle to pay my utilities1111 1111 1111 --------------~--------·--
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 39
Housing challenges—household characteristics. Figure A-19 below shows
the percent of residents who indicated experiencing a particular housing challenge by
household characteristics.
Among residents from selected protected classes, Hispanic households and households
with a member with a disability are most likely to experience a housing challenge. Families
with children and large families also experience some housing challenges at higher rates
than the region.
¾ Among Hispanic households, rent increases (42%) and wanting to live with fewer
people (31%) are the biggest housing challenges;
¾ Almost 30 percent of households with a member with a disability worries about rent
increases or struggle to pay rent; 16 percent needs help with care taking, but cannot
find someone or cannot afford it; and
¾ Large families, families with children, and Hispanic residents are over two and a half
times more likely than the average resident to feel their home is not big enough for
their household size.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 40 Figure A-19. Housing Challenges, by Household Characteristics Note: n-2,129. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)Children Under 18Large FamiliesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic WhiteRegion25%25%18%29%42%33%21%22%24%31%14%26%29%22%19%17%14%23%6%17%31%16%10%12%18%25%8%17%20%10%10%10%8%10%12%11%2%8%9%8%21%25%3%11%22%9%8%8%8%10%9%16%7%8%7%7%8%10%5%11%11%9%6%6%8%10%5%10%17%8%5%5%4%4%3%4%2%6%3%3%2%3%2%3%4%4%2%2%2%1%2%6%2%2%2%2%3%5%1%3%2%2%1%1%I am afraid I may get evicted or kicked outI struggle to pay my Homeowners’ Association (HOA) dues/fees or assessmentsI have Section 8 or a housing choice voucher and I am worried my landlord will stop accepting itI have a mobility disability and can’t find an accessible place to liveI’m worried about my home going into foreclosureI struggle to pay my property taxesMy home isn’t big enough for my family membersI need help taking care of myself/my home and can’t find or afford to hire someoneI worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increaseHousing ChallengeI worry about my rent going up to an amount I can’t affordI struggle to pay my rent/mortgageI want to get my own place/live with fewer people, but I can’t afford itI struggle to pay my utilities1111 1111 1111 =========-------:== ==========-------:== -----------------:-------------------:--------:== -------
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 41
Community challenges—jurisdiction, tenure, and income.
Transportation stands out as the largest challenge among jurisdictions and resident types.
Services for mountain communities also stand out.
In the region overall, one in five respondents feel traffic presents a community challenge.
¾ Over 25 percent of Broomfield and Lafayette respondents feel the bus stop is too far
for them to use it;
¾ Inadequate sidewalks, streetlights, drainage, or other infrastructure are more likely to
be a challenge in Lafayette, Lyons, Nederland and elsewhere in Boulder County; and
¾ Almost half of respondents from Lyons feel they live in a food desert, and one third
feel the bus doesn’t go where they need to go.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 42 Figure A-20. Community Challenges, by Jurisdiction Note: n-2,118. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)BroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegion20%26%20%21%17%13%14%21%19%23%20%18%17%11%23%19%18%17%20%16%31%15%19%18%26%11%26%16%8%17%24%16%12%8%17%8%5%11%17%9%12%16%18%7%33%31%18%13%8%12%5%11%44%17%20%13%6%8%9%7%24%26%11%9%3%3%2%2%18%13%4%4%3%12%6%8%2%6%1%7%4%8%12%8%5%6%5%7%I can’t get to the bus stop easily or safelyNo or few grocery stores/healthy food stores in the areaMy neighborhood does not have safe places for children to play outsideThere are inadequate sidewalks, street lights, drainage, or other infrastructure in my neighborhoodServicesNo or few grocery stores/healthy food stores in the areaI need to be closer to health care/medical facilitiesSafetyI am concerned about my or my family’s safety in my current neighborhoodI want to use the bus, but the stop is too far away from my home to use itCommunity ChallengeTransportation/InfrastructureToo much traffic/too much street/highway noiseThe bus takes too long to get where I need to goI want to use the bus, but it doesn’t go to the places I need to go1111 1111 1111
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 43
Mobile home residents, and precariously housed residents, were more likely to experience
community challenges than residents in the region:
¾ Mobile home residents were more than twice as likely to feel there is inadequate
infrastructure (such as sidewalks) in their neighborhoods, and that their neighborhood
does not have safe places for children to play outside as the average residents. They
were also three times as likely to be concerned about safety; and
¾ Precariously housed residents were almost one and a half times as likely to feel there
are not enough job opportunities in the area as the average resident.
For members of protected classes, a few categories stand out:
¾ Families with children, large families, and Hispanic residents are twice as likely to feel
their neighborhood does not have safe places for children to play outside;
¾ The biggest community challenges for households with a member with a disability
were transportation related; and
¾ Non-Hispanic minority residents also were more likely to feel the bus takes too long or
is not convenient for them to access.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 44 Figure A-21. Community Challenges, by Tenure and Income Note: n-2,118. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)HomeownerRenterMobile homePrecariously housedIncome <$25,000Income $25,000 - $50,000Income $50,000 - $100,000Income $100,000+ Region23%19%29%14%16%20%24%19%21%19%20%14%18%22%16%23%23%19%18%16%15%17%17%14%20%22%18%16%15%6%21%19%13%18%19%16%13%11%11%15%15%10%14%15%13%12%13%28%14%13%14%13%14%13%8%11%8%14%14%8%8%8%9%7%12%11%20%12%9%11%8%9%5%11%24%11%10%10%6%5%7%5%11%16%13%9%6%8%4%7%3%3%3%12%8%3%4%2%4%I need to be closer to health care/medical facilitiesCommunity ChallengeToo much traffic/too much street/highway noiseThe bus takes too long to get where I need to goI want to use the bus, but it doesn’t go to the places I need to goI want to use the bus, but the stop is too far away from my home to use itNo or few grocery stores/healthy food stores in the areaThere are inadequate sidewalks, street lights, drainage, or other infrastructure in I can’t get to the bus stop easily or safelyNot enough job opportunities in the areaI am concerned about my or my family’s safety in my current neighborhoodMy neighborhood does not have safe places for children to play outside1111 1111 1111
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 45 Figure A-22. Community Challenges, by Household Characteristics Note: n-2,118. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.Higher than Region (>5 percentage points)About the same as Region (+/- 5 percentage points)Lower than Region (<5 percentage points)Children Under 18Large FamiliesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic WhiteRegion19%20%22%22%16%18%21%21%25%20%16%22%20%28%21%19%21%18%15%23%15%22%19%18%14%22%18%23%16%25%17%16%14%16%12%15%13%17%13%13%15%17%11%16%12%15%13%13%9%10%11%16%8%15%9%9%13%15%6%12%11%13%9%9%10%9%6%10%11%7%6%7%13%13%5%9%14%11%6%7%4%4%4%7%6%6%3%4%I need to be closer to health care/medical facilitiesCommunity ChallengeToo much traffic/too much street/highway noiseThe bus takes too long to get where I need to goI want to use the bus, but it doesn’t go to the places I need to goI want to use the bus, but the stop is too far away from my home to use itNo or few grocery stores/healthy food stores in the areaThere are inadequate sidewalks, street lights, drainage, or other infrastructure in my neighborhoodI can’t get to the bus stop easily or safelyNot enough job opportunities in the areaI am concerned about my or my family’s safety in my current neighborhoodMy neighborhood does not have safe places for children to play outside1111 1111 1111 =========-------:== =========-------:== -------
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 46
Survey participants were also allowed to express the community challenges they faced in
their own words. The main topics cited in open ended comments included:
¾ Unreliable/inefficient bus transportation;
¾ Increase in short term rentals;
¾ Increase in petty theft; and
¾ Loud traffic and train noise.
Experience with housing discrimination. Figure A-23 shows the percent of
residents who indicated they have felt discriminated while looking for housing.
Precariously housed residents were the most likely to feel discriminated (35%). Among
jurisdictions, residents from Nederland were most likely to have felt discriminated (23%)
and residents from Lyons the least (2%).
Residents with income below $25,000 were over three times as likely to have felt
discriminated compared to residents with income above $50,000.
Among resident groups, Hispanic residents were most likely to have felt discriminated; they
were three times as likely to have felt discriminated as non-Hispanic White residents.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 47
Figure A-23.
While looking for
housing, did you feel
discriminated
against?
Note:
n=1,672.
Source:
Root Policy Research from the 2020
HOME Consortium of Boulder and
Broomfield Counties Resident
Survey.
When prompted to explain in their own words the reason they felt discriminated against; in
addition to race, age, national origin and gender; answers included having children or pets,
having a housing voucher, having an eviction record, and having a low credit score.
Transportation challenges. Figure A-24 below shows that most residents across
jurisdictions drive a personal vehicle.
¾ Residents with income above $100,000 were the most likely (97%) to drive a personal
vehicle while precariously housed residents the least likely (53%);
¾ Among income categories and protected class, only the lowest income residents
showed relatively low reliance on personal vehicles;
35%
24%
23%
22%
21%
17%
17%
16%
14%
14%
13%
13%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
Precariously housed
Hispanic
Nederland
Income < $25,000
Mobile home
Renter
Non-Hispanic Minority
Disability
Boulder
Income $25,000 - $50,000
Lafayette
Large Families
Children Under 18
Region
Longmont
Non-Hispanic White
Older Adults
Income $50,000 - $100,000
Broomfield
Elsewhere in Boulder County
Homeowner
Income >$100,000
Lyons
---------1111
1111
1111 -■
■
I
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 48
¾ By jurisdiction, residents in Nederland and Boulder were most likely to use public
transit; Longmont had the lowest use of transit; and
¾ Half of residents from Lyons and 48 percent of residents in Boulder indicated they
walk as a form of transportation, compared to 32 percent in the region overall.
Figure A-24.
Most Common
Transportation Modes
Note:
n=1,659.
Residents could choose more than one
category.
Source:
Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME
Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield
Counties Resident Survey.
Broomfield 95%20%21%
Boulder 81%42%48%
Lafayette 81%27%21%
Longmont 92%16%29%
Lyons 97%21%50%
Nederland 89%45%34%
Elsewhere in Boulder County 93%23%20%
Region 90%24%32%
Homeowner 96%20%32%
Renter 84%31%33%
Mobile home 91%19%23%
Precariously housed 53%41%39%
Income < $25,000 72%28%33%
$25,000 - $50,000 93%25%29%
$50,000 - $100,000 95%21%21%
Income >$100,000 97%24%33%
Children Under 18 94%21%30%
Large families 89%26%35%
Older Adults 91%19%30%
Disability 82%26%29%
Hispanic 89%25%21%
Non-Hispanic Minority 83%31%39%
Non-Hispanic White 91%23%32%
Personal
Vehicle
Public
Transit Walk
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 49 Residents were asked to indicate if they have experienced different challenges due to transportation issues. Figures A-25 through A-27 show the percent of residents who experienced a transportation issues and the top five transportation issues experienced by residents. Around one in four residents experienced a transportation related challenge in the region. Residents in Lafayette were most likely to have experienced a transportation issue (34%) and residents in Lyons the least likely (16%). Figure A-25. In the past year, have you experienced any of the following? (Top 5 answers), by Jurisdiction Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.PERCENT WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED TRANSPORTATION ISSUESBroomfieldBoulderLafayetteLongmontLyonsNederlandElsewhere in Boulder CountyRegion26%31%34%20%16%25%26%24%PERCENT WHO EXPERIENCED A TRANSPORTATION ISSUE1Late for workLate for workMissed medical appointmentLate for workOtherLate for workLate for workLate for work2OtherMissed medical appointmentLate for workMissed medical appointmentLate for workMissed medical appointmentMissed workMissed medical appointment3Missed medical appointmentOtherMissed workMissed workMissed medical appointmentOtherMissed medical appointmentMissed work4Missed workMissed workOtherOtherMissed workMissed workOtherOther5Missed mental health appointmentMissed benefits/ program appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed schoolLost jobMissed benefits/ program appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointment•
,
·•
y
y
•
•
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 50 As shown in the figure below, around half of precariously housed residents and residents with income below $25,000 have experienced a transportation related challenge. These challenges tended to cause them to miss medical appointments and, for precariously housed, to miss a benefits/program appointment. Figure A-26. In the past year, have you experienced any of the following? (Top 5 answers), by Tenure and Income Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.PERCENT WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED TRANSPORTATION ISSUESHomeownerRenterMobile homePrecariously housedIncome <$25,000Income $25,000 - $50,000Income $50,000 - $100,000Income $100,000+ 17%34%25%49%50%37%31%27%TOP 5 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES1Late for workLate for workLate for workMissed medical appointmentMissed medical appointmentLate for workLate for workLate for work2OtherMissed medical appointmentMissed medical appointmentLate for workLate for workMissed workMissed workOther3Missed medical appointmentMissed workMissed workMissed workOtherMissed medical appointmentOtherMissed medical appointment4Missed workOtherOtherMissed benefits/ program appointmentMissed workOtherMissed medical appointmentMissed work5Missed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed schoolMissed schooly
•
.,
.,
•
. ,
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 51 Among protected classes, Hispanics, large families, and households with a member with a disability were more likely to experience a transportation related challenge. Older adults were the least likely. Figure A-27. In the past year, have you experienced any of the following? (Top 5 answers), by Household Characteristics Note: n=2,357. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.PERCENT WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED TRANSPORTATION ISSUESChildren under 18Large FamiliesOlder AdultsDisabilityHispanicNon-Hispanic MinorityNon-Hispanic White39%46%25%46%50%42%32%TOP 5 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES1Late for workLate for workOtherMissed medical appointmentLate for workLate for workLate for work2Missed workMissed medical appointmentMissed medical appointmentLate for workMissed medical appointmentMissed medical appointmentMissed medical appointment3Missed medical appointmentMissed workLate for workOtherMissed workOtherMissed work4Missed schoolMissed schoolMissed workMissed workMissed benefits/program appointmentMissed workOther5OtherMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentMissed mental health appointmentOtherMissed benefits/program appointmentMissed mental health appointment
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 52
Respondents were given the opportunity to express other transportation related
challenges they have experienced. Comments included:
¾ “Had to rely on my parents (retired in their 70s) for transportation.”
¾ “Kid cannot participate in opportunity because no transportation options while parents
work.”
¾ “Late picking child up, no transportation for child on weather related delayed start.”
¾ “Not in the past year because I’ve been able to walk to work in emergencies. But that means
that my career is centered around somewhere in walking distance. And if you have an MBA
and live in Lyons, that means your job prospects suck.”
¾ “Taking RTD from Gunbarrel to downtown for work takes too long.”
Mountain community challenges—resident and stakeholder
perspectives. Participants in open
house events in Nederland and
Longmont and stakeholder focus groups
drew attention to differences between
the north and south mountain
communities and Boulder County’s urban
and suburban areas. Difficulties with a
lack of affordable housing, access to
transportation, and access to economic
opportunity are amplified in the
mountain communities, with fewer
resources and capacity to respond to
growing local needs. These include:
¾ Critical need for affordable housing for seniors and people with disabilities with
income at or below 30 percent AMI;
¾ Lack of access to public transportation, in general, but especially the lack of
connections from the mountain communities to Boulder and Longmont;
¾ Few or no providers of dental and mental health care; limited options for physical
health care;
¾ Lack of access to infant childcare, and limited access to childcare for toddlers;
¾ Lack of access to Boulder County Human Services staff, and Boulder County staff in
general;
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 53
The ability of mountain community seniors to safely age in place is a concern, while lack of
affordable housing, loss of local schools, and lack of access to childcare are barriers to
attracting and retaining families. In their experience, residents and stakeholders who
attended the community meetings believe that land use, transportation, and other
regulatory policies in Boulder County are driven by Boulder and Longmont, with little
consideration and few exceptions made for mountain areas.
Community Resources
This section explores residents’ perspectives on the usefulness and ease of access for
different types of community services and programs. Residents were asked to rate on a
scale from 1 to 10 (where 1 is not useful and 10 extremely useful) on how useful each
service would be to them or to a household member.
Health care resources. Figures A-28 through A-30 below show results for health
care related services by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household characteristics.
¾ Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction were rated the lowest across
jurisdictions.
¾ Resources for substance abuse problems were also the lowest rated among all the
tenure and income categories.
¾ Renters, precariously housed, and low income residents find resources for dental and
health care more useful on average.
¾ Among members of protected classes, Hispanic residents rated health care related
resources higher than other groups, including households with older adults and
households with a member with a disability.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 54
Figure A-28.
Health Care Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources for
health care
Resources for
dental care
Resources for
mental health care
Resources for drug
or alcohol problems/
addiction
• • • • •• • • ••
• -•
• -•
• •• •
• • •
• ..
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 55
Figure A-29.
Health Care Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Income and Tenure
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources for
health care
Resources for
dental care
Resources for
mental health care
Resources for drug
or alcohol problems/
addiction
• •• • • ... • • •••
• • • •
• • •
• • eG
• •
• . -
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 56
Figure A-30.
Health Care Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Household Characteristics
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources for
health care
Resources for
dental care
Resources for
mental health care
Resources for drug
or alcohol problems/
addiction
• • EN
• • •
• • ti) •
• • •
• al)
• • ca
• -
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 57
Housing resources. Figures A-31 through A-33 below show results for housing
related services by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household characteristics.
¾ Less expensive housing was rated the most useful resource across jurisdictions.
¾ As expected, renters and mobile home residents rated less expensive housing and
down payment assistance programs higher.
¾ Hispanic residents rated housing related resources higher than other resident groups,
and are particularly interested in down payment assistance.
Figure A-31.
Housing Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Less expensive
housing
Financial help to move
into a home/different
home—e.g., application
fees, security deposits
Class on how to buy a
home
Down payment
assistance to buy a
home
• • • • ••• • • •• •
• -• • •• •
•• • • •
•• • • ·-•
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 58
Figure A-32.
Housing Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Tenure and Income
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Less expensive
housing
Financial help to move
into a home/different
home—e.g.,application
fees, security deposits
Class on how to buy a
home
Down payment
assistance to buy a
home
•• • • • •• •-• • •• •
• ... • • .. •
• •• • •
••• •
•
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 59
Figure A-33.
Housing Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Household Characteristics
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Less expensive
housing
Financial help to move
into a home/different
home—e.g.,application
fees, security deposits
Class on how to buy a
home
Down payment
assistance to buy a
home
• .. • • • • •
• •• • •
• • •
•• •
• •• •
• -•
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 60
Childcare resources. Figures A-34 through A-36 below show results for childcare
related services by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household characteristics.
¾ Residents were mostly indifferent about childcare services across jurisdictions.
¾ Renters tended to rate activities for children and positive youth development higher
than other groups.
¾ As expected, large families and households with children rated childcare related
resources higher than other groups, as well as Hispanic residents.
Figure A-34.
Childcare Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Help to pay for child
care
Help to find quality
child care
Free or low cost
activities/sports for
children
Programs/activities
for positive youth
development
• • • • • • ge
a •
a) • • ••
•
• •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 61
Figure A-35.
Childcare Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Tenure and Income
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Help to pay for child
care
Help to find quality
child care
Free or low cost
activities/sports for
children
Programs/activities
for positive youth
development
• • • •• •• •
• • •
c.• • ••
ge ••
• •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 62
Figure A-36.
Childcare Resources: Which of the following services would be most
helpful?, by Household Characteristics
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Help to pay for child
care
Help to find quality
child care
Free or low cost
activities/sports for
children
Programs/activities
for positive youth
development
•• •
•• •
a • •
•• • • • •
Ea •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 63
Employment and transportation resources. The figures below show results
for employment and transportation related services by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and
household characteristics.
¾ Help with car repairs was considered the most helpful resource across jurisdictions,
for renters, low income residents, and residents with disabilities.
¾ Only Hispanic residents considered job training opportunities more helpful than help
with car repairs.
Figure A-37.
Employment and Transportation Resources: Which of the following
services would be most helpful?, by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Job training
opportunities to
build skills and
increase income
Classes for basic
computer skills
Opportunities to
learn or improve
English
Help with car
repair
• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • • • ••
• •• • • • • •
• • • •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 64
Figure A-38.
Employment and Transportation Resources: Which of the following
services would be most helpful?, by Tenure and Income
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Job training
opportunities to
build skills and
increase income
Classes for basic
computer skills
Opportunities to
learn or improve
English
Help with car
repair
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •• •
• • • • • • •
• •••
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 65
Figure A-39.
Employment and Transportation Resources: Which of the following
services would be most helpful?, by Household Characteristics
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Job training
opportunities to
build skills and
increase income
Classes for basic
computer skills
Opportunities to
learn or improve
English
Help with car
repair
• • • • • • •
• •• • • • • •
• • •• •
• • •• • • • ••
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 66
Financial and legal resources. Figures A-40 through A-42 below show results for
financial and legal related services by jurisdiction, tenure, income, and household
characteristics.
¾ Residents were mostly indifferent about financial and legal resources across
jurisdictions.
¾ Mobile home residents and low income residents rated legal resources the highest.
¾ Among members of protected classes, financial literacy resources were rated the
highest for families with children, large families, Hispanic residents, and Non-Hispanic
minorities. Legal resources were rated the highest for older adults and households
with a member with a disability.
Figure A-40.
Financial and Legal Resources: Which of the following services would be
most helpful?, by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources to learn
to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit,
saving money
Legal help/resources
Domestic violence
resources
Help with immigration
issues
•• • • •
• • •-• • •• e • •• • • . •-• • •• •
••
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 67
Figure A-41.
Financial and Legal Resources: Which of the following services would be
most helpful?, by Tenure and Income
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources to learn
to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit,
saving money
Legal help/resources
Domestic violence
resources
Help with immigration
issues
ee ea • •• •
•• • • • • • Ell • • • • • • •• ••
•• •
9 Ge
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 68
Figure A-42.
Financial and Legal Resources: Which of the following services would be
most helpful?, by Household Characteristics
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Resources to learn
to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit,
saving money
Legal help/resources
Domestic violence
resources
Help with immigration
issues
•• •
•• Q9 •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • •• •
•• ••
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 69
Other resources. The figures below show results for other services by jurisdiction,
tenure, income, and household characteristics.
¾ Residents rated information about programs the highest across all jurisdictions except
Nederland, where food resources and resources for persons with a disability were
rated slightly higher.
¾ Precariously housed and low income residents show the most interest on information
and food resources.
¾ Among members of protected classes, Hispanic residents rated information about
services the highest.
Figure A-43.
Other Resources: Which of the following services would be most helpful?,
by Jurisdiction
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Broomfield
Boulder
Lafayette
Longmont
Lyons
Nederland
Elsewhere in
Boulder County
Region
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Free food/food
bank/food pantry/
healthy food
Resources to help
older family member
or person with a
disability
Information about
programs or services
• •• • ••
• • •
•• •
• •• •
••
• •
•• •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 70
Figure A-44.
Other Resources: Which of the following services would be most helpful?,
by Tenure and Income
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Homeowner
Renter
Mobile Home
Precariously
Housed
Income <$25,000
Income
$25,000 -$50,000
Income
$50,000 -$100,000
Income $100,000+
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Free food/food
bank/food pantry/
healthy food
Resources to help
older family member
or person with a
disability
Information about
programs or services
• •• • • -• •• •
• •
• • • •• •
• • •
• ••-
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 71
Figure A-45.
Other Resources: Which of the following services would be most helpful?,
by Selected Protected Class
Note: n=1,835.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
Ease of access. Residents were also asked to indicate how easy or difficult it is to access
different services. Figures A-46 through A-53 on the following pages display residents’
perspectives on ease of access for the different jurisdictions. It is important to note that the
figures present responses from each jurisdiction overall and not for the specific groups of
residents who actually have a desire to use each of the services. Across jurisdiction:
¾ Food related services are perceived among the easiest to access;
¾ Less expensive housing is considered not available for many; and
¾ A large share of residents are unaware about most services/resources offered by their
jurisdictions.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Children
Under 18
Large Families
Older Adults
Disability
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Minority
Non-Hispanic
White
Not
Helpful
Extremely
Helpful
Free food/food
bank/food pantry/
healthy food
Resources to help
older family member
or person with a
disability
Information about
programs or services
• • • ••
• •• • • •
• •• • •• •
• • •
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 72
Figure A-46.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Broomfield
Note: n=197.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Information about programs or services
Resources for health care
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources for dental care
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Domestic violence resources
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Resources for mental health care
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Legal help/resources
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Class on how to buy a home
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Help with car repair
Less expensive housing
Help to find quality child care
Resources for help with immigration issues
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Help to pay for child care
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 73
Figure A-47.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Boulder
Note: n=313.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Resources for health care
Class on how to buy a home
Information about programs or services
Domestic violence resources
Resources for mental health care
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Resources for dental care
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Legal help/resources
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Help to find quality child care
Help with car repair
Help to pay for child care
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Resources for help with immigration issues
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Less expensive housing
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 74
Figure A-48.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Lafayette
Note: n=53.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Information about programs or services
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources for health care
Resources for dental care
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Resources for mental health care
Class on how to buy a home
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Domestic violence resources
Legal help/resources
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Less expensive housing
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Help to find quality child care
Help with car repair
Help to pay for child care
Resources for help with immigration issues
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't knowResources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 75
Figure A-49.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Longmont
Note: n=779.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Classes for basic computer skills
Information about programs or services
Resources for health care
Domestic violence resources
Class on how to buy a home
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Resources for dental care
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Resources for mental health care
Legal help/resources
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Resources for help with immigration issues
Help to find quality child care
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Help to pay for child care
Help with car repair
Less expensive housing
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 76
Figure A-50.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Lyons
Note: n=79.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Resources for mental health care
Information about programs or services
Domestic violence resources
Resources for health care
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources for dental care
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Help with car repair
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Class on how to buy a home
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Help to find quality child care
Less expensive housing
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Legal help/resources
Help to pay for child care
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Resources for help with immigration issues
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
--~■
~--~■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 77
Figure A-51.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Nederland
Note: n=41.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Information about programs or services
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Resources for health care
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Legal help/resources
Help to find quality child care
Resources for dental care
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for mental health care
Help to pay for child care
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Domestic violence resources
Resources for help with immigration issues
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Class on how to buy a home
Help with car repair
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Less expensive housing
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
---■
----■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 78
Figure A-52.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Elsewhere in Boulder County
Note: n=86.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Domestic violence resources
Resources for health care
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Class on how to buy a home
Information about programs or services
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Resources for dental care
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Classes for basic computer skills
Resources for mental health care
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Help with car repair
Legal help/resources
Help to find quality child care
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Less expensive housing
Resources for help with immigration issues
Help to pay for child care
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
-~---■
~--~■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 79
Figure A-53.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to access the following
resources in your community? Region
Note: n=1,544.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2020 HOME Consortium of Boulder and Broomfield Counties Resident Survey.
0%50%100%
Free food/food bank/food pantry
Information about programs or services
Resources for health care
Classes for basic computer skills
Domestic violence resources
Class on how to buy a home
Resources for dental care
Opportunities to learn or improve your English
Free or low-cost activities or sports for children
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/addiction
Resources to learn to be more financially stable—
budgets, credit, saving money
Resources for mental health care
Job training opportunities to build skills and increase
income
Legal help/resources
Help with older family member or person with a
disability
Help to find quality child care
Help with car repair
Resources for help with immigration issues
Down payment assistance to buy a home
Help to pay for child care
Less expensive housing
Financial help to move into a home/different home—
e.g. application fees, deposits
Easy to access
Somewhat
difficult to access
Available but
difficult to access
Not available here
Don't know
Resources to learn to be more financially
stable—budgets, credit, saving money
Programs and activities for positive youth
development
Job training opportunities to build skills and
increase income
Help with older family member(s)or
person(s) with a disability
Financial help to move into a home/different
home—e.g. application fees, deposits
Resources for drug or alcohol problems/
addiction
■
■
■
■
■
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 80
Barriers and gaps—stakeholder and resident perspectives. Attendees
of the four open house events identified resources available in their community to address
key housing and community development issues, including resources targeted to assist
members of special need populations. In addition to noting current community resources,
participants identified gaps in their local or regional system and barriers that prevent
residents from receiving services. In focus groups, stakeholders participated in similar
discussions.
Across the board, attendees described the most critical needs as lack of affordable housing
in their communities, and housing that is accessible and affordable to people with
disabilities. The gaps and barriers identified by open house attendees include:
Affordable housing barriers and gaps—
¾ Broomfield affordable
housing barriers/gaps
Ø No mechanism to
preserve affordable
housing stock;
Ø Mobile home park
management abuses,
predatory practices;
Ø Dedicated housing
authority would be
helpful;
Ø No homeownership
opportunities for starter homes/first-time homebuyers; and
Ø Need more options/landlords who are willing to rent to people who have been
incarcerated/have felonies.
¾ Boulder affordable housing barriers/gaps
Ø Long waitlists and length of time on waitlists (years) for affordable housing;
¾ Longmont affordable housing barriers/gaps
Ø Middle and upper homeowners want to rent shorter vacation rentals instead of
long-term tenants; and
Ø The need for ADU options and having more unrelated adults to be able to live
together
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 81
Nederland affordable housing
barriers/gaps
Ø Not enough available affordable
housing; and
Ø Boulder County requirements
limit affordable housing—require
35 acres per home
Homelessness and prevention
services and gaps—
¾ Broomfield homelessness and
prevention services barriers/gaps
Ø No emergency shelters in Broomfield; lack of transitional housing; too many
referrals out of Broomfield;
Ø A need for more supportive housing in Broomfield to help vulnerable residents
attain and maintain housing stability (prevent homelessness); and
Ø Limited to no resources for single adults.
¾ Boulder homelessness and
prevention services barriers/gaps
Ø Lack of informal, drop-in shelters
without intake requirements;
Ø Challenges finding shelters with
service animals;
Ø Boulder Shelter’s requirement to
participate in coordinated entry in
order to stay for more than one
night was raised as a potential
barrier to shelter.
¾ Longmont homelessness and
prevention services barriers/gaps
Ø No permanent homeless shelter in Longmont;
Ø Lack of resources for shelter and services for people who are homeless or at-risk
of homelessness;
Ø NIMBY attitudes of some Longmont residents toward people who are homeless.
¾ Nederland homelessness and prevention services barriers/gaps
-
i'J'\in•'>~-
'b<>"S':~
fe<+ne~+
fO-
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 82
Ø There is no immediate, emergency housing for families available in Nederland;
Ø Few families who are homeless are eligible for coordinated entry;
Ø There is a perception that the community has a “send them to Boulder” philosophy
rather than invest in shelter and services locally; and
Ø “It is hard for the working poor in Ned to get assistance” to prevent homelessness.
Special need populations barriers and gaps—
¾ Broomfield special need populations barriers/gaps
Ø Lack of variety of housing choices or housing types suitable for people with
disabilities—“often times a forgotten population;”
Ø Evictions, felonies, mental health diagnoses, and undocumented residents
experience significant barriers to accessing affordable housing;
Ø Safe house options for women and children in Broomfield are not sufficient to
meet the need;
Ø 15-year waitlist for adult children with Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities
(IDD); and
Ø Housing costs are a growing concern for Broomfield seniors; there are no
affordable options for downsizing within Broomfield.
¾ Boulder special need populations barriers/gaps
Ø “Domestic violence has so marginalized some residents that they can’t get services
or don’t trust the system;”
Ø Access to reliable transportation is a barrier for seniors, especially those who do
not feel comfortable taking the bus, or whose home is too far away from fixed
route service; and
Ø Transportation to basic need agencies for isolated, persons with disabilities people
is a barrier, especially those with cognitive development issues.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 83
¾ Longmont special need populations barriers/gaps
Ø Need more accessible and affordable and visitable options (near transportation)
for persons with disabilities”
Ø Difficult to attract and retain direct care professionals for people with disabilities—
wages low—this leads to no services, high turnover and low quality care;
Ø Few bilingual Mental/Behavioral health providers and poor interpretation services
via phone;
Ø Limited shelter space and funding for people leaving domestic violence situations;
Ø Mental health care is not available through schools, and response to mental health
crises in youth is to be reactionary rather than proactive; and
Ø Lack of affordable and accessible treatment options for addiction/substance
abuse.
¾ Nederland special need populations barriers/gaps
Ø Police are well-trained to handle domestic violence victims, but there are no places
for people to go that are still in the area;
Ø Many places in Nederland are not ADA accessible; accessibility improvements are
especially needed in downtown Nederland; and
Ø It is very difficult to safely age in place in Nederland, no resources or services for
home care, renovation, and maintenance.
Access to economic opportunity and services—
¾ Broomfield access to economic opportunity and services barriers/gaps
Ø Many needed services are only available in Adams County, not Broomfield;
Ø Need for more resources for job training and opportunities for un- or
underemployed residents to improve basic skills;
Ø Immigrants are isolated in Broomfield and lack connection to the broader
community; lack of outreach to the immigrant community;
Ø Limits on the amount of time/number of appointments available to clients through
nonprofit or public mental health providers;
Ø Lack of affordable childcare, after-school programs affordable to families with
income of 60-80 percent AMI, and need to reduce the cost of participating in
recreation programs; and
Ø Too few dental and vision providers accept Medicaid.
¾ Boulder access to economic opportunity and services barriers/gaps
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 84
Ø Boulder’s food bank is located too far away from where low income people live;
Ø Need for local lender to offer home loans to lower income households;
Ø Lack of financial support for working families for summer camps/activities; and
Ø Lack of affordable childcare options.
¾ Longmont access to economic opportunity and services barriers/gaps
Ø Lack of widespread information about availability of programs and services among
residents who need them most;
Ø No public transit between Longmont and Lyons;
Ø No direct Sunday bus services to Denver;
Ø Cost of childcare is high; there is a need for more providers/slots for CCAP, and
there is a need for subsidized childcare for those who don’t qualify for CCAP; and
Ø Need for more local employers to hire people with disabilities.
¾ Nederland access to economic opportunity and human service barriers/gaps
Ø No Peak to Peak public transportation available;
Ø Due to Nederland’s location, it is difficult to “know where or how” to access
resources more readily available elsewhere in the county;
Ø Food pantry is under-resourced and buying groceries locally is expensive;
Ø Hard to find full-time jobs with benefits, few employment opportunities overall,
and fewer still pay enough to be able to live in Nederland;
Ø No infant childcare available in Nederland, and options for other ages are limited;
Ø Physical location of schools is a barrier; after losing transportation to schools, the
school population dwindled. Real concern that mountain schools will be lost;
Ø Lack of pharmacy and mental health services is a gap. There is only one healthcare
provider in Ned; and
Ø Dental services are available only one day per month in Nederland, and there are
no vision services in Nederland.
Priority Outcomes
Participants in the open house events and focus groups prioritized the importance of
different potential results of successful investment by the Consortium, individual
jurisdictions, and local partners. Open house attendees prioritized outcomes by allocating
limited resources (three coins) among 12 options.
The outcomes participants prioritized aligned with the conversations and results of other
open house activities—affordable rental housing, accessible housing, preservation of
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 85
affordable housing in general, and homeownership assistance. Other priorities considered
include access to transportation, safe neighborhoods, access to parks, sidewalks, good
schools, shorter commutes, and shopping and retail services. Attendees also had the
opportunity to craft their own preferred outcomes. The most important outcomes as
prioritized by open house participants are:
¾ “Ability to stay in rental unit and not be forced to move because rent
becomes unaffordable” was the top vote getter overall, and among Broomfield,
Longmont, and Nederland attendees. It was the 2nd most important outcome among
Boulder participants.
¾ “Preserving housing I can afford in my neighborhood” tied for the second
highest number of votes overall and was also the second highest priority in Broomfield
(tie), Longmont, and Nederland. This outcome was sixth out of 12 at the Boulder open
house.
¾ “Housing that is accessible for people with disabilities” tied for the second
highest number of votes overall and was the second highest priority in Broomfield
(tie), Boulder, and Longmont. This outcome received the 4th greatest number of votes
in Nederland.
¾ “Down-payment assistance to buy a home” received the third highest number
of votes overall and tied for second in Broomfield.
Two important geographic variations to note:
¾ The number one priority of Boulder open house attendees was “Access to quality
parks or green space”. This was not among the top outcomes prioritized by
participants at other event locations.
¾ The third most important outcome to Nederland residents was “More frequent
transit service between my neighborhood and my work”.