HomeMy WebLinkAbout780310.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: RECOMMENDATION TO THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THE
ADOPTION OF WELD COUNTY HOUSING PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, representatives from the Weld County Department of
Planning Services have presented to the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Weld County, Colorado a Housing Plan, and
WHEREAS, said representatives from the Department of Plan-
ning Services have requested that the Board of County Commissioners
recommend to the Weld County Planning Commission the adoption of
said Housing Plan, and
WHEREAS, after reviewing said Housing Plan, the Board of
County Commissioners deems it advisable and in the best interests
of Weld County to recommend that the Weld County Planning Com-
mission adopt said Housing Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Com-
missioners of Weld County, Colorado does hereby recommend to the
Weld County Planning Commission that the Housing Plan, as presented
by the Department of Planning Services, be adopted by said Plan-
ning Commission.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 13th day of
December, A.D . , 1978 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: fu' - 7:.;,`'�t�k„ ,� W COUNTY, COLORA O
pro fem
Weld County Clerk and Recorder v
and Clerk to the B
L /Deputy County C erk
APPROVED AS TO FORMs_.
- }
County Attorney
780310
DATE PRESENTED DECEMBER 18, 1978
WELD COUNTY...
1 =®m
se
111 IIIIIIIIIIk,
misollill .. EL, '%vim.
U &4I
a 'JloLI
ME
s le
SIM it 1pi
1 ' rV
FA Bair ...--a it II _=
MIL -E2
In 1--- II I =lisPommossimeisomn
it'll'� I
i
Vii(! I
I r
Ia
1 , /7
1
�1
w
i ill 4.Sr®W1�14"��•�Y. 1 7.
..
H I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Weld County Housing Plan represents a three-year effort
in developing a housing plan which identifies and characterizes Weld
County housing needs. The process, as described in the introduction
of the Weld Housing Plan, leading to the actual identification of areas
most in need of housing, entailed several studies and the involvement
of many people. This plan would never have been made possible
without the cooperation, technical assistance, and dedication of many
local, state, and Federal ofi.cials and staff.
Prior to the development of the Weld County Housing Plan, the
Weld County Housing Monitoring Study initially outlined much of the
data and methodology which helped ii the formulation of the Weld
Housing Plan. Briefly, the Housing Monitoring Study established the
methodology which was used in this plan and will be used annually in
the future in order to update and assess housing needs in Weld County.
Allen Jost and Linda Kooh, boi:.`; previously with the Weld County
Department of Planning, initia'.€c; Cite Housing Monitoring Study in
1974 and 1975.
During the past year, Dr. Jack Freese, Director, Bureau of
Business and Public Research a' the University of Northern Colorado,
has helped in the development of the methodology used in the Weld
Housing Plan. Jack also assisted in much of the computer
i t
programming and data requirements which were used extensively
throughout the Weld Housing Plan. Jim Smit of the Weld County
Data Processing Department also helped directly in the development
and operation of the computer programming and methodology this past
year.
• C We would also like to acknowledge Wendy Nadler, formerly
with the Weld County Department of Planning, for her assistance in
housing data collection performed this year. Special thanks should
be given to: Randy Silber who also helped in the data collection
efforts; Shirley Phillips, Kathy Hrouda, and Type-Ink for the typing
and publication of the Plan; and George Sanderson and Sheri Wilson
r-
for drafting and graphics.
We sincerely hope that housing planning efforts will continue
so that the methodology developed in the Housing Monitoring Study and
Housing Plan will provide the basis from which housing and land use
decisions may be made in the future.
•
Thomas W. Rounds, Planner
Donald H. Brandes, Jr. , Planner
The preparation of this material was financially aided through
a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment under the Community Planning and Development Program
authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
June, 1977
Weld County Department of
Planning Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
— I INTRODUCTION 1
II POPULATION 6
Current Population Size 11
Current Population Characteristics 15
Future Population 29
Summary 33
III HOUSING SUPPLY 35
Weld County Supply Characteristics 39
Greeley Supply Characteristics 43
Average Housing Age 48
Housing Costs 50
Summary 65
IV HOUSING NEEDS 69
Housing Needs Characteristics 72
Housing Needs Assessment 78
V HOUSING POLICIES 84
- VI APPENDIX 85
Municipal Housing Reports 86
U.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Municipal Population Estimates, 1970-1975 • . . . 13
2 Weld County's Historical Population, 1940-1970. • 14
3 Weld County Census Tracts, 1970 16
4 General Population Information, 1970 18
5 Greeley Census Tracts (1 -15) Ranked for
^ Number of Senior Citizens, Spanish and Low
Income, 1970 20
6 Greeley Census Tracts (1 -15) Ranked for
Percent of Senior Citizens, Spanish and Low
Income Persons, 1970 21
7 Weld County Census Tracts (16-25) Ranked for
Number of Senior Citizens, Spanish and Low
Income Persons, 1970 24
8 Weld County Census Tracts (16-25) Ranked for
Percent of Senior Citizens, Spanish and Low
Income, 1970 25
9 Weld County Census Tracts (1-25) Ranked for
Number of Senior Citizens and Low Income,
1970 27
10 Weld County Census Tracts (1 -25) Ranked for
Percent of Senior Citizens, Spanish and Low
Income, 1970 28
11 Weld County Population Estimates, 1970 to
2000 31
12 Housing Condition Analysis Flow Chart, 1977 . 38
13 Location of Single and Multi-Family Dwellings
in Weld County, 1977 40
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Page
14 Location and Condition of Single Family
Dwellings in Weld County, 1977 41
15 Greeley (Census Tracts 1 -15) Housing
Supply Condition, 1977 44
16 Weld County (Census Tracts 16-25) Housing
Supply Condition, 1977 45
17 Total Weld County Housing Supply Condition,
1977 46
18 Composition of Housing Supply, 1977 . . . • . • • 47
19 Average Age for Weld County Single Family
Dwellings, 1977 48
20 Single Family Building Permits, Greeley
and Vicinity, 1975 55
21 Single Family Building Permits, Weld County
Municipalities, 1976 57
22 Single Family Building Permits, Unincorporated
Weld County, 1976 58
23 Comparison of Average Housing Values for
Greeley and Vicinity, Weld Municipalities,
and Unincorporated Weld, 1975-1976 61
24 Rental Survey Summary, Weld County, 1977 • . • • 63
25 Weld County's Usable Housing Supply, 1977 . • • 71
26 Total Households and Number of Persons Per
Unit (P/Unit) Living Below Poverty Level, 1970 • • 73
27 Greeley Housing Assistance Needs, 1977 79
28 Weld County Housing Assistance Needs, 1977 • . • . 79
29 Total Housing Assistance Needs, 1977 80
iv
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Page
30 Weld County Census Tract (16-25) Housing
Assistance Variable Occurrences 82
7
V
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The Weld County Housing Plan was developed after many years
of research, analysis and discussion of housing issues in Weld County.
The Weld County Housing Plan is designed to address the needs of all
Weld County residents and furthermore, anticipates the housing need
of future Weld County residents. In this regard, the nature of
housing today - not only in Weld County - but throughout the nation,
is complex. The ability to purchase or rent housing, the freedom to
locate where you most desire to live, and the right to select the type
of housing most suited to a particular way of life or income level is
becoming increasingly difficult. In recognition of the importance of
housing in Weld County, the Housing Plan will be combined with the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1973. In this
way, the Weld County Housing Plan will become an integral element
in making future land use decisions.
In order to address housing needs which were initially defined
by the Housing Act of 1949, several aspects of Weld County were
thoroughly analyzed. This analysis was designed to document current
and future "housing related situations" in Weld County.
Of specific concern in this analysis was the socio-economic
characteristics of Weld County's population. Simply, the economic
information reveals how well the population can be expected to house
3
themselves. Di this regard, median income characteristics were
examined, as well as the number and percent of persons living with
incomes below 80% of the Weld County median income level. A
household with an income less than 80% of the median income fits the
Federal definition of a low income household. The socio-economic
data also points up any special housing needs which might exist
for large families or for senior citizens. Special emphasis was
provided in the population analysis for the number and percent of the
population aged 62 and over, the number and percent of the population
^ which is considered part of a minority group, and, as mentioned
above, the number and percent of the population which has income
less than the poverty level income. This emphasis is required by
Federal Legislation in the Housing Acts of 1968 and 1974 as well as
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Land Use
and Housing Plans.
Once again, it is felt that by examining Weld County' s general
population characteristics it is possible to better understand the
needs and living conditions of Weld County' s existing population.
- The other area of analysis examined the housing supply in Weld
County. This analysis includes such features as the total number of
^ units, the single family, multi-family, and mobile home composition
of that total number of units, the condition of Weld' s single family
dwellings, recent residential construction activities, and the location
of housing units or settlement patterns. This was a critical element
4
of the Weld County Housing Plan. Information pertaining to general
social and economic conditions had to be related and examined
according to existing and anticipated housing stock in order to
accurately assess housing need.
To establish housing need, the analysis concentrated on census
tract information for the total number of inhabitants, poverty level
population, senior population, minority population, substandard units
and historic population densities in dwelling units. It was then pos-
r sible to project or anticipate several possible future situations. To
establish the future housing need, we were especially concerned with
addressing the housing plan requirements of the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD). Below are HUD's Housing Plan
requirements, outlined very briefly:
1. Take into account all available evidence of the assumptions
and statistical bases upon which the projection of zoning,
community facilities and population growth are based;
2. Provide for the elimination of the effects of discrimination
in housing based on race, color, religion, sex or national
origin and provide safeguards for the future;
3. Take into account the need to preserve existing housing
and neighborhoods through such measures as housing pre-
--, servation, rehabilitation, changes in taxing policies and
building codes, improvements in housing management and
maintenance, and the provision of adequate municipal
services;
4. Develop and carry out policies, procedures and mechanisms
necessary for coordinating local, area-wide and state
housing policies with functional planning and capital invest-
ment strategies, when available; and
5
5. Establish procedures, including criteria set forth in
advance, for evaluating programs and activities to deter-
mine whether the objectives are being met.
Keeping the HUD Housing Plan requirements in mind and having
examined general socio-economic or population characteristics, hous-
ing supply and condition, and current and future housing needs, it was
then possible to begin an analysis of alternative policies designed to
address the determined housing needs. The alternative policies were
evaluated for their ability to meet the Weld County needs and for
their ability to meet the federal requirements.
Finally, the policy analysis led to the establishment of a set of
goals, objectives and policies. The goals and objectives are as
specific as possible so that progress towards their achievement may
be measured. The policies have been designed so that they are com-
patible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Regional Goals
and Objectives, the Regional Water Quality Plan (208), and state and
national energy and natural resource conservation policies. The
Weld County Housing Plan policies will be followed by Weld County
so that the need of Weld County residents for a decent home and
suitable living environment can be met.
Population
POPULATION
The population element of the Weld County Housing Plan is
intended to relate population, economic, and general social charac-
teristics in Weld County. Population information is useful to the
Weld Housing Plan in several aspects. First, population information
helps in determining potential housing need. For example, based on
an average number of persons per unit, and Weld's current and future
population, one can approximate the number of units which may be
required to adequately house a future population.
Another use of population information related to housing
involves examining the types of housing which may be needed in the
future. Briefly, by examining the composition and demographic
characteristics of the Weld County population, one is able to deter-
mine the need for a specific type of housing such as: single family,
multi-family, and subsidized housing. For instance, if after
examining a specific area of Weld County in terms of number of
senior-age (62 years and older) population, number of Spanish per-
sons, number of low-income persons, condition and supply of existing
housing, and several other housing-related considerations, it may be
possible to propose a particular type of housing unit which best
satisfies the housing needs for that particular area. Essentially, one
8
segment of the Population chapter is to examine population data which
helps in assessing the type of housing most needed in a particular
area.
Another use of population and general social characteristics
would be to determine where housing is most needed. Much of this
information is determined by analyzing housing condition information.
Without question, if an area has determined that, according to its
housing inventory, most housing is considered to be substandard or
dilapidated, housing assistance efforts should most likely be concen-
- trated in these areas. Once again, population information should be
able to describe not only the number of persons in an area, but also
the general composition of the particular population. The more
descriptive one can be regarding a specific region's population, the
better able one will be in prescribing appropriate housing programs.
There are several methods through which population and related
information may be used to better understand the housing situation
in Weld County. For the purposes of this study, population will
largely be examined according to 1970 Census data and, where
possible, current population and demographic information will be
utilized. In this regard, the population segment of the Weld County
Housing Plan is primarily intended to indicate past, current, and
future population figures. As with any population analysis, certain
assumptions must be made clear:
9
1. Weld County contains approximately 4, 004 square miles,
and 28 incorporated municipalities including Greeley. Few
other counties in Colorado are as large, and no other con-
- tains so many communities. Since the 1970 census, several
Weld communities have doubled in population, while others
have actually lost population. To say the least, population
in Weld County has been dynamic and, therefore, difficult
to assess precisely.
2. In awareness of this fact, current and future population
estimates are considered to be the most accurate according
to the best available population studies. In all cases, the
Weld County Housing Plan reflects local population figures
which were prepared either by the Weld County Planning
Department, Larimer-Weld Council of Governments, or in
cooperation with University personnel or consultants. It is
felt that population figures generated locally are often more
accurate in terms of being able to assess those factors
which often affect population - e. g., local employment and
economic activity.
3. The most significant factor in discussing population esti-
mates is not so much the number of persons in Weld County
for any given decade, rather it is Weld County's ability to
help make available enough quality housing to meet the anti-
cipated population' s needs.
4. In terms of identifying "low-income households" in Weld
County, the U. S. Bureau of Census defines a low-income
household as one with an income below 80% of the median
income for their size household in the county. In Weld
County, the median income in 1976 was $13, 000. There-
fore, 80% of the median income for Weld County ($13, 000)
would mean a low-income household would have an income
of less than $10, 400.
Throughout the Weld County Housing Plan, care will be taken
to expose such population factors as income levels, location, age
groups, minorities, and other relevant social, economic and/or
demographic information. It is hoped that the Population chapter will
help identify, and define Weld County' s population size and general
characteristics. Finally, the population information presented below
10
is intended to relate directly to housing, and to further assist local,
regional, and State officials in their assessment of housing in Weld
County.
11
Current Population Size
As mentioned earlier, Weld County's population must first be
examined according to its past and current size. Since 1940, Weld
County has experienced steady post-World War II growth. From the
period 1970 to 1975, Weld County has grown more dramatically. For
example, Figure 1 indicates population growth for Weld County
municipalities for the period 1970-1975. Two sources were used in
estimating 1975 population figures. The first involved estimates by
the Weld County Department of Planning Services and by local
officials for municipal growth according to local building permit
activity.
The second municipal population estimates used were prepared
by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census in 1977.
Briefly, the Bureau of the Census estimated the 1975 municipal
population figures by measuring population change according to such
factors as: births, deaths, net migration, and special populations
(members of the Armed Forces, students, etc. ). The estimates were
derived in two stages, moving from the 1970 Census figure as a
base year to develop estimates for 1973, and in turn, moving from
1973 as the base year to derive estimates for 1975.
By examining Figure 1 it is clear that significant growth is
estimated to have occurred between 1970 and 1975 in Weld County's
municipalities. Much of this growth may be attributed to policies
contained in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. For example, the
12
policy of directing development to existing urban service areas
has increased the potential for growth in several Weld communities.
Weld County has been very diligent in discouraging and prohibiting
— development in the unincorporated, agricultural areas of the County.
This policy has not only increased building activity in several of the
municipalities, but has helped to control the inefficient extension of
— utilities and services into rural areas.
During the same period (1970-1975), several industries and
other employment opportunities began to develop in the Weld County
region. Perhaps the most notable was the Eastman Kodak plant
located near the Town of Windsor. Kodak was established in Weld
County in 1970 and today employs approximately 3100 persons. Other
— industries and institutions like Monfort Packing Company, a meat
packing plant, the University of Northern Colorado, and other small
industries also helped to maintain and encourage population growth
in the Weld region.
Generally, then, Weld County's population has grown steadily
with the most rapid increase occurring from 1970 to present.
Figure 2 clearly shows the overall growth in Weld County since 1940.
The growth pattern from1940 to 1970 tends to strongly support the
even sharper increase in population from the period 1970 to 1975.
— 13
Figure 1
Municipal Population Estimates
Weld County, 1970-1975
1975 1 1975 Weld 2
Municipality 1970 Census Census Eat. County Eat.
1. Ault 841 932 950
2. Dacono 360 1243 1610
3. Eaton 1389 1629 1800
4. Erie 1083 1651 1300
5. Evans 2570 3455 4500
6. Firestone 570 811 869
7. Ft. Lupton 2489 3041 3100
8. Frederick 696 705 739
9. Garden City 142 197 250
10. Gilcrest 382 451 500
11. Greeley 38, 902 47, 362 54, 135
12. Grover 121 175 125
13. Hudson 518 683 580
14. Johnstown 1191 1580 1500
15. Keenesburg 427 505 500
16. Keota 6 2 7
17. Kersey 474 665 855
18. LaSalle 1227 1780 1670
19. Lochbuie 934 (Census 1038 840
estimate)
20. Mead 195 216 215
21. Milliken 702 1117 1200
22. New Raymer 68 86 70
23. Nunn 269 318 300
24. Pierce 452 714 900
25. Platteville 683 1024 1500
26. Rosedale 66 67 77
27. Severence 59 78 81
28. Windsor 1564 2426 2700
Total Incorporated 58,380 73,951 82,873
Population for
Weld County
-' Population Estimates and Projections, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 654, Issued
_ May, 1977.
2Weld County Department of Planning, Greeley, Colorado, Fall,
1975.
14
Figure 2
Weld County ' s Historical Population
1940 - 1970
90, 000 --
80, 000
70, 000 —
60, 000 —
50, 000
1
1940 1950 1960 1970
Source: U.S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
15
Current Population Characteristics
In order to accurately describe current population character-
istics for Weld County, much of the information was obtained from
— 1970 Bureau of Census data. Because of Weld County's general
physical size and relatively large number of incorporated munici-
palities, it is more understandable if Weld County was first described
according to Census Tract divisions. (Please refer to the Census
Tract Map, Figure 3. ) Essentially, there are twenty-five (25)
Census Tracts in Weld - each of which has specific information regard-
- ing age, minorities, lower-income persons (below poverty level),
and other social and demographic information. Please note that
Census Tracts 1 through 15 are located in the Greeley area, while
Census Tracts 16 through 25 are outside Greeley.
Once each Census Tract has been identified in terms of its
general population characteristics, it will then be discussed in terms
of Weld' s overall population characteristics. It should be kept in
mind, however, that much of this information is intended to better
assess housing in Weld County. As discussed earlier, population
information pertaining to income, age, and number of minorities for
a given area merely describes the composition and general social-
-
economic characteristics of a particular area. This information
will then be correlated and further analyzed with available housing
stock, location, and condition to assess actual housing need.
16
WYOMING 1 NEBRASKA
r .DROVER
CT 24 L
i
O
J
-
•NUNN •KEOTA
-
CT 23 PIERCE / CT 'NEW RAYMER
r •AULT J/ Ar d
z
- 0 SEVERANCE •EATON
4-, MORGAN COUNTY
WINDSOR
If
CT22•ve7 N.
N.
otc..,.MILLKEN •LASALLECTI6 N
' • b I" �JONNSTOWN
N.
- •MEAD \ \
•PLATTEVILLE N.
Cr18 N.
N.
^ CTI9\
CT 2'O •KEENESBURG
.FL LUPTON N.N.N.
•DAOONO 'HUDSON N.
'ERIE \ N
-
L0011lU!• \ N.\�/�\�//T � -�11,'}•�`/,ADAMS CO4JNTY N.
\\
- cO1.J NT Jl \\ 6 CT IS
CENSUS \\\ CT 14 CTI C
124(•j CT 7
TRACTS \\\ II c 13
\ CT 10
1970 CENSUS \
_
Figure 3
17
Figure 4 indicates 1970 Census population information for Weld
County according to Census Tracts. In addition, the figure indicates
the numbers and percentage of persons 62 years and older; the num-
— ber and percentage of persons having below poverty level income, and
the number and percentage of persons of Spanish descent. Much of
this information will be helpful when examining the actual need for
housing compared to the profile or general composition of persons
living in a particular area.
Basically, the population characteristics for all of Weld County
for 1970 indicate that of Weld County's total population of 89, 297 per-
sons, approximately 10% or 9, 004 persons are 62 years and older.
Knowing the number and percentage of elderly residing in Weld
County is important in terms of being able to anticipate the need for
senior housing. Clearly, those 62 years and older often do not have
the ability to pay for new housing, nor do they have the ability to
physically reside in all types of housing. Because most persons 62
years and older have limited income, and are often restricted to the
type and location of housing which is most convenient (for instance:
one-story, close to health services, and easy access), it is important
to identify this segment of the Weld population.
Another segment of Weld's population which should be identified
are minorities. In Weld County, there is a significant population of
Spanish speaking, or Spanish surname persons. For example in 1970
approximately 15% or 13, 624 persons were of Spanish descent living
18
• o coc482 ao HH
1�1 y I
i
— 0 ; 8 L4?, 1;--4 8 § A 2 2 tr4 or',ID ck ,g,iigHLE2P- 4 co. ,
(V 2
1
0 I
• •1 • _ • F. N. L� 00 I g (fl
M gi_ u/ co . . r CO .• • . N O
(fa cs I '-i ' l
Ow _. I • •
o
1Emli () c cl ° § - § F@ A2 A Aug § .:
w f
r2 p4 .5 , ' 11
icylWILVIc'n' ' 12 ,1gcicI7FIcp,11P ,IRtl 'iltii, '8.
44
r
g 6 i '' !
44i R A g i ig.. i .
n RIR. § R ‘`'
Will 11111 iiii l' E ' D ' i °
_ CD I „ i illial,
_ ii gill iiiii iiii 1 gl ,.. ...0 '; E4 1 .p'-' 1
r-1 N M d+ Low t` 00 O O ,1 2 .41 ti r�l I �t-1 F4 O ri N 13 n N g
1 63
19
in Weld County. Once again, it is important to identify minority popu-
-
lations in order to better eliminate and prevent housing discrimination
and to determine what type of housing is the best suited for a particu-
lar sector of Weld's population.
Those persons living in Weld County who are below the poverty-
level income are also a critical sector of Weld's total population
which must be identified when examining housing. As discussed earlier,
a household with below poverty-level income is considered to be those
households earning less than 80% of Weld's median income (1976 z
$13, 000). Therefore, those families earning less than $10,.400 are
considered to be living below poverty-level. In Weld County, approxi-
materly 12% or 10, 629 persons were classified as having less than
poverty-level incomes.
In order to more accurately assess population characteristics,
the Weld Census Tracts were compared according to the greatest
number and percentage of senior citizens; persons of Spanish
descent; and low income persons. Because Weld County contains
25 Census Tracts and Greeley represents 15 of those Census Tracts,
the following comparison will first discuss Greeley characteristics
(Census Tracts 1 through 15), and then the Weld County balance
(Census Tracts 16 through 25) will be discussed' . The information to
be discussed is presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
20
.D
N M N U1 O' O CO .r NO M NO N V• U1 0 en
gh .O .0 M ti O O .0 U1 O. T in ts O' M 1 CO
.O V• V' M M c) N N .. .. .r .-. 0 en
y
O
d ro
aE
O
M
l .+ NN 01 ND U1 O Ul O` N VI CO dr
H N N N .4 N .4
aq
ai aC.)
0
N m
— ..1 .y
N m x
U 0 b .4 N M 'd' U1 ND N W ON O .. N M V• U1
c U a
o �
in N N ao M .O O N N in 00 N N tM M C
W 00 M N O` U1 Nr ON N .. O N O. NO M td O
O 04 04 ND U1 NV NV M N N N .y ..
O
0 ND
N P-
O O.
A -+
— U
ro
In z o ,qyy E
*
H w /U R Nj ..I N NO CO O U1 U1 V' N N on .r V' O M
- be b Qi al m .. .r .r .r .r ...4
W U 01 d
04
g
co c)
✓ gil
ro .-+ N M V' U1 ND N co D` O r4 N M d• M O
O 14 i-q i53 .4 ..4 .4 ..+ .-I .r •0
m v o
q q
y ro 04 0 0 00 U1 NO CN O d' 01 441N N O
q .0 CO N 00 M to .4 O U1 ON M M co co ro N U
,-- d 01 .Y OD NO U1 M M M N ...1 .4 ..a .r �. .-1 q
v
• y q u
.25
.
y a) alz
in y k
0 . F
U M .r V• CO N U1 N M N O U1 D, NO Vr .-. M D
^ 1.4 'D ..y ..1 .4 .r ... ..q 'T
0 N a
q
m
ti1O 41 0
U
^ 0 q
[ .. N M VV U1 .O N COa` O .ti N M V• U1 *
y .4 .4 ..4 .r ..4 .4 0
--. x F'
21
ro
S N IA N .-I O O O• T .O u1 14 N N `C
N .r .-I .-I .-i r1 g
a..
— O U
ro
O F
U m .O .-a 1I1 N O N MCP O• CO N d1 ...*4M
.0 -I .-I .-1 .-I .-I .ti
—
13 m
P. y
C O a U
4,
N m
,ti O
. m
U g o .-I N M ell .O N CO O. O .+1 N M 14 I11
4)
al— o• o a
g
0 •
I--�
W V
S .O 00 00 M 00 N .O N .O 1I1 d1 d1 •-I •-1
— O O U1 N N N .-I .-I .-1 N g
.0 N N./ V
CI a) O.
U .
f1 .i.4
a a ro
k
y Q M A E1
N w y m .O N om. ••1 w O 1I1 II ..I m N sP Ir M
-
b0 b a at co
f, 1 E In al
- 44 U o
m4
43
U .l .-i N 1 1I1 .O N COO` i-1 N M d1 tIl
03 O M 'd ti n1 .� -I N
— H I'� a
m [
7 ro
U) ca
• 't' Ni O co M N O O` Q` N .O in W V1 M '�
— !al N N .-I .-1 n.1 .-I 0
V fi FI
4) 01 -c
ti U) .-I U
— d O al
k g E
m .-1 cony 111 N to •O M O N N T .-1 14 en
Q3 y .-I .-I .-1 .r .r -
- 4.1 m
id q
U y
U
N
— .O
G .-1 N M J1 WI .O N 00 CPO .-I N M 11 In
ro 1 .y .-I r-I •-I r-1
a
22
Greeley Population Characteristics
Figure 5 indicates the number of senior citizens in each Greeley
Census Tract. In general, Census Tracts 1, 4, 8 and 7 represent
62% of all the senior citizens in the Greeley area. While this is a
large number of seniors, it is also important to determine what per-
centage of the Census Tracts total population is comprised of senior
citizens. Each of Census Tracts 1, 4, 8 and 7 had more than 10% of
its population made up of senior citizens. The Census Tracts with
the lowest number or concentration of senior citizens are Tracts 14,
which had 85 seniors or 3% of the population, and Tract 11 which had
62 seniors who accounted for 4% of the Tract population,
The Spanish population in Greeley's Census Tracts was primarily
located in Tracts 1, 7, 6 and 8 (see Figure 6). These Tracts had 61%
of Greeley's 6, 101 people of Spanish descent, Each of the Tracts also
had a relatively large concentration of Spanish people. Figure 6 con-
_ tains information on the percentage of the Tract's population which
A
is of Spanish descent. In each of Tracts 6, 7, 15 and 1 there was
more than 20% Spanish population. Census Tracts 4 and 9 had the
lowest numbers and concentrations of Spanish persons.
Greeley's low income persons seemed to be fairly evenly die-
tributed. There was only a difference of 367 persons in the 6 Tracts
with the largest numbers of low income persons. However, two
Tracts, 6 and 15, had a significant low income portion of their
23
population. The lowest concentration of low income persons was in
Tracts 4 and 11 which had a 2% low income population.
Weld County Population Characteristics
The Census Tract Ranking for the Weld County Census Tracts
(Census Tracts 16 through 25) is shown in Figure 7, which shows the
ranking for absolute numbers, and in Figure 8, which shows the
ranking for percent of the population. The senior population in the
Weld County Tracts is largest in Census Tracts 22, 19, 21, 25 and
20. These Tracts contain 72% of the 4, 365 senior citizens living in
the Weld County Census Tracts. While these Tracts contained the
highest number of senior citizens, there were other Tracts which
contained larger proportions of senior citizens. Census Tracts 22,
21, and 25 again had large percentages of senior citizen population,
however, Tracts 24 and 23 also had significant senior citizen popula-
tions. The lowest number of senior citizens was found in Tract 24
with 124 seniors. The 124 seniors in Tract 24, however, represented
14% of that Tract's population.
The Weld County Spanish population is found primarily in
Census Tract 19. Tracts 20, 22 and 17 also had large numbers of
people of Spanish descent. The Tracts with the largest proportion of
Spanish people were 19, 23, 17 and 20.
The low income population of the Weld County Balance Census
Tracts was largest in Tracts 19, 22, 25 and 16. These Tracts
_ 24
N T d• N N In to to T N T
N .y T W CO to d• d• M N
.r .y \D
4) U
m
o _
A .
1--1ap T N to NO en .-t W 0 N d•
— J .-t N N .•t N N .-t N .-a N
W W
4 O
C.
N a 0
_ y
U
U C
N m
.— 4' U tG •-• N en 'O d• to N CO T 0
O 14 -
W
• (7
O •
^• N ..t T N N N 'Cr en W N
II .•t O 0 N VD 'O 'd• en en to
.a O N .. .-i N
g N
•
Z .a
Ft C1 U
Oal
to
d ro k m H
4) 4)
— .., [ a b d - N N .Ni N N H N CO N to
44 4P 04
co 0
_ m O U
ya U
U ❑
Et ri
z a g x
I-1
N - N en y to NO N W T 0
t4
C ItC4 ..
C O
d
._ U A N O ON en 0 tLC) O isui CO .NO N NO
to CO'412 N to tO to en en N .r .r en
ri
k
4)
— U b u
Ii
.11:-I TT E,,
4) q
N M N T - MO M N 'O CO 'd•
m m
t N .-t N N N N .a ,-, .-t N
i.t O
tl 4J
m U
N
.C
.•n N M d• to .D N co T O 0
- E
25
S M N N OT ON 111 "-i O ON CO
la
— u u
or.,
u E"
ism 'O 00 en in N O\
z .-" .-, N N N ." N ." N N
m
O O
L",
N aLI
—
4.1
• m
'" d c '" N en •44 In NO N CO OT O
— N• U Pti ti
ril
•
O
4" 4 N M ..4 O' .O .O .O 'W O' N
O O N N N
✓ r--
;.1 O`
O ^"
wC0'
00 W o w
d m r_.
ro k m
3 .G V .ti m ONi en N N N NO 00 N - ' t in
00 Ci a 7 N N N
LV fx 0 CO
C. tt N
m Lo• U
— , 0
O g
O1 ''"
"
x
H 0
..... N en V' In NO N CO T 0
CO b I:4
.
q
CD N
_ U
5 .4 M a' . - M - rn o 0 00 ao
g q O
it
o en
b
— U0 u
01
ro ro
a g H
— {m., d N N N N N om N -
-- - N .r
RI m
>" 4)
U
— N
.M
a ,-.4 N O1 "44in NO N CO O` O
26
contained 62% of the Weld County Balance low income population of
6, 793 persons. The largest low income percentage was found in
Tracts 16, 18, 23, 25 and 22.
— The Weld County and Greeley Area Census Tracts (Census
Tracts 1 through 25) are combined in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
These tables present Census Tract ranking for all of Weld County.
— Because Greeley Tracts and the Weld County Census Tracts are
separated for analysis by the State and Federal governments, this
data is presented only for general information. Figure 4, which was
— referred to earlier, presents a combination of the absolute number
and percentage information for the Senior citizen, Spanish and Low
Income indicators without ranking the Tracts.
27
•+ .0 ... N O CO er M CO vi N M M r o .-00 el ‘0 M O r Vt .O O
- N .4 O• CO .O NO .11 er dt V er M �-M M M N N ... .�.. f 4 .y D` r m M1 M M
,+
. C
O F.
.
tlu E'
H 0 CNN N .O .r M .r r M O N r M .O l[1 O t[1 O• N V• a0 er .-. M
W
O .-. N N .r NN .I N ti .-. .4 .4 ..y .- N. N .y
* * * * * * * * * * * * *# # # # # # # # # #
g 0
4) a U
y
U 0
m
V q ti N ..1 Vt ‘41 •0 r CO Q` O .-. N M 11 .Vs 1 0 r T .r CO O N M vi
b N N N N N N
— 4) a
W
O O r r O r N W er CO M .O .O VOA N er .4 r M W er r .r er M O
I+ - .-. N N O O N .r0 .r0 .NO M '1 er 't M M M N N N r'1 O• a0 .D M
A0)
O N .-' .4 .-+ .r
AO•
zco" y
ON w k
B ro CO AH
.zj d N 0 0 O` 04 r O N r M .r .O CO .O O 111 1n u1 CO er N N M .-. Vt er O• M
W b a. q y .-� N N .-4 N N 04 04 .r N ..., ... .r ..-i .-i N
co
W ag o U) # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
m O U
.H U
U HC'
m
H 0 .-4 N M er cO .O r CO O• O .-r N M er to .O r CO O• O .4 N M er M
..1 tad N N N N N N
O• td N .O O O O .-. CO M N V• -t .-. .-. CO .O O. .O .O M .11 N O
U ,i O• N N O CO O. M M O In u1 . O o O .O M CT M N W M M N O W .O
y ti CO CO r .O to 111 M U1 M M M M M N N 0]
a 4) U
— U O U F
CO
T1 'ti w
W
W CO O .-. N O r ul CD 01 N NN th N M r .O N O CO 111 T er .O er .-. M
7't .-. N N - - d
010
V # * * * # # # * if. * * * * * *# # p,
V
N d
U
0 .4 N M 1+ 1n b r W O. O .ti N M V• M .O r CO O. O .4 N M II 111 *
a ,4 . . . . . ..y el el .r N N N N N N
28
o
S O N N .r O,' O? W 111 N .-1 .--I O O O Oft O� ON W NO "' l' 14N
N
M N N N .-1 .-1 .r .-I '-+ ..+ �-+ .-I .-+ .+ C'.
4->
N U
14 74
O 1.
H
U
m '.0 .O OD M t/1 N 171 ON .-I 1n .-I r- O N N M d1 O NN O` W N W - M
e, .-I .-I N N CO .-I .. N .-+ .4 .r N N .-I .-I .-I
m •3 4 m * * * * * * * * * * * * iF * *
O 0 U
l
N I-i V
U 0
m
0 y b O .-I N M sH to 'O N W O` O .-I N M d1 U1 %O N W O` O N M
N
— Co N N N
y g
M •
w
O
S co co N M M .r ON CO N NO .O ‘O W d1 N D` N 171 V' 14 14 d1
U p 111 N N N N N N C
U n
1, m
4.4 a
N
O 0 Q N
.-I m k
ro ii
-- ii 4) 4) 0 .O N 111 ON .r M r- O W O 111 gD co N .-I d. 14 111 H M N N d1 O` M
... M .-1 .-I N .r N .. .-I .. N N .-I N N .-1 .-I .-
m ImJa ro m # # # * * * * * * * * * * at•
W V W d
.N o U
U
ua
k
E.1 B 'g -4 N M d1 111 ‘O 1� W Q` O .r N M eN 111 ‘O N W O� ';.21
.-1 N M d1 111
Q ...1 .y .. N .-1 .-1 .r .-I .. N N N N N N
ya x
m C
4)• d
V '1' N O W VI M M N N N .-I O O' O' O' O' O` W W N 'O M VI W M m
.0 a1 .it N N . . . . . 04 N N N r+ V
r
ro
v104 n p iii
H
p
T1t 1. 0
0 as E1 q
_ m m .i W d1 d1 N u1 N .-I M U1 u> •O M NO Q` O 1` W O N N O` ..1 VI M y
!-I J' N N N N N .r .r .4 .. N .-I N .-1 .-I .-I .-1 U
000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,T
4) _N
N V 4)
g d
x 0
G .-1 N M d1 111 No N co O` a ti N M d1 111 ND 1- co cN O N N M •N 111 *
M NNNNN
N N N
a
29
Future Population
Before discussing Weld County's future population estimates,
it is important to mention how and for what purpose they may be best
used. As mentioned earlier, the 1970 Bureau of Census population
figures were used extensively. This is not to say that other figures
showing future estimates are inaccurate. Rather, it is to say that
in terms of basing future housing need on present and anticipated
population,care should be taken to explain potential misunderstandings
of the data.
— To begin, the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments
in connection with preparation of the Larimer-Weld Regional Water
Quality Plan (208) has for the last several months been in the process
of closely examining 1) population, 2) economics, 3) demographics,
and 4) land use (PEDL) for the region. This PEDL element of the
Regional Water Quality (208) Plan specifically examines population.
As such, those future population estimates will be used in the Weld
CountyHousing Plan for the following reasons: 1) The basis,
methodology, and data used in formulating the Larimer-Weld COG
population figures for Weld County best account for local population
influences such as employment and industrial development. It is felt
that the Larimer-Weld COG figures, prepared by local consultants,
accurately represent regional growth indices, and are indicative of
recent (1970-1975) trends in the Larimer-Weld region; 2) In order
to better correlate and utilize much of the data prepared by the
30
Larimer-Weld COG for the 208 Plan, it is felt that future population
estimates should be compatible with one another. In addition, the
Weld County Department of Planning Services has been an integral part
of the formulation of the Larimer-Weld COG Water Quality Plan, and
PEDL element, specifically with regard to indicating potential growth
influences, and estimating municipal population.
There are still other factors which must be explained prior to
estimating future population. The Larimer-Weld COG population
figures do not account for any external activity which may increase or
decrease the future population figures. Such external activity might
be the development of new technologies, energy development, and
natural resource availability. All of these factors may, in the future,
cause the Larimer-Weld COG figures to increase or decrease depend-
ing on the particular type of activity. For the most part, the popula-
-
tion figures are considered to be as accurate as possible. When the
1980 Census data becomes available, and as events occur which cause
a dramatic increase or decrease in population, the figures will then
be revised accordingly.
For the purposes of this plan, the 1970 population character-
istics analyzed are anticipated to remain at the same level relative
to the total population. That is, the percent of the total population
will remain the same but the actual numbers will change. There is
— no evidence which would contradict this assumption. Moreover, on
31
several occasions the Division of Planning has issued population
estimates which support this assumption.
Figure 11 indicates population estimates from the period 1970
to 2000. Also included is information on low income, senior and
minority populations within Weld County.
Figure 11
Weld County Population Estimates
1970 to 2000
Total 62 Years Spanish Low
Population and Older3 Population Income3
19701 89, 297 13, 624 9, 004 10, 619
19752 107, 400 16, 100 10. 740 12, 888
19772 114, 000 17, 100 11, 400 13, 680
19802 138, 000 20, 700 13, 800 16, 560
19902 185, 000 27, 750 18, 500 22, 200
20002 225, 300 33, 795 22, 530 27, 036
'United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1970.
2Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments; estimates
and projections 1975-2000.
3Weld County Department of Planning Services; estimated
population based on constant percentage.
32
Because of the general uncertainty involved in future population
estimates, the Weld County Department of Planning prefers not to
rely heavily on the exact time or year sequence related to the future
population estimates. For the purposes of the Weld County Housing
Plan, the future population figures for Weld more realistically indicate
a population trend. Moreover, Weld County's future population
figures will be modified and more accurately adjusted in the near
future as more specific studies are conducted throughout the region.
In proposing future population estimates, Weld County is primarily
concerned with the general effect or implications a future population
size may have on housing. Weld County population estimates provide
a basis for initiating short and long-term housing and land use pro-
grams while recognizing the absolute need to modify population esti-
mates as conditions change.
33
Summary
Information has been presented in this chapter of the Housing
Plan which helps to characterize or describe the population in the
County. Information was also provided which enumerated special
groups of Greeley's and Weld County's population. These special
groups are: 1) the senior aged population (62 years old and older),
_ 2) the Spanish population, and 3) the low income population.
1. The following table illustrates the special group character-
istics for Greeley and Weld County. The Census Tracts identified
under each characteristic are those which ranked highest in that area.
Census Tracts
Characteristic Greeley Weld County
Senior # 1, 4, 8, 7 22, 19, 21, 25, 20
Senior % 1, 8, 4, 5, 7 24, 22, 21, 23, 25
Spanish # 1, 7, 6, 8 19, 20, 22, 17
Spanish % 6, 7, 15, 1 19, 23, 17, 20
Low Income # 19, 22, 25, 16
Low Income % 6, 15 16, 18, 23, 25, 22
2. The future Weld County population is estimated as follows:
Year Population
1970 89, 297
1975 107, 400
1977 114, 000
1980 138, 000
1990 185, 000
2000 225, 300
34
3. It is assumed that future population characteristics will
occur at the proportions which presently exist. Following this
formula, it is expected that 15% of future populations will be aged
62 years and older, 10% will be of Spanish descent, and 12% will have
incomes below 80% of the median income.
1
Housing Supply
HOUSING SUPPLY
A critical element of any housing plan is the documentation of
the housing supply. This information reveals the number of house-
- holds which presently exist in the jurisdiction, the living conditions
for that population and the locational and housing type and price
choices which exist in the jurisdiction.
The housing supply documentation for Weld County consists of:
1) the number, location and condition of single family dwelling units,
2) the number and location of multi-family dwelling units, 3) the num-
ber of mobile homes, 4) recent single and multi-family construction
activity, and 5) the cost of single and multi-family housing. Analysis
of this information reveals many important facts to government and
private officials and to housing consumers. For example, current
government and private policies can be analyzed for their effect on
the number of substandard dwelling units or the number of renters as
opposed to home owners, or even the housing situation in Weld County
— in comparison to the situation in another county.
After thorough analysis of the existing housing situation, it is
possible to propose future housing situations. The future housing
situations presented take a variety of conditions, either existing or
anticipated, into consideration in order to gain a better understanding
of current housing practices. A thorough understanding of current
37
housing practices will help public and private decision makers meet
the housing needs of Weld County' s future population.
Information on the existing housing supply is examined in the
same manner as the population information. Greeley data and Weld
County are presented separately. This allows for closer analysis of
the information for the separate political jurisdictions. The single
family housing condition determination for the Weld County' Census
Tracts (16-25) was based upon the Housing Monitoring Study methodo-
logy. Physical characteristics of the housing units were analyzed to
differentiate between standard and substandard condition. A unit was
considered standard if: 1) it was larger than 600 square feet; 2) it
was centrally heated throughout its area; and 3) it had the necessary
basic plumbing components. If the unit failed to meet one or more of
these criteria it was considered to be substandard. The substandard
units were further separated into rehabilitatable or dilapidated cate-
gories according to the cost associated with making the required
adjustments in the unit' s area, heating or plumbing. The unit was
considered rehabilitatable if the cost of repair was less than 50% of the
unit' s replacement cost. When the costs of repair rose to over 50%
of the unit' s replacement cost, the unit was considered to be unsuit-
able for rehabilitation - or dilapidated. The housing condition analysis
is shown in Figure 12.
The housing condition criteria used for the Greeley Census
Tracts (1-15) was developed for use in visual surveys. The visual
O &Io
CC t-ifir
_ 2 ii: iz°• °
„ix -
O co
\ §�
5 � ) - f c/c..\\
°-
\ ( I '\
_ ^ R ; 2 d- ° &t § 2 .
^ 8 ��S �t § �a
S ' ElZ _§o
§ 2 COk � ;/ § °woE
DI d
\m § \ /\ 4
\ 2 2 ■2§■
§ § . )
/ \ 41 ]
i j§ � k O
B _ 8 «
Ell § .<8 m wm e
°• a i «] /] \- ew
-J
- k °( 2k . � j §a
n ■ p«
- � ` i )'B8_ .
■
EL §$§<
_ � r�
_ \ 2 \ C4
CC ILI
� E \ E
_. ni ) a §
39
survey or "windshield survey" criteria evaluated the exterior qualities
of the housing units. Standard units were those units which evidenced
no or slight physical defects on the exterior. Units which were con-
- sidered as suitable for rehabilitation in Greeley were units which
required exterior repair beyond that which is considered routine. A
unit which had one or more critical defects in the strµcture, which
required extensive repair or rebuilding, was considered to be dilapi-
dated.
Weld County Supply Characteristics
In 1977 the housing supply for the Weld County Census Tracts
(16-25) consists of 20, 010 dwelling units. This total supply is com-
posed of 14, 861 single family dwellings (SFD), 752 multi-family
dwellings (MFD), and 4, 397 mobile homes. The distribution of the
single and multi-family dwellings is shown below in Figure 13 and in
Figure 14.
A multi-family dwelling is a unit which shares a common roof
with one or more other dwelling units. This definition classifies
duplexes and flats as multi-family dwellings. The multi-family
dwellings in Weld County are located priniarily in Census Tracts 22
and 19. These Tracts contain 73% of the 752 multiple family dwellings
in Weld County. Census Tract 21 also contains a relatively large
number of MFD' s, however Tract 19' s total of 163 is almost double
the number of MFD' s in Tract 21. The Tract 22, 19 and 21 total
40
_ Figure 13
Location of Single and Multi-Family
Dwellings in Weld County
Census MED Total
— Tract SFD Complexes Units Units
16 1, 103 1 2 1, 105
17 1, 397 11 39 1, 436
18 730 2 4 734
19 1, 927 44 163 2, 090
20 1, 695 8 24 1, 719
21 1, 926 12 85 2, 011
22 2, 384 16 388 2, 772
23 1, 056 4 32 1, 088
24 349 1 2 351
25 2, 294 4 13 2, 307
Total 14, 861 102 752 15, 613
41
m
a,
— ] en N O N in .O W .O O% d' -
O ON M N O% N c0 N d' ON `O
.--i .-a M N O. .O O` en O en N W
" .y rr .-i .-i N N e-4 N 4
-' ..-
T re te. - ..1 rti .n N r•I H .-r rti N I M
g N
y
o
O A 00
ti 4-1
f -
N •-'
1g
Q N 14 .1 r-i O — P 00 d' •" I M .N
— .-f r-i N .i .--i in
0)
00
C.
..4
r-I
r+
c 0 .O N O O 00 N N N .I I O.
cd
y
S J
.y ." a
..4t .C
;ti
-
A
Acd
bO y 4) N M O. In .O N en .O .+i N d'
.r b4 ai *T .--I N d' GO .-N N In N d' N ta N
Ii{ 4n
W
O
rq O. V en O 00 •4 N N N N 0
— .".. ..4 b- CO O` O+ O` 00 O` O` T 00 co I O`
'U 0
0
O
O 'V
— F
'0 eel
O. O O r-i 0. c0 .-1 N ' .-I In
N C d N N co en 0. N O N O O` en
ON en .O N NV N N O` en ON- d'
O V) .-i .-i .r .r N .+ M
— "
L "
Cd
U
0
t
U
id
F •+
— E'' .O N CO Oa O .-I N M d' iniu
y - ....4 .-- .w N N N N N N E0
10
0
— y
U
42
number of MFD' s equals 85% of the Weld County supply of MFD's.
The remaining 15% or 116 units are scattered throughout the remain-
ing seven Census Tracts, Two of the Tracts, 24 and 16, have one
duplex each while another, 18, has two duplexes.
The single family dwelling supply in Weld County is largest in
Census Tracts 22, 25, 19 and 21. These Tracts contain 57% of the
SFD supply in Weld County. These figures, however, are not repre-
sentative of the usable supply of single family dwellings. For the
purposes of this plan, a usable dwelling unit is one which can be con-
- sidered standard according to the Housing Monitoring Study methodo-
logy. Therefore, the usable supply of SFD!s does not include
rehabilitatable or dilapidated structures. The usable supply informa-
- tion is shown in Figure 14 as the number of standard housing units.
Also presented in Figure 14 is the location and number of substandard
dwelling units.
Figure 14 shows that Tracts 22, 25, 19 and 21 have the largest
usable supply of single family dwellings. Each of the Census Tracts
in Weld County has a fairly good proportion of standard units.
Tracts 24 and 25 have the lowest percentage of standard units (87%)
while the highest percentage is 94% standard in Tract 17.
The largest numbers of substandard housing units appear in
Tracts 25, 19, 20 and 22. Rehabilitatable dwellings make up the
largest percentage of substandard dwelling units in each of the Tracts
as well as for the Weld County Total. Dilapidated dwellings, while
43
representing approximately 1% of the Weld County single family
dwelling supply, offer the most undesirable living conditions. These
units are considered dilapidated because the cost associated with
making the unit larger, adding central heat or plumbing components
is more than one-half of the unit's value.
The Housing Monitoring Methodology was designed to reveal
general condition information based upon objective data. There are
other, subjective, factors which cannot be measured by the Housing
Monitoring Study methodology. Some of the subjective measures of
concern are the level of maintenance, the general condition of
structural members and the existence of proper doors, windows and
roofing to keep the elements on the outside. It is hoped that values
for these and other important physical features of a housing unit can
be captured and analyzed in future Housing Monitoring Studies. Until
that happens, however, reliance must be placed upon the indicator
supplied by the present criteria. The present criteria and the results
of the condition analysis should be viewed as indicators of where it is
most likely to discover other substandard living conditions.
Greeley Supply Characteristics
The housing supply information for the City of Greeley was
determined through the use of a methodology different than the Housing
Monitoring Methodology. As such, we are no able to report locational
44
information and, as mentioned previously, the condition information
is based upon the results of a visual invehtory of housing structures.
In general, the Greeley housing supply is made up of 18, 034
dwelling units. The total supply contains 1, 184 mobile homes, 8, 252
single family dwellings and 8, 598 multi-family dwellings. The usable
supply, or standard housing unit total, in Greeley consists of 15, 823
dwellings. This total includes 8, 292 single family dwellings and
mobile homes in stndard condition and 7, 531 multi-family dwellings
classified as standard. Of the remaining SFDs, 1, 122 are considered
suitable for rehabilitation, and 22 units are dilapidated. The
rehabilitatable multi-family units total 1, 056 out of 1, 067 substandard
units - 11 units are dilapidated.
Figure 15
Greeley Housing Supply Condition 1977
Standard Rehabilitatable Dilapidated
Total
Single *
Family 9, 436 8, 292 88 1, 122 12 22 <1
Multi-
Family 8, 598 7, 531 88 1, 056 12 11 < 1
Total 18, 034 15, 823 88 2, 178 12 22 1
Includes mobile homes
45
Essentially then, the Greeley housing supply is 88% standard,
12% rehabilitatable and less than 1% dilapidated. This information
is compared with the total housing supply for Weld County in Figure
16. As discussed earlier, 90% of the Weld County Housing supply
was considered standard, 9% rehabilitatable, and 1% dilapidated.
Figure 16
Weld County Housing Supply Condition
STD Rehabilitatable Dilapidated
Total # % # % # %
Greeley 18, 034 15, 823 88 2, 178 12 33 < 1
Weld
County 14, 861 13, 435 90 1, 294 9 132 1
Total 32, 895 29, 258 89 3, 472 11 165 1
It should be remembered that no condition information has been
presented for Weld County's mobile homes or multi-family units. U
it is assumed that the same percentages of standard, rehabilitatable
and dilapidated structures exist in Census Tracts 16-25 as exist for
single family units in those Tracts, then a new total usable supply of
units exists for Weld County. Figure 17 represents the above assump-
tion and also shows a comparison between Greeley and Weld County
Tracts.
46
Figure 17
Total Weld County Housing Supply Condition
STD Rehabilitatable Dilapidated
Total
Greeley 18, 034 15, 823 88 2, 178 12 33 <1
SFD* 9, 436 8, 292 88 1, 122 12 22 <1
MFD 8, 598 7, 531 88 1, 056 12 11 < 1
Weld County 20, 010 18, 009 90 1, 801 9 200 1
SFD* 19, 258 17, 332 90 1, 733 9 193 1
MFD 752 677 90 68 9 �7 1
Total 38, 044 33, 832 89 3, 979 10 233 1
SFD* 28, 694 25, 624 89 2, 855 10 215 1
MFD 9, 350 8, 208 88 1, 124 12 18 1
Includes mobile homes
Note: Condition information for Weld County Census Tracts was
assumed to resemble the results discovered for single family
housing. Total number of mobile homes and multi-family
units was added to the single family total.
After examination of this comparison it can be seen that the
housing supply in Greeley and Weld County are roughly equal. The
main difference between the two areas is the composition of the
housing supply. This difference is shown in Figure 18.
47
Figure 18
Composition of Housing Supply
38, 044
ASingle Family o
N 20, 010
18, 034 r-
co co N
en
Greeley Weld County Total
The vast majority of multi-family units are located in Greeley.
As a matter of fact, Greeley has 92% of the multi-family units in all
of the county. By comparison, 67% of the single family units in the
county are located outside of Greeley. Moreover, 50% of the total
housing supply are single family dwellings (including mobile homes)
located in Weld County Census Tracts (16-25).
48
Average Housing Age
While the housing condition information is important, it is also
important to be able to predict the level of deterioration that might
reasonably be expected in the future. Information which is used to
base that prediction is the average ages of the structures within an
area. The average age information is determined from the Assessor's
records through use of the Housing Monitoring Methodology. The
average ages of single family structures in the Greeley area and Weld
County Census Tracts is presented in Figure 19. The average age for
all of the units in Census Tracts 1 through 25 is 40 years. This age
is quite high, expecially in light of the population growth and construc-
tion activity which has occurred in the county since 1970.
Figure 19
Average Age for Weld County SFD's
Census Tract Age Census Tract Age Census Tract Age
1 61 10 23 18 42
2 58 11 13 19 38
4 30 12 12 20 41
5 43 13 20 21 44
6 49 14 19 22 49
7 53 15 56 23 51
8 39 16 46 24 47
9 20 17 40 25 50
49
The Census Tract with the largest number of old structures is
Tract 1 in Greeley. Greeley also has the Tracts with the most signi-
ficant number of newer structures (11 and 12 have average ages of 13
and 12 years, respectively). The Weld County Census Tracts (16-25)
have average ages which range from 38 to 56 years.
50
Housing Costs
Before discussing housing costs in Weld County, it is important
to outline several of the variables which directly and indirectly affect
the cost of housing. First, land costs have risen dramatically in the
past several years. Obviously, this cost is first borne by the pro-
spective builder or developer of a residential development, and later
passed on to the home buyer.
In addition, most land which is financially feasible to sub-
divide must be adjacent or near existing utilities, facilities or
services. As mentioned earlier, the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan specifically encourages all urbanization to occur proximate to
or in a municipality. The reason, of course, is to utilize existing
utility and service facilities which are being used. From a developer's
•
standpoint, proximity to existing urbanization is often the most
desirable in terms of reducing utility and building costs. One prob-
lem associated with the development of land adjacent to or in an
existing utility or service area is the relative increase of land
acquisition cost. Typically, land located near urbanized areas tends
to be priced higher than land which is beyond the influence of the
urbanized area. Assuming this has historically been the case, land
acquisition cost initially paid by the developer is ultimately reflected
in the cost of housing to the consumer.
Related to the cost of raw land and the additional ability of the
developer to obtain land which is located near an urbanized area, is
51
the cost of complying with local subdivision and zoning regulations.
Subdivision and zoning regulations are a useful, necessary, and
practical method of ensuring that certain design, building, and land
use regulations will be met prior to a governing board making final
project approval. The point, however, is that the procedural costs of
applying for preliminary and final plat approvals are not - and never
have been - prohibitive. The real costs to the developer and ulti-
mately to the residential consumer is more often related to the
requirements of the subdivision and zoning regulations themselves.
For instance, in many Weld communities the minimum low-density
single-family lot size is 10, 000 square feet (Sft) according to local
zoning ordinances. The effect of such a lot size requirement directly
contributes to the rising costs of housing in Weld County. This is
perhaps one area where municipalities may review their local sub-
division and zoning regulations to ensure that they reflect community
values and property rights, but also do not prohibit affordable
housing.
In this regard, much has been written regarding various site
planning schemes which allow greater overall density, but increase
available park and open space areas. Obviously, if land acquisition
costs continue to rise, and if communities continue to require
approximately one-quarter acre lots for single-family housing, the
future homeowner can expect to pay increasingly higher costs. This
is not to suggest that smaller building lots, and more common open
52
space area is or should be a preferred community value. Rather,
the 10, 000 square feet lot requiremenris one direct and clear example
of how subdivision and zoning requirements contribute to the rising
cost of housing in Weld County. There are several site planning
schemes which may greatly reduce the size of a lot while ensuring
adequate size to build a housing unit safely and according to commu-
nity standards. In the same light, there are direct benefits to the
developer who increases the number of dwelling units built per acre
by smaller lot sizes.
A third variable which directly affects housing costs are
material and labor costs. Construction costs for single family
dwellings averaged $16 per square foot in 1970. By comparison, in
1977 the average construction cost was $25 per square foot. Building
materials and labor are perhaps the most significant factors directly
affecting higher housing costs. Many of the raw materials used in the
construction of a house, such as wood, glass, piping, metal, and
concrete, have risen sharply since 1970. Labor costs have also risen
since 1970. Combined material and labor costs have contributed to
significant increases in actual housing cost.
Costs related to housing which are often overlooked, but which
have also risen during the past several years are lot improvement
costs such as water and sewer tap charges. In several communities
the availability, quality, and operation and maintenance costs related
to water and sewer service have become very serious and costly land
53
development considerations. For instance, water supply is often
limited in many Weld communities. To compound the supply problem,
most municipalities charge a monthly flat-rate water charge. Con-
- sequently, the municipality does not receive revenue for water use
which is excessive. Generally, there is a growing skepticism on the
part of many municipalities that water and sewer tap fees sufficiently
cover actual water and sewer cost. From a developer's standpoint,
recent increases in municipal water and sewer tap fees have meant
a higher priced subdivision - all of which must be passed on to the
prospective home buyer.
All of the above contribute to the general rising housing costs
in Weld County and throughout Colorado. The leveling-off of housing
costs cannot realistically be expected without addressing several of
the previously mentioned factors.
Single Family Housing
In order to specifically assess housing costs in Weld County,
housing value was first examined. Housing or building value is based
on Uniform Building Code or similar construction value formulas and
does not include land cost. By examining building value according to
the number of permits issued for a specific value, one can better
determine what the average building value is for a certain area. Once
an average building value has been determined, it is then possible to
examine household characteristics in order to determine how much of
54
the population can reasonably afford average valued housing. As
discussed earlier, Greeley will be examined first, then the remain-
ing 27 Weld County municipalities, and finally, the unincorporated
areas of Weld. It is assumed that because Greeley has an estimated
population of approximately 55, 000 persons while the remaining 27
municipalities have individual populations of less than 5,000, that
Greeley should be examined by itself so as not to influence housing
information pertaining to rural Weld communities. Figure 20
indicates building value according to building permit information ob-
tained in 1975 for the Greeley area.
From Figure 20 it is clear that of the 333 building permits
issued in Greeley for single family homes, the average building value
- was $24, 762. Once again, it is important to note the average building
value of $24, 762 does not reflect any lot cost - which may average
between $5, 000 to $10, 000 in the Greeley area. It is also significant
to note that while the low building value in Greeley was established
at $15, 404, only 11 units of the 333 unit total were valued within
$1, 000 of the $15, 404 figure. This seems to indicate that most single
family building permits issued in 1975 had a market value of between
$30, 000 to $35, 000 - assuming lot costs of between $5, 000 to $10, 000
and the average building value was $24, 762. In addition, according
to the Greeley Board of Realtors, the average single family dwelling
sold for $33, 000 at the end of 1976. By mid-1977, the average house
in the Greeley area was selling for $34, 982. This information seems
- 55
0
m o
0
..y y mil mil en
fy 44 g
0 Id
w >
O ti
ro 3 0
ro
mN .,.I
O it r1 I I I I I I I rl
— 4k 71. - I I I I I I r1
D
in
r-
0%
.M
T14 O 0 0 `O
q 0 0
I I ID I 0 0 N
N O ro ti, d' I I I
— 4 4 1 II) uj I I N I M N It)
U - y '.y .r N '-•
a 44 44
•
N
on
d g O N 0 0 0 c0
d IAb�17 b "0 Cr. I I 0 I 0 0 ON
Hx '5 ro I I I ,
N \ PI 10
� I M I N ry
N FY
d Err dA
k0
O
•WrA
ILI 74 0 00
O h0 C '0 N 0 M en d'
04 oi b g N I I M M M N N
0 � I bll . id I I CO N Tr- CO N
44 P N en 't d' en ICI m•
b
— .5 0
(A U
N
- CO cr
H .d O tn
� I
G4 !^10 FtMI I N
O N I CO U
w
'-4) W ., N en I I en W
w
co O
bE
en o I-4 ro
rl
.N
't L 7
— N .-I ,.4 4
'-I
" U U t b
U U
� y
Id Id cd 14
O
..a
— o E+ 0 as Ei F H
m y C Itl to to m
4 O O O P4 W U U U (/0)
56
to agree with the total average building value of $35, 740 listed in
Figure 20.
Building permits issued for single family housing in Weld
County municipalities were also examined according to building value.
Of the twenty (20) Weld County municipalities who issued single family
building permits in 1976, the total average building value was
$24, 752. (Please refer to Figure 21. ) While the average building
value for Weld municipalities for single family construction is
$24, 752, it is important to note that 13 of the 20 communities had a
significant percentage of single family homes built within $1, 000 of
the low building value. For example, the Town of Gilcrest in 1976
issued 20 single family building permits with an average building
value of $16, 900. However, 80 percent of 20 permits issued (16
permits) were for buildings valued within $1, 000 of the low building
value which was $16, 850. Similarly, the Town of Platteville issued
a total of 8 single family permits for 1976 with an average building
value of $26, 886 and a low building value of $18, 500. Of the total
8 single family units, 38 percent, or 3 units, were within $1, 000 of
Platteville' s low building value of $18, 500. By examining Figure 21,
it becomes clear that approximately 98 permits or 26 percent of the
373 total permits issued for Weld communities were within $1, 000 of
low building value.
The third segment which must be examined is housing cost in
unincorporated Weld County. Figure 22 examines the low average
57
0
_ o
W O o 1 I P CD .O OD I I O M M IO .i I O I 1 .O O Lei
0 1 I 00 m ., M I I I[1 M 'd1 N ..I I 111 d' I I .4 N N g Or C 4
O4a
3 14
O
ro re, .a
a 0 44
N- Id 'J 0 I I .O M N .o I it— ..I In M o' I N- N I I .-1 .-I I co
a% q * 11 N I I .4 I I I N O`
4.I
.
y
cd
G y 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 NI O O N O Q O NI N
OD
4 a hi Om OOOOOOt11 OU O N O OOOs I1
me, +4
O ti H I C) CO 410 O O 111 O N ti NI N , O P I 0 o NI N
ll a •5y ' —ti + a N I I
ro m4 ea -I .i N .i NN .+ ..4
Or 4 &'
D
ll OA
CD 0 CD CD CD cD 0 C7 CD CO c0
0 lt 7 I N t- 0 0 O O O O O N• O O 0 0 O 111 Co .O
.. .-i I O O O O O Q O t/1 O N t- t` i as en i O N 0o N
N. .fl '5 � I OCo' tfltll ONN � M or W
NIN' OO I I H l ao' .
M .d m On On N On M N .-i N N• M .i N' Tr on on
O �U E? Or
11 �
0
00 IL m Oa G O t- O .O O O O O O M l- N *O P M O .-I O o0 O N
-+W C Id y O 0o O o0 O O P U1 O CO h .-I C- O O o0 O C> In N I 111
a kb .-I [- .O on oo 0o O NI N P O I17 0o CO 111 O M O t/1 NI N t-
- to
7) ,> .y Id y N.-i .d.O' N CO N CO tl1 N NI O .D ea t11.d to: .-I ""I O•
or
a <4M N .-i N N N N N N N .-I N N N N .-1 on M on .-4N N
ifr Or
CO
C
ro m
y
O w
..I !` O CO m .O 1.0 CO N1 CO 41 NM .i .-I CO N ti N .O .O I M
a• U Ct N N' .i .-. M co .r CD M
ri to ti
el w to
O t0
4 H
r
,--' ) }OO
CO N Li U ri U .�
in— 0 y, to yw y Ci o 'H o o y o g y m
u 0, m u .y .a y v o y q Ti q Ok ,CIO _log
o y ro ti ,: i+ k
k N F O •.+ d +4 0) Id O 0 D
x .aQRlkikiINPWi-, cnk7fi < zxN
.2s,
H
m 4,
O
U
— i
ul
m Si +4 .r.1 +4 +4 r— c0 ti N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .
0
' N
58
O
O
co O S I I I I I N I - I co I I N I t'q
I I I I I I r-I I I I .r i N
q q
...I N
— %I-I .0
O
ro 'CI a
_ t.. C N w
ed 0 0 I I I i I .-1 I .y I ^I I I NH
H A I I I I I I I
C
0
O
U 00
q o O O O O 0 O O O O O O at
O O O O O Q O O O OO O O O+
— o 0 -I N in U1 M I�'1 't d' O� O .
a 7 ' O d1 O` N Ni N .. at d1 I-I 6 6 6
rq N N .-I '-1 r-I N N .-I N en e•4 •••IN
U�
4) 4
— r
td
14 bO
o O q O O O OO OO OO OO OO OO OO O O .P
Ma. .q '. -4 O O O O en In ON Q O 0 en •O
N U m .5 Ti, .O 'd' N M .O M 111 M 111 Q tz N
.ql {):l to 4 In 111 N .O .O In N .O O O .O
ti +4 (y}
O q S
— q
DO tt 0 110
t i 40 b0 C en O co C- O O en m O vii N .O O CO
-I O• W O CO O0 N .O
b . �y �-� O O` N ,� .O .O we W N • M 'elt 111 •O
d ~ •0 CO .a r- 11 111 err t+1 --i CC O OR N1 111 R W
0 y en M M en en VI .0. en en en dI .0, dI en
1:14 CCIb0
C
v 0.1.1
il w
(>a H "O .O O to In D` co N VI O• i-I en 1n t� Imo- ILO
.5, a O NO. .-- .-- to 'dt N to ^'' N
.N
E O m ~ a+ b,
W * ~ 4) 4) 4) 4) 44) 4) .-I
H F+ p t. p 4) o 4) o
„ 4)
Oy o .Ui 6 ¢' Qi FI 4) 7 Id i0i H be &I ir5•.II riy
6 w O
T O .5 p, O 2 0 4) < 1 Id 0
d H C8 V 14 H A II N i t w I<7 m y�
ii
V! 6 a)) 0 < > d 0
I.. x 4 a w F )° 3 a z x w i Z 1
0
H
N y o
U
N co .O r-- W o, o .-I N M e in ,44 to
q H .-I .-I ..I .-I N N N N N N cps .-I •••14)
O t`
59
and high building values for permits issued in 1976. When examining
Figure 22, it should be remembered that Weld County Zoning Regula-
tions prohibit single family construction unless the applicant has the
required minimum lot size. Because the policies contained in the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan are designed to protect and preserve
agriculture in Weld County, the vast majority of the County is zoned
for agricultural use. As such, the minimum lot size within the
agricultural zone is 80 acres in an irrigated area and 160 acres in an
unirrigated area. In this regard, rural subdivisions are discouraged
in Weld County. The development vhich occurs on these lots is
typically done by people that are looking for more than minimum
quality or minimum size, therefore, the building permit values are
higher. Generally, there are very few single family houses built
which are within $1, 000 of the low building value. Of the three areas
examined, i. e., Greeley and vicinity, Weld municipalities, and the
Weld unincorporated area, the Weld County unincorporated housing
values are the greatest. As mentioned earlier, housing value and
costs are greater in the unincorporated areas because of the general
nature of housing in farm or ranching areas. Most persons living in
unincorporated Weld farm or ranch sizable parcels of land, and pre-
sumably can afford a larger or more expensive home - on the average
- than in the Greeley or Weld municipal areas.
By comparing the three areas of housing: 1) Greeley and
vicinity, 2) Weld County municipalities, and 3) unincorporated Weld
60
County, one can better assess the value of housing, and the relative
number of low value houses built. Figure 23 indicates the average
building values for housing in the three areas of Weld. In examining
Figure 23, it is clear that the Weld County municipalities - with the
exception of Greeley - have the lowest average building value, lowest
value of high value housing, and the greatest number and percentage of
housing units within $1, 000 of the average low building value. This
information will be examined further when assessing housing need,
supply, and overall housing conditions. At this point, however, cost
appears to be lowest in Weld communities. This indicates that the
value of housing in terms of square footage, quality or design of the
housing amenities such as bathrooms, appliances, and mechanical
equipment, are considerably less in Weld communities than the value
of housing in the Greeley area and in the unincorporated areas of Weld
County. In addition, Figure 23 clearly indicates that 26% of all
housing in Weld communities (besides Greeley) is in the average low
building value range of approximately $19, 257. No more than 3% of
Greeley' s or Weld' s unincorporated single family housing is within
the average low building value range. Plainly, low value housing is
primarily located in Weld municipalities relative to the Greeley
and Weld unincorporated areas.
61
w
o ri
d
s
—
ro -• N en N N
g >
ro
ova—
a O
NCO O
—
R 69.
6 Ak - Co ill
.U
U
y tip
IC ro N
C 01
— >.• H 9 N N N ON
.di 'CI 41 ik ; O` O
d d
y ti N
k N Q' a y} &} 413.E
„ a
O W
w O
rd p Ca
a C
M
N m p y ro CO m .c
ap .-i d O. .0 .0
0 ya � 5 .a o• N
— O ao b y 00 ? ,.; C
CD 4" ,' 'p en .O
G4 7 to .4 -I ER d} 69
• ...
•-- Z
N
8-4
CO A
a a •
41 "q' bD C N IC
0 N a0 i+
• d N .4- 7 .44 to •O O
.4 `c+ k b It
y N N U
Fi N ..4 t[1 d� a0 0
Oro 44 'y O >. M N M k 09-W r- f.)
.ti I
H w
a, c r to .a .1)
0
Z N N N CO
O T D` CI
cv
o ; 4-4
_ as cc en to5
y N N .O
H G en en N A
".4
it
I U
— a q .4 m o TI ,2
.41
0 RI g+ y °
U .ai .[ Fi ti O U
_. 0 � � bw
0 u M
62
Multi-Family Housing
Multi-family housing costs were examined in order to determine
the number of multi-family units available, and the approximate rents
or leases for a particular unit. In 1977, Weld County Department of
Planning Services, through local building records, estimated the total
number of multi-family units in Weld County to be 752 units. This
_ figure does not, however, include multi-family units in the City of
Greeley. To further examine the size of units available and the range
of rent requested for a particular multi-family unit, Weld County
Planning conducted a rental survey in 1977. The survey inventoried
approximately 465 of the 752 total multi-family units. This survey
represented roughly 62% of all Weld County multi-family units, and
is considered to be reasonably accurate in terms of the distribution
of multi-family units, and range of monthly multi-family rents.
Figure 24 indicates results of the rental survey. Figure 24 indicates
that most of the rental units surveyed in Weld County, excluding
Greeley, are two-bedroom units and cost between $150 and $250
per month, including utilities. It seems significant to note that
there are relatively few three- and four-bedroom units available.
This may imply that a three- or four-bedroom unit is more costly
to build and more unpredictable to market or rent. Furthermore, the
Weld Rental Survey also indicated a vacancy rate of approximately
13% for the 464 units surveyed. Typically, a vacancy rate of between
4% to 6% is considered acceptable. The relatively high vacancy rate
63
-- sralO.r, '" CO 14 NN O
m do
O a)
— in >
N O N N W
-
ul ON
N N N
N N .-, .r
S
i
O * N ,to `O N
O N O ..., .y N
N N ,y .-n
fA O.
.r
y
N N be
ON a
y
ab_, '� N C0
O O1 .-. .-i .-,
U a C
Po > g— 4)
o dr
O
N .-, ,.. en en N T in
O U
a)
_ p N
>
00
W E I U)
444O,„ in Cr- N .-, * N pU+0
— U) .-, .-, M N to .7
>. S 0
a) C
D ,d
O a
— C w
O 74 O N 1..1 .y N 'W O
.r .-,C C
S COC
r4
N
N N
04
ro O
G O en M 4
C
O
m U
m w H
N 4)
--
O O O F,
U) .- is 7., is 'Cl
ati
~ Pp W Pa a)
w
W H u
0
Ca
64
of multi-family units in Weld County municipalities may indicate a
lack of market interest in multi-family construction. Generally, multi-
^ family housing in Weld communities is limited in terms of available
unit sizes, and in the range of monthly rent or lease values.
65
Housing Supply Summary
1. The housing supply for the county was separated into two
categories for analysis: 1) Greeley housing, located in Census
_ Tracts 1 -15, and 2) Weld County Housing, located in Census Tracts
16-25.
2. The housing supply was analyzed in terms of: 1) total num-
ber of housing units, 2) type of housing, i. e. , single family, multi-
family, mobile home, 3) Census Tract location of the housing units,
4) condition of the housing units, i.e. , standard, rehabilitatable,
dilapidated, 5) average age of the single family units, 6) recent con-
struction activity, and 7) housing costs for single family and multi-
family units.
3. There are 20, 010 housing units in Census Tracts 16-25.
Those housing units are: 14, 861 single family dwellings (SFD),
4, 397 mobile homes, and 752 multi-family dwellings (MFD).
4. The condition and location information for the single family
dwellings is presented in Figure 14.
a) The largest supply of standard or usable units is in
Tracts 22, 25, 19 and 21.
b) The largest number of substandard housing units are
in Tracts 25, 19, 20 and 22.
5. There is a total of 8, 252 SFD's, 1, 184 mobile homes and
8, 598 MFD's in Greeley. This results in a total of 18, 034 housing
units.
66
6. The Greeley housing supply is considered to have the follow-
ing condition characteristics: SFD's (includes mobile homes:
Standard - 8, 292, Rehabilita.table - 1, 122, Dilapidated - 22. For
MFD's: Standard - 7, 531, Rehabilitatable - 1, 056, Dilapidated - 11.
7. Multi-family units are located primarily in Greeley - 92%
of all multi-family units are in Greeley.
8. Single family units are primarily in Weld County - 67% of all
single family units are located outside of Greeley.
9. In the long-term, there are several variables which directly
and indirectly affect housing costs. Briefly, the following variables
must be examined in relationship to the cost of housing to the con-
sumer:
a) Land located near urbanized areas tends to demand
higher value than unimproved rural land. One of Weld
County's comprehensive planning policies is to locate
development in or near urbanized areas. This policy
tends to create higher land acquisition costs than if
rural development were allowed or encouraged.
b) Often, local zoning and subdivision regulations do not
allow the developer of a residential subdivision freedom
to satisfy community building standards and land use
regulations, while increasing housing density. For
instance, through greater density and smaller than
67
10, 000 square foot lots, perhaps the overall cost of
housing could be reduced.
c) Most obviously, materials and labor costs have risen
sharply during the past seven years. Similarly, water
and sewer tap fees, drainage and park fees, and street,
curb, and storm sewer costs have risen both for the
municipality and developer.
10. Housing value for Weld County was examined by reviewing
Greeley, Weld County municipalities (excluding Greeley), and unin-
corporated Weld County housing values. Housing value is based on
Uniform Building Code or similar construction value formulae and
does not include the cost of land. In addition, the most recent number
of building permits were tabulated to cross-reference average, high,
and low building values from the total number of single family permits
issued (refer to Figure 23).
11. The average building value or cost of housing in Weld
municipalities is considerably less than Greeley or unincorporated
Weld housing.
12. Over 25% of housing in the Weld communities (excluding
Greeley) is valued within $1, 000 of the average low building value
($19, 257). By comparison, Greeley and unincorporated Weld have
less than 3% of housing within the $1, 000 range of their low building
value housing.
68
13. Most multi-family housing in Weld County (excluding
Greeley) are two-bedroom units and cost between $150 and $250 per
month, including utilities. There are no four-bedroom multi-family
_ units in Weld according to a rental survey prepared by the Weld
Planning Department. There are approximately 752 multi-family
units in Weld County.
Housing Needs
- 1
HOUSING NEEDS
The Housing Needs chapter of the Weld County Housing Plan is
based upon the information contained in the Population and Housing
Supply chapters. The needs assessment will identify the extent of
housing problems as well as potential opportunities in Weld County so
that citizens may better understand housing issues, developers may
plan for site selection and construction activities, and decision
makers, public or private, may better evaluate land use and housing
questions and proposals. The Needs chapter will form the basis for
the Housing Policy chapter. Policies will be developed and evaluated
according to their ability to meet the identified and anticipated needs.
Once again, upon combination of the population and housing
supply information, the Weld County housing need can be established.
Housing need, housing demand and housing supply are terms that
should be defined before progressing further. Housing need is a
basic requirement and is experienced by all households, i. e., a
requirement for shelter. Housing demand is expressed by households
that can compete in the housing market. Such a household may be
limited by certain elements of housing choice, for example, location,
type or price, but is not fully prevented from participation by cost
factors or discrimination. A household which does not have the
economic means to compete or is otherwise prevented from
71
participation in the housing market is still experiencing housing need.
The housing supply is the number of housing units. The usable
housing supply is composed of standard dwellings at a variety of
prices. Weld County's usable housing supply is presented in
Figure 25. (See the Population chapter for complete explanations. )
Figure 25
Weld County's Usable Housing Supply, 1977
SFD* MFD Total
Greeley 8, 292 7, 531 15,823
Weld County 17, 332 667 18, 009
Total 25, 624 8, 208 33, 832
*Includes mobile homes
Specifically, Weld County's housing need will be determined
from the following housing situation characteristics: the usable
housing supply, the need to replace substandard units, the number of
households, and the number of households unable to compete in the
housing market or whose needs are not being met by the existing
supply. In some cases, the need will be based on general indications.
In other cases, the need will be identifiable in specific terms or even
in numbers of units. Regardless, the need identified will be based on
information generally available and will be addressed by the policies
in the Housing Policy chapter.
72
Housing Needs Characteristics
Before beginning the County's housing need discussion, it might
be helpful to relate housing cost information to a household's ability to
bear that cost. In 1970, the Census indicated that there were 10, 629
persons living in Weld County in households with incomes below 80%
of the median income. The 10, 629 persons lived in 2663 households
for an average 3. 99 persons/household. This information is shown
in Figure 26. As presented in the Population Chapter, the low income
population was 12% of the County's total population and is assumed
to continue at that proportion. Therefore, in 1975 it was estimated
that there were 12, 888 low income persons in the County and, in 1977,
13, 680 low income persons are estimated. If the persons per
household ratio remains constant, then in 1975 there were 3, 230
low income households and in 1977 there are 3, 429 low income
households. A low income household in 1977 earns less than $10, 400.
Current HUD and mortgage banking guidelines on dwelling
expenditures specify that a household should spend no more than 25%
of their monthly income for shelter. In addition, a home should not
typically cost more than two to two and one-half times the household's
annual income. Therefore, if the guidelines are followed by the low
income household, the monthly housing expense would be less than
$216 and the dwelling would have a purchase price no higher than
$20, 800 to $26, 000.
— 73
y
.M
N O. 10 H .O dt O M N •y to en O D` 4 O• N on .O M M N N 0.
i�b O•
-- 1. to M .o N dt in in O 00. N 111 N M 00 N .r '.p O CO T N .r .O M O•
Q1 M M N M dt M N 4 M N M M dt M dt 'It dt dt <M M eN dt M dt M
O
.ti
N pt
yro
0
O °
A Id tf1 O O O dt D` O to to sN .O .O M o1 N O M O M N N OD M
I14 d a0 M M CO N M N N M lf1 CO M .O N D` O O D` � N LO N8-1 N .O
N ...i .r 4t ...i N •.+ M .r N .r N .O
O x C.I.
U
1
p, co
to SU q
0
+' N N NP O 0. M N 40 CO N M 111 .O N H M CO .-I N 'dt .0 CO N ."t O•
iy 0 .0 1f1 0 O` O O .0 M O• .O 0. 0. .ti to to N O. 111 N In u1 04 N .0 dt N
D to a .O dt b M M 4 . y N r . .-t M .. N OO in ' t N Vt 1n •, .O O` qa
PI O if
co .w
O N
m O`
— is . i
AP at
N
w ~
O ° 4 t c0
dt 4 N lh N O .O O OO 00 •D t11 N O 00 00 O dt M M h co ep
0
V� M Oh N .i [" .-1 T 00 f" O. .O CO .-� CO •'•i [- l- CO el, 00 O
— k i1 • • • • • ' .
L0U '4 We
.44 to M M v M Tr V, m V4 M M on M M M I. en di M M M M M 't
Z O. o a•
gat '5v ro
0 O .S'. M O ro 00 CO 0. N O M at •-tp• 0 O N N CO O. to N N .'t O` C0 s� 00 �
b ..i y O. 00 O` 00 in 0. N W CO 1n .-i N N dt O• W O` -t 00 .0 .0 .0 ' t to o U
U pi m .w 00 w"^ N N N O N W N M N CO .O M N O• ' t O N N .° N N N O 2
O xi w
.0 b 0 0 -1 •-1 .-i .-1 N •-i .-i .w - N t7
,— 7 g0 x N O
q
701 g
_ 03 0 o m
O CO N %000COCON C
pgo N 7 O. CD "4 to N O ti N ti to 1n N °. dt N .-+ CO N M Tv dt Vt to o
dt ti C St 0. .r M N .0 N 'W co in M M co N co co N N N O. CO CO .0 'yj
a . w w w wl
O to 1n dt N .y W M M N .-+ dl M N .r N t•'I N [� '� dt .O N yt N
P' o
a
0
Z
tO y a7
U .y N M dt 111 .O N 00 °• O �-. N M dt to .° N OD a` O ..t N M ar 111 C
my• !d .a .y ..r .r .r .-i .+ .-t .-� .-i N N N N N N F
O F
U ` .
74
As presented in the Housing Supply chapter, the average low
building value for all of Weld County, including Greeley, ranged
between $15, 726 and $20, 929. These figures do not include land
costs, an additional $5, 000 to $10, 000 should be added for lot acqui-
sition. For instance, current lot prices in the Greeley area average
around $7, 500. Realizing low-income households may realistically
afford housing priced no more than between $20, 800 and $26, 000, it is
interesting that in Greeley only eleven units were constructed in
1975 which had a combined lot and structure value of less than $26, 000.
The remaining 367 permits issued in Greeley for 1975 were for struc-
tures beyond the financial grasp of the low income households.
By comparison, lot prices in the Weld County municipalities
average around $6, 000. The 1976 average low building value was
$19, 257 and 98 permits were issued for structures valued within
$1, 000 of the town's low building value. It is significant to note that
26% of all single-family construction in 1976 for Weld communities
was valued within $1, 000 of the average low building value of
$19, 257. Milliken had the lowest building value at $13, 104. The
town with the highest low value was Keenesburg with their lowest
priced structure valued at $27, 000. Weld municipalities offered the
low income household the best opportunity for purchasing a new home.
However, the number of new units within range of the low income
household's resources would house only 3% of the 3, 429 low income
households in 1977.
75
The unincorporated areas of Weld County had higher average
lot values than the Greeley area and the Weld municipalities. The
average lot in an estate or residential zone district was valued at
$8, 500. This land price coupled with an average low building value
of $20, 929 made it virtually impossible for low income households
to purchase new housing in the unincorporated areas of Weld County
in 1976.
In reviewing the average low building values for housing in
Greeley, Weld communities, and unincorporated Weld, it appears as
— though the housing prospects for the low income household are not
ideal in terms of housing which is affordable. There are several
options which might make it possible for the low income household
to reside in a safe, decent structure. One such option is to rent
housing. However, as can be seen in Chapter III, there are only
752 multi-family units outside of Greeley and none of them could
accommodate large families. Most of the non-Greeley multi-family
dwellings had monthly rents between $175. 00 and $225. 00, very close
to the 25% guideline for low income households.
While housing for low income households does appear scarce in
terms of supply and cost, several low income families may be living
in homes which were purchased 10 to 20 years ago when prices and
mortgage rates were considerably less than today. Information on
length of tenure is not currently available, but will be determinable
from the 1980 Census.
76
Financial assistance from the state or Federal government
may be making it possible for low income households to live in
proper accommodations. As a matter of fact, many of the building
permits issued in Weld's municipalities in 1976 were for units
financed by the Farmer's Home Administration of the U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. The Veterans Administration and the Federal
Housing Administration also make it easier for those with limited
means to purchase decent housing. Rental assistance programs also
are available in Weld County. The Greeley Housing Authority offers
rental assistance to families as well as to senior citizens. However,
rental assistance outside of Greeley is limited to senior citizens.
Finally, in order to find adequate shelter, some households may
be over-extending their financial capability by spending more than 25%
of their monthly income on housing expenses. This, however, is not
likely to be the situation for households seeking to purchase new
housing. Banks and other lending institutions are quite unlikely to
vary beyond established guidelines unless the household has extremely
unusual circumstances. The most probable situation is that the low
income household has accumulated various debt obligations which
reduces their ability to pay average or even low housing cost. The
result for the low income household is to live in substandard or
dilapidated housing which is too small to accommodate the household
properly. The critical point is that the low income household has a
77
housing need which they cannot effectively meet without financial
assistance.
-,
78
Housing Need Assessment
In the Greeley area Census Tracts there are 18, 034 dwelling
units. Of these, 15, 823 are standard and considered usable. There
is a total of 2, 178 substandard units which can be rehabilitated and
33 which are dilapidated. In terms of income characteristics for the
Greeley area, there are at least 1, 086 households with incomes below
80% of the median income. Combined, low income households,
rehabilitatable units, and dilapidated units comprise housing need for
the Greeley area. Where rehabilitatable and dilapidated units exist,
— it is felt there is an obvious and immediate need to provide assistance.
Low income households are also included in the total need assessment
for several reasons: 1) While a low income household may not occupy
either rehabilitatable or dilapidated housing, it is increasingly clear
that a low income household will need better housing in the future in
terms of housing supply, location, type, and affordability. It is
assumed that without some form of assistance, the needs of the low
income household will be ignored and will, in time, contribute to or
increase the number of households in need of safe and decent housing.
2) Low incomes are believed to be directly related to housing.
Because there are 1, 086 low income households in the Greeley area,
it is assumed that a portion of their income which must pay for
housing is also reducing their ability to pay for food, health, recrea-
tion, and other needs. Therefore, low income is included as a
79
characteristic of housing need - one which is as obvious as households
now living in rehabilitatable or substandard units.
This information translates into the following table, Figure 27.
Figure 27
Greeley Housing Assistance Need, 1977
Low Income Households 1, 086 (minimum)
Rehabilitatable Units 2, 178 (minimum)
Dilapidated Units 33
Assisted Units Needed 3, 297
In the Weld County Census Tracts, 18, 009 units are usable,
1, 802 units are considered rehabilitatable and 200 are dilapidated.
There are at least 1, 577 low income households in the 10 Census
Tracts. Figure 28 reflects the minimum need for assisted units in
Census Tracts 16-25.
Figure 28
Weld County Housing Assistance Need, 1977
Low Income Households 1, 577 (minimum)
Rehabilitatable Units 1, 801 (minimum)
Dilapidated Units 200
Assisted Units Needed 3, 578
80
Figure 29
Total Housing Assistance Need, 1977
Low Income Households 3, 429
Rehabilitatable Units 3, 979 (minimum)
Dilapidated Units 233
Assisted Units Needed 7, 641
In the 10 Weld County Census Tracts, there is a marked lack of
multi-family units. However, currently there is approximately a
13% vacancy rate in the 752 units. This is caused by two large com-
plexes in one community. When those complexes are ignored com-
pletely, the County supply drops to 564 units which are 6% vacant.
In spite of the vacancy rate, there is a need to supply more multi-
family housing in Weld County. Specifically, in those areas of Weld
County outside the Greeley vicinity. As mentioned earlier, 92% of all
multi-family units are located in Greeley. According to the Weld
County Rental Survey, Figure 24, most multi-family units in Weld
County are two-bedroom units and cost between $175 and $225 per
month, including utilities. In terms of need, there is a determined
need for three and four bedroom multi-family units which are afford-
- able for low to moderate income families. It is important to recog-
nize the advantage of multi-family housing for such groups as
senior citizens, minorities, and low income. As discussed, the
average cost of housing in Weld County is increasing dramatically -
81
such that the ability to purchase single family housing is limited to
those with an adequate income and sufficient down payment. For
some, like senior citizens and low income households, multi-family
housing is not an option, but a need. Moreover, there is a need for
multi-family housing to provide a reasonable selection of multi-
family units in terms of size, location, and price.
Based upon the information presented in the preceding chapters
on population characteristics and housing supply characteristics in
the Weld County Census Tracts, the need for housing assistance to
low income households is highest in Census Tracts 23, 16, 22, 25, and
19. This is determined from the correlation of number and percent
information concerning persons with incomes less than 80% of the
median income. Assistance in eliminating substandard dwelling
units should be directed to Census Tracts 20, 19, 25, 22 and 16.
Special concern with respect to housing assistance should be placed
in the Census Tracts which have low income and substandard unit
characteristics. Those Tracts are 22, 25, 16 and 19. The needs of
the senior population in Weld County is likely to be highest in Census
Tracts 25, 21, 22, 19 and 23. Care should also be taken to ensure
that discrimination, based on membership in a.niinority group, is not
allowed in any Census Tract. The minority population is most sign-
'- ficant in concentration and actual number in Census Tracts 19, 23,
17, 20 and 22. Figure 30 shows the Weld County Census Tract's
82
number of occurrences on the four housing assistance variables
(low income, substandard housing, senior population and Spanish
population).
Figure 30
Weld County Census Tract (16-25) Housing
Assistance Variable Occurrences
Occurrences Census Tracts
4 22, 19
3 25, 23
2 20, 16
1 21, 17
Note: Housing Assistance Variables are: 1. Low income population,
2. Substandard housing units, 3. Senior population, and
4. Spanish population.
This chapter has identified the housing need as specifically as
possible. However, Weld County' s major concern is not to identify
static, one—time numbers for need levels, rather the county' s con-
cern is with establishing policies which may be utilized in address-
ing housing needs which can be identified through annual use of the
Housing Monitoring Study methodology. The county will use the
methodology to measure progress in meeting the needs which are
identified each year. In this way, the policies and actions of Weld
County and the Weld municipalities related to housing and the pro-
- vision of housing services can be realigned to be more responsive to
community desires and housing needs.
83
Annual use of the Housing Monitoring Study methodology will
allow for a chronologic analysis of population and housing character-
- istics. The annual information will aid immensely in future housing
planning activities. One major concern to the authors of this plan
has been the use of updated 1970 census information. The 1970 census,
while approximately seven years old, is the most reliable information
on population characteristics available. The updating process
utilized offered the best method of comparing information from the
same time period.
•
Housing Policies
HOUSING POLICIES
The Policy Chapter of the Weld County Housing Plan is perhaps
the most significant of all - for several reasons. First, housing
policies are intended to help officials and residents of Weld County
in the decision-making process. Policies are specific measures,
programs, or alternatives which provide guidelines to solving
identified housing needs in Weld County. Policies are, by definition,
action oriented and designed to be implementable. Clearly, then, the
policies listed below represent Weld County's determined commit-
ment to better housing. Secondly, because housing is so complex,
the policy section of the Weld Housing Plan identifies specific areas
of major need where housing programs and guidelines are perhaps
most needed. In this regard, the policy chapter of the Weld Housing
Plan is most concerned with the following aspects of housing and has
based the majority of policies on the following:
1. The location, type, and condition of housing varies
tremendously throughout Weld County. In the Housing
Needs Chapter, several areas were compared and identi-
fied in order to determine need. By examining housing
supply, condition, cost, present and future population,
extent of senior citizen population, poverty level, and
number and location of minorities, much of the housing
need was determined. Most of the following housing
policies will directly pertain to those identified areas
where housing need is determined to be significant.
However, all housing policies are generally applicable
to Weld County.
86
_ 2. The housing policies are considered to be applicable
and appropriate in terms of Weld County' s existing land
use regulations, overall organization and administration,
and determined housing needs.
3. It is assumed that housing problems of all groups must
be considered - large families, the elderly, minorities,
low income families, and even middle incomes. As
such, the Weld Housing Policies reflect guidlines for all
groups even though only certain groups and incomes were
examined.
4. A major premise throughout the Housing Policy Chapter
relates to the acceptance and suitability of assisted or
subsidized housing. Many of the policies listed below
assume that assisted housing programs, if properly
placed and utilized, can be a positive benefit for the
community, for example, stabilizing and raising prop-
- erty values. It is also assumed that assisted housing
can be developed where vacant land exists within a
community to take advantage of existing services.
5. Finally, the Policy Chapter of the Weld County Housing
Plan is a commitment to change existing procedures,
assumptions, and attitudes in order to better achieve
safe and affordable housing for Weld residents.
Generally, the Weld County Housing Policies should be considered as
the most prescriptive, accurate, and reasonable approach to reaching
solutions to housing problems in Weld. As new or more detailed
information becomes available, certain modifications in policy may be
necessary. For the sake of organization and better understanding,
goals and objectives are introduced prior to listing housing policies.
Once again, goals are abstract and tend to exceed what may, in fact,
be reasonably expected. Nevertheless, goals are helpful in deter-
mining broad categories which may later be further defined. Objec-
tives more clearly specify a general course of action which might be
87
followed. Objectives typically narrow a goal statement and define
more clearly a program or implementation procedures. Policies,
as discussed above, readily define specific methods, programs,
and/or alternatives which are used by a community in their decision-
making process.
Housing Goals
General:
1. To adequately house all of Weld County residents.
2. To expand the range of housing opportunity for everyone.
3. To conserve that portion of Weld' s housing inventory that
is usable (standard); and to repair and/or rehabilitate
the deteriorating housing stock.
4. To encourage the development and utilization of all
appropriate residential services, particularly those affect-
ing the quality of life of low and moderate income families.
5. To provide all individuals with a reasonable choice of
housing types, locations, and values, all within well-
planned, harmonious, stable, and structurally sound
residential environments.
6. To encourage cooperation between the public and private
sector in the provision of housing and housing services.
Housing Objectives
1. To indicate the general locations of proposed housing for
low-income persons.
2. To analyze and evaluate alternative methods of providing
housing assistance to low and moderate income residents.
3. To promote greater choice of housing opportunities and
- avoid undue concentrations of low-income persons.
88
_ 4. To ensure the provision of public facilities and services
adequate to serve proposed housing projects.
_ 5. To promote the conservation and rehabilitation of existing
housing through land use and growth management policies.
_ 6. To review existing building codes and zoning ordinances to
determine where they might be amended to allow greater
flexibility for redevelopment and rehabilitation activities.
7. To cooperate with local financial and lending institutions
to increase the availability of construction and mortgage
financing for older and new homes.
8. To promote programs to provide financial assistance to
persons wishing to preserve or rehabilitate older homes.
9. To ensure that development review procedures do not result
in unnecessary delays and overhead costs.
10. To encourage residential Planned Unit Development (PUD),
and other appropriate development proposals which permit
innovative and economical land use and building practices
with emphasis on quality design and construction.
11. To encourage developers of old and new housing to plan and
construct innovative projects which conserve energy, and
create the least environmental harm to a site area.
12. To preserve historical or unique buildings or houses in
older neighborhoods.
13. To encourage better housing in Weld communities by pro-
- viding technical assistance in the identification and prepara-
tion of a housing needs assessment and housing plan.
14. To eliminate and prevent discrimination in housing and the
provision of public services to housing.
15. To encourage local officials in Weld County municipalities
to adopt the goals of the Weld County Housing Plan and to
pursue the goals once adopted.
89
Housing Policies
1. To ensure that assisted or subsidized housing shall not be
developed in any area that is unsuitable for residential
development.
2. To use the methodology provided in the Housing Monitoring
Study to annually, measure progress towards meeting the
housing needs of Weld County.
3. To use these goals, objectives and policies to assist in
providing at least 7, 641 assisted units, as identified in the
Housing Needs chapter in Weld County.
4. To provide rehabilitation assistance in areas showing the
greatest need for preservation before assistance is made
in other areas.
5. To coordinate the provision of housing assistance with the
availability of public services.
6. To coordinate the development of residential areas with
the policies contained in other plans and programs, speci-
fically state, regional or local functional or land use plans
which affect the delivery of services to housing units.
7. To establish a Housing Authority which can operate
effectively to provide housing assistance.
8. To seek State and Federal financial and technical assistance
for Weld' s residents.
9. To encourage the various financial institutions to place
more of their assets in housing.
10. To encourage local and State persion funds to consider
housing as a viable long-term investment in the County,
and in the region, and to increase their participation in the
financing of housing units.
11. To ensure that lenders treat all parts of the County and
areas of communities in an equitable, uniform manner so
that discrimination on the basis of "section of town" is
— eliminated.
90
12. To ensure that financing is available for old and new units,
for sales and rental housing, and for the rehabilitation of
structures.
13. To take advantage of the whole range of federal programs,
singularly or in combination, in such a manner as to
coordinate attempts to satisfy housing and community
needs.
14. To provide adequate community facilities in the proper
locations so that neighborhoods may be preserved and the
benefits of the facilities will be available to the maximum
number of people at the lowest cost to the community at
large.
15. To use codes and regulations in concert with public utilities
extension policies so that the present supplies of land
within and close to urban areas are used up before new,
more distant areas are urbanized.
16. To ensure that a fair and equitable property tax system
is available so that each enterprise or individual pays his
fair share of the community's costs.
17. To aggressively seek the development of a broad range
of single-family, senior citizen, and multi-family housing.
18. To ensure that areas subject to flooding are adequately
protected from the construction of structures that would be
damaged by high waters.
19. To strive to incorporate urban design concepts in planning
project proposals in order to take advantage of natural
contours, topographical features, views, and existing trees.
20. To encourage local developers and construction firms to
plan and construct innovative projects which conserve
energy, and create the least environmental harm to a site
area.
21. To preserve historical or unique buildings or houses in
older neighborhoods.
Appendix
92
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I Municipal Housing Report Introduction 93
II Methodology 96
III Housing Policies 104
IV Housing Reports 108
The preparation of this report was financially
aided through a Federal grant from the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development under
the Community Planning and Development Pro-
gram authorized by Section 701 of the Housing
Act of 1954, as amended.
June, 1977
Municipal Housing Report
Introduction
94
Introduction
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 made it possible for the
Federal Government to assist local governments with land use and
housing planning issues. Recent Federal action has made specific
requirements of local governments to address housing issues within
their communities. The Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment now requires local governments to adopt land use and housing
plans before they will make any more planning assistance available.
The Housing Act of 1974 created the Community Development Block
Grant program. That program requires grantees to develop and
implement a Housing Assistance Plan which 1) surveys the local
housing stock, 2) assesses the housing needs of lower income house-
_
holds residing or expected to reside in the community, 3) specifies
realistic annual goals for meeting the perceived housing needs, and
4) identifies general locations of proposed housing directed to meet
the housing need.
To further the requirement for land use and housing plans, the
Colorado Division of Planning has begun a program whereby unfavor-
able comments are provided in the A-95 process if any proposed
federal grant, loan, project, or program is not in conformance with
an adopted land use or housing plan. The Division of Planning has
taken the position that any activity which has land use or housing
implications should be in line with a Master Plan. To do otherwise, it
is felt, will not enhance the quality of life we know in Colorado.
95
The information on the single family housing stock in Weld
County municipalities is provided with the federal and state require-
ments in mind. The information is designed to be combined with
other information, available to a given town, in order to complete a
housing plan or a Housing Assistance Plan. It should be remembered
that this information is not intended to discourage or alarm anyone,
but rather it is presented to help the Town Boards better assess their
town' s condition and plan for the best possible futures.
The Municipal Housing Section is made a part of the Weld
County Housing Plan for several reasons. First, many Weld commu-
nities who currently have comprehensive plans either do not have a
housing element, or have insufficient housing data to satisfy HUD's
housing plan requirements. It is felt that much of the information
provided may be used to assist local municipalities in the development
_ of a Housing Plan. Secondly, while the information provided for Weld
communities on local housing is limited to housing supply and con-
dition, it is felt that the local municipalities in the Weld area are
best able to determine future population and housing need based on
local criteria. Finally, the Municipal Section of the Housing Plan is
considered a start - a beginning to better understanding housing
needs in Weld County.
Methodology
97
Methodology
The information contained in this report was obtained through
use of the Housing Monitoring Study Methodology. This methodology
was developed by the Weld County Planning Department in 1974 in
order to automate or computerize key data on housing in Weld County.
The methodology was first used in 1975 to prepare a study on housing
in Greeley. This study served as a model for future studies and
resulted in several changes in the methodology. In 1976 the study
methodology was changed slightly and information was presented for
all of Weld County. This year, 1977, there were more changes in
the methodology to allow for more consistent data analysis. The
information in this report was developed through use of the most
recent methodology.
Basically, the components of the Housing Monitoring Method-
- ology contain five data files: 1) the Housing Conditions file which
contains structural information from the County Assessor's residential
appraisal files; 2) the Real Property file which is prepared by the
Assessor and contains housing value information; 3) the Apartment
file which contains information on apartments in Weld County; 4)
the Building Permit file which contains information on the newly con-
, structed dwelling units in Weld County; and, 5) the Cross Reference
file which is designed to compare the information in several other
files. Together these files are able to present rather detailed
98
information that otherwise would not be available without periodic,
costly housing surveys.
The Housing Condition file was used in combination with the
Cross Reference file to determine the number of single family dwel-
ling units in each municipality. Each dwelling unit was analyzed to
determine its condition. The condition analysis was performed
according to the diagram on the following page. Each unit was tested
on three items (size, heat and plumbing) to determine if the unit met
those criteria. If the unit was larger than 600 square feet, had cen-
tral heat throughout its area, and had the necessary plumbing com-
ponents, then the unit was considered standard. If, however, the
unit failed one or more of the tests, it was considered substandard.
The substandard units then underwent another test to further classify
them. This test involved a computer analysis of the costs necessary
to make the unit pass the first three tests for size, heat and plumb-
ing. Since the Department of Housing and Urban Development will
not allow its funds to be used for rehabilitation if the costs of the
rehabilitation are more than 50% of the units value, the final test
separated the rehabilitatable units from the dilapidated units, accord-
- ing to the cost of repairs or additions to the dwelling unit.
The information presented on the number of new residential
units was obtained from municipal building officials and is a part of
the Building Permit file. The Building Permit file contains infor-
- mation on the number of new units constructed annually as well as
_ O HO
CC
0 0
z \ W«,
CO 0 FM
§
\ � \�
ll
�� e
N N §§ o\ X/ �
— os
• ^ E §2 § 2 e \ k�
® mo m & Rem ®I
2 Z ° SAW � mq--
° � § ® ■ § ' f \ b °E
- $ \m % ± MaG�
...
\ 0 / /q �� Cal
2
\ 4
mal CC § \ ) CC
O
� « A ] § � §
8 ■ « w 2
— [ § /] /) CO
/ ) ( ] / 3 § §ix
— p ; n U) EA -' 4E.a
o q , Z � ow
) § ° w §ri
OW
.-- i
§ 2 §�
'CZ C.)...
N al
4 iti mom )
■ ® ,• EEi '
—
�
MI 0 0 \
100
information on the cost of construction of those units. The values
shown reflect only the value of the structure, not of the building lot.
The cost of the building site could add approximately $5, 000 to
$10, 000 to the cost of the home. Information is presented on the
average building value, high building value and low building value.
Also shown with the Building Permit information is the number of
units constructed with values within $1, 000 of the low building value.
This figure could indicate that a significant portion of the 1976 build-
ing activity was in the lower priced range for the town. For example,
a town might issue 20 building permits with an average value of
$25, 000 and a low building value of $20, 000. If 16 of the 20 permits
were valued within $1, 000 of the $20, 000 value (less than $21, 000)
that would indicate that a significant percentage of the building acti-
vity was at the lower end of the current price spectrum. It would
also be apparent that the remaining four units would have a high
average value.
Every attempt has been made to present complete and accurate
— information on housing within Weld County municipalities. In some
cases, incomplete information is presented. The balance of the
information should be available soon and when it is, it will be pre-
- sented to the town involved.
In reviewing the information presented in this report, it will be
helpful to refer to the following list of terms and their definitions:
101
Capital Improvements Major Town facilities such as parks,
streets, water and sewer lines and the
Town Hall.
Capital Improvements A five year budget based on priorities
Program designed to provide for replacement,
maintenance, or upgrading Major Town
Facilities.
Community Facilities Improvements owned by the Town such
_ as parks, streets, water and sewer
lines and the Town Hall, Also referred
to as capital improvements.
Development The result of a land use change from
agricultural or open to residential,
commercial, or industrial.
Dilapidated A dilapidated housing unit is one which
_ has sufficient defects to make the coat
of repairing those defects more than
50% of the units replacement cost.
Dwelling Unit A place designed for residence; may be
either a single family house, a mobile
home, or a unit in a multi-family com-
plex. A dwelling unit must have a
kitchen, bath, and living facilities.
Flood Hazard Area An area which stands at least one chance
in one hundred of being flooded. This
_ area extends from the center line of a
water course to the outer limit of water
resulting from a "one hundred year
storm. "
Floodway The main channel of a river or stream
or the pathway of water resulting from
a flood.
Goal The end toward which effort is directed,
it is something to be sought, it is gen-
eral and timeless.
Household A group of people, related or not
related, living in a dwelling unit.
102
Housing Authority An agent of the local government which is
empowered to define housing needs, pre-
- pare specific plans to meet the needs and
implement the plan to meet the housing
needs. A Housing Authority may engage
in new construction, rehabilitation,
leasing, direct assistance payments,
management and maintenance activities.
A Housing Authority is able to administer
a wide variety of programs and to receive
funds through numerous state and federal
programs. A Housing Authority may
issue tax exempt revenue bonds indepen-
dent of the local bonding capacity and is
tax exempt. However, the Housing
Authority may agree to make payments
in lieu of taxes.
Housing Need Housing need is determined upon exami-
nation of various socio-economic factors
in conjunction with information on the
condition of the housing supply.
Objective An end of action, a point to be reached.
It is capable of both attainment and
measurement. Objectives are succes-
sive levels of achievement in the move-
ment toward a goal.
PUD Planned Unit Development. A form of
development usually characterized by
a unified site design for a number of
housing units, clustering buildings and
providing common open space, density
increases, and a mix of building types
and land uses. It permits the planning
of a project and the calculation of den-
- cities over the entire development,
rather than on an individual lot by lot
basis.
Rehabilitatable A housing unit which needs repairs or
additions to be considered standard
is considered rehabilitatable if the costs
of making the required remedies is less
than 50% of the units replacement cost.
103
Standard A housing unit is considered standard
in this report if it is larger than 600
square feet, has central heat throughout
its area and has adequate plumbing
facilities of hot and cold water, sink,
tub or shower and commode.
Urban Renewal A governmental program generally
aimed at the renovation of blighted
areas through public expenditures for
replacing slums with better housing,
rehabilitating or conserving sound
structures and providing opportunities
_ for new and better commercial, indus-
trial, and public buildings as well as
for an improved environment.
Zoning A police power measure, enacted by
local government with special permis-
- sion from the State Legislature, in which
the community is divided into districts
or zones within which permitted and
special uses are established as are
regulations governing lot size, building
bulk, placement and other development
standards. Requirements vary from
district to district, but they must be
uniform within districts.
Housing Policies
1.05
Housing Policy
Once the housing need has been defined for a community, it is
possible to select goals and objectives to address the need. Goal
statements are general in nature, they are timeless in that they are
continually sought objectives, on the other hand, are specific state-
ments which are capable of measurement and of being attained. The
satisfaction of objectives results in progress towards achieving
goals. Together, goals and objectives formulate a policy of the local
government, in this case, a housing policy.
Following is a set of goals and objectives which can be adopted
by Weld County municipalities to establish housing policies. All of
these goals and objectives may not be appropriate for use by every
municipality. It is also possible that additional goal and objective
statements may be required by a municipality. Therefore, these
statements should be considered by the town and evaluated for their
appropriateness. The staff of the Weld County Department of Plan-
ning Services is available to each community in the County for assist-
_ ance in this endeavor should they desire that assistance.
GOAL: Provide all individuals with an equal opportunity for
safe and decent housing.
GOAL: Provide all individuals with a choice of housing type
and location.
106
Objectives
— * Ensure that the price distribution of houses is in accordance
with the income distribution of the residents of the commu-
nity.
* Ensure that all areas of the community are provided with
equal and adequate public facilities, utilities and services.
* Encourage the use of residential Planned Unit Development
to:
1. Increase the net population density of an area
without increasing the overall population level;
2. Reduce the cost of providing public services to the
area;
3. Reduce the development costs for the developer; and
4. Increase the park and open space area by reducing
the size of individual lots in order to increase the
size of common open space.
* Aggressively seek the development of a broad range of
single-family, senior citizen, and multi-family housing.
* Encourage residential Planned Unit Development (PUD),
and other appropriate development proposals which permit
innovative and economical land use and building practices
with emphasis on quality design and construction.
* Avoid incompatible commercial and business activities
which have a significant negative impact upon predomi-
nately residential areas.
* Promote a community effort to encourage the maintenance
of standard units and rehabilitation of substandard units.
_ * Encourage new residential construction within and adjacent
to areas where adequate facilities and services exist.
* Encourage methods of construction and site design which
would conserve energy, such as solar heating systems.
* Ensure that areas subject to flooding are adequately pro-
tected from the construction of structures that would be
damaged by high waters.
107
* Encourage the use of waterways, including irrigation
canals, to be developed in harmony with the environment,
and in accord with park and open space needs.
* Strive to incorporate urban design concepts in planning
proposals in order to take advantage of natural contours,
topographical features, views, and existing trees.
— * Encourage local developers and construction firms to
plan and construct innovative projects which conserve energy,
and create the least environmental harm to a site area.
* Preserve historical or unique buildings or houses in older
neighborhoods.
* Encourage the various financial institutions to place more
of their assets in housing.
* Encourage local and State pension funds to consider housing
as a viable long term investment in the region, and in
Colorado, and to increase their participation in the financing
of housing units.
* Ensure that lenders treat all parts of the region and areas
of communities in an equitable, uniform manner so that
discrimination on the basis of "section of town" is elimi-
nated.
* Ensure that financing is available for old and new units,
for sales and rental housing, and for the rehabilitation of
structures.
% Take advantage of the whole range of federal programs,
singularly or in combination, in such a manner as to
coordinate attempt to satisfy housing and community needs.
• To use codes and regulations in concert with public utilities
extension policies so that the present supplies of land
within and close to urban areas are used up before new,
more distant areas are urbanized.
Mousing Reports
Ault
P.O. Box 98, 80610
Phone: 834-2844
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type, Number of Units
Single Family 266
Mobile Home 73
Apartments 32
Total Dwelling Units 371
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition. Number of Units
Standard 233
Rehabilitatable 29
Dilapidated —4
Total 266
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
1 $35, 001 -- -- --
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Dacono
80514
Phone: 833-2317
- HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 132
Mobile Home 650
Apartments 4
Total Dwelling Units 786
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 107
Rehabilitatable 20
Dilapidated —5
Total 132
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
2 $28,250 $32,000 $24,500 0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Eaton
Town Hall, 80615
Phone: 454-2876
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 1389
Mobile Home 3
Apartments 39
Total Dwelling Units 1431
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 240
Rehabilitatable 19
Dilapidated 2
Total 261
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
-' Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value ' Value Value of low value
13 $25, 003 $32,900 $22,002 7
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Erie
Town Hall, 80516
Phone: 1-828-3843
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 372
Mobile Home 20
Apartments 11
Total Dwelling Units 403
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 338
Rehabilitatable 38
Dilapidated 6
Total 382
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Single Family
_ Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
14 $25, 000 $34,500 $17,000 7
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
1 4 4 $35,900 $8,975
Evans
P.O. Box 59, 80620
Phone: 356-6770
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 1032
Mobile Home 376
Apartments 374
Total Dwelling Units 1782
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 942
Rehabilitatable 85
Dilapidated 5
Total 1032
BUILDING ACTIVITY ,1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
106 $19,220 $38,888 $16,494 21
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
2 6 12 $40,000 $6,666
Firestone
P.O. Box 100, 80520
Phone: 833-3291
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 151
Mobile Home 58
Apartments —4
Total Dwelling Units 213
_ HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 145
Rehabilitatable 6
Dilapidated
Total 151
•
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
16 $28, 000 $30,000 $25,000 6
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
— Permits Units/Bldg. Of Units Value Value
Frederick
P.O. Box 435, 80530
Phone: 833-2307
HOUSING SUPPLY, 1977
Type Number Of Units
Single Family 210
Mobile Home --
Apartments 3
Total Dwelling Units 213
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977 •
Condition Number of Units
Standard 187
Rehabilitatable 16 -
— Dilapidated 7
Total 210
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value - Of low value
5 $22,400 $25,000 $17, 000 • 0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
- Permits Units/Bldg, of Units Value Value
Ft. Lupton
•
P.O. Box 158, 80621
Phone: 857-6667 or
785-6108 (Platteville)
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 753
Mobile Home 80
Apartments 163
Total Dwelling Units 996
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 662
Rehabilitatable 90
Dilapidated 1
Total 753
BUILDING ACT VITY, 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
43 $22, 800 $35,000 $18, 000 7
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
2 4 8 $70,000 $17, 500
$50,000 $12, 500
Garden City
P.O. Box 1214, 80631
Phone: 352-4294
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 26
Mobile Home --
Apartments 6
Total Dwelling Units 32
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 17
Rehabilitatable 8
Dilapidated 1
Total 26
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of Tow Value
0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Gilcrest
Town Hall, 80623
Phone: 737-2992
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 112
Mobile Home 18
Apartments _0
Total Dwelling Units 130
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 103
Rehabilitatable 8
Dilapidated 1
-' Total 112
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
20 $16,900 $18, 070 $16,850 16
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Unitsaldg. of Units Value Value
•
Grover
P.O. Box 57, 80729
Phone: 895-3375
- HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 46
Mobile Home 4
Apartments 7
Total Dwelling Units 57
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 39
Rehabilitatable 5
Dilapidated 2
Total 46
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Hudson
P.O. Box 221, 80642
Phone: 536-4735
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 195
Mobile Home 19
Apartments _2
Total Dwelling Units 216
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 172
Rehabilitatable 22
Dilapidated _1
Total 195
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
0 -- -- -- --
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Johnstown
Town Hall, 80534
Phone: 587-4664
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type , Number of Units
Single Family 405
Mobile Home 52
Apartments 46
Total Dwelling Units 503
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 371
Rehabilitatable 31
Dilapidated 3
Total 405
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
3 $22, 083 $24,000 $20, 250 1
- BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
1 4 4 $38, 000 $9,500
Keenesburg
Town Hall, 80643
Phone: 732-4281
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 147
Mobile Home 3
Apartments 4
Total Dwelling Units 154
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 132
Rehabilitatable 13
Dilapidated 2
Total 147
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Single Family
_ Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
6 $31 ,458 $46,250 $27, 000 1
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Keota
Star Route 17,
Grover, 80729
Phone: 356-1299
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 4
Mobile Home 0
Apartments 0
Total Dwelling Units 4
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 2
Rehabilitatable 2
Dilapidated 0
Total 4
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of lb* Value
0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Kersey
Town Hall, 80644
Phone: 353-1681
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 221
Mobile Home --
Apartments 2
Total Dwelling Units 223
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 198
Rehabilitatable 23
Dilapidated 0
Total 221
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
_ Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
1 $32, 700 -- -- --
- BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
-- Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
LaSalle
P.O. Box 427, 80645
Phone: 284-6564
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 512
Mobile Home 1
Apartments 39
Total Dwelling Units 542
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 487
Rehabilitatable 24
Dilapidated _1
Total 512
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
7 $21,687 $30,024 $17, 000 0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Lochbuie
Town Hall, 80601
Phone: 659-4294
- HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type' Number of Units
Single Family --
Mobile Home 290
Apartments --
Total Dwelling Units 290
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard
Rehabilitatable
Dilapidated --
Total`
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low - Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits"" Value Value Value of low value
0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Mead
Town Hall, 80542
Phone: 535-4564
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type - - Number 'of Units
Single Family 60
Mobile Home 9
Apartments 0
_ Total Dwelling Units 69
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 51
Rehabilitatable 9
Dilapidated 0
Total 60
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High .Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value • Value Value of low value
4 $20,812 $23,700 $19,450 3
- BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Milliken
Town Hall, 80543
Phone: 587-4331
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 234
Mobile Home 29
Apartments 39
Total Dwelling Units 302
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 207
Rehabilitatable 23
Dilapidated _4
Total 234
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of Tow value
35 $14, 577 $16,240 $13, 104 15
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units1Bldg. of Units Value Value
Nunn
P.O. Box 171, 80648
Phone: 897-2385
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 77
Mobile Home -- .
Apartments 2
Total Dwelling Units 79
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
' Standard 67
Rehabilitatable 10
Dilapidated 0
Total 77
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 . Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1O00
Permits Value Value Value of low Value
2 $31, 500 $43, 000 $20, 000 0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Pierce
Town Hall, 80650
Phone: 834-2851
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 176
Mobile Home 3
Apartments 0
Total Dwelling Units 179
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 159
Rehabilitatable 14
Dilapidated 3
Total 176
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
5 $16, 380 $18, 300 $15, 000 2
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Platteville
P.O. Box 6, 80651
Phone: 785-2245
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 355
Mobile Home 73
Apartments 4
Total Dwelling Units 432
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 326
Rehabilitatable 28
Dilapidated 1
Total 355
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
8 $26, 886 $35, 000 $18, 500 3
BUILDING ACTIVITY., 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
New Raymer
Town Hall, 80742
Phone: 437-2543
HOUSING SUPPLY, 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 57
Mobile Home --
Apartments 0
Total Dwelling Units 57
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 47
Rehabilitatable 9
_ Dilapidated 1
Total 57
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
0 -- -- --
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Rosedale
2621 8th Avenue, 80631
Phone: 353-1273
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977 •
Type Number of Units
Single Family 15
Mobile Home 0
Apartments 0
Total Dwelling Units 15
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 13
Rehabilitatable 1
Dilapidated 1
Total 15
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
0
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Severance
Town Hall, 80546
Phone: 686-2222
HOUSING SUPPLY , 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 17
Mobile Home 3
Apartments 0
Total Dwelling Units 20
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 15
Rehabilitatable 2
Dilapidated 0
Total 17
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
1 $27,500 -- -- --
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Windsor
P.O. Box 627, 80550
Phone: 686-7475
HOUSING SUPPLY 1977
Type Number of Units
Single Family 594
Mobile Home 4
Apartments 349
Total Dwelling Units 947
HOUSING CONDITION Single Family, 1977
Condition Number of Units
Standard 543
Rehabilitatable 47
Dilapidated _4
Total. 594
BUILDING ACTIVITY , 1976 Single Family
_ Average High Low Number of Units
Number of Building Building Building valued within $1000
Permits Value Value Value of low value
81 $26,876 $48, 700 $20,200 9
BUILDING ACTIVITY, 1976 Multi Family
Number of Number of Total Number Bldg. Unit
Permits Units/Bldg. of Units Value Value
Hello