On the agenda: Wellington Planning Commission — data center (Nov 2)

TOWN OF WELLINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 2, 2026
6:30 PM
Leeper Center, 3800 Wilson Avenue, Wellington CO
Individuals wishing to make public comments must attend the meeting in person or submit
comments by sending an email to [email protected]. The email must be received by
3:00 p.m. the Friday prior to the meeting . After that time, written public comments cannot be accepted.
The comments will be provided to the Commissioners at the meeting. Emailed comments will not be
read during the meeting.
The Zoom information below is for online viewing and listening only.
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88628197940
Webinar ID: 886 2819 7940
Or Telephone: US: +1 719 359 4580 or +1 720 707 2699

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

ROLL CALL

3.

ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA

4.

PUBLIC FORUM

5.

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
A.

6.

NEW BUSINESS
A.

7.

Regular Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2026

Housing Needs Assessment Technical Memorandum Final Draft Acceptance

COMMUNICATIONS
A.

Updates on Current and Upcoming Planning Work

8.

ADJOURNMENT

9.

WORK SESSION
A.

Comprehensive Plan Strategic Growth & Water Supply Elements Discussion

The Town of Wellington will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements
Individuals needing special accommodation may request assistance by contacting at Town Hall or at 970-568-3381 at least 24 hours in advance.

Page 1 of 52

Planning Commission Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Subject:

November 2, 2026
Aidan Checkett, Planner 1
Regular Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Move to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2026 as presented.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Regular Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2026

Page 2 of 52

TOWN OF WELLINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 5, 2026
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 PM
1. CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER – 6:30 p.m.
The Planning Commission for the Town of Wellington, Colorado, met on September October 5, 2026, at
the Wilson Leeper Center, 3800 Wilson Avenue, Wellington, Colorado at 6:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:

Eric Sartor, Chair
Sherman Stringer
Troy Spraker
Lisa Chollet
Bert McCaffrey

Absent:

Tim Whitehouse

Town Staff Present:

Cody Bird, Planning Director
Aidan Checkett, Planner I

3. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA
There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda.
4. PUBLIC FORUM
There was no public comment.
5. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Commissioner Chollet moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 14, 2026, as
presented. Commissioner McCaffrey seconded.
Yeas –Chollet, Springer, Spraker, McCaffrey, Sartor
NaysAbstainMotion carried.

Page 3 of 52

6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment (HNA) Technical Memorandum Update and Discussion –
Aidan Checkett, Planner 1, presented the item and outlined the status of the Technical
Memorandum.
Commissioner Chollet asked if the report will be updated. Checkett stated it will be updated every
five years in line with state requirements. Chollet asked how economic trends are reflected in the
update. Bird replied that the report is intended to evaluate consistent data sets. Checkett added
that the economic circumstances can likely be found in the data. Chollet asked if it would be
possible to have a further breakdown of the demographic data informing displacement risk.
Commissioner Chollet asked how much weight we should give to the data if some of the recent
update changes might be the product of statistical aberrations? Checkett said it depends on the
data in question, but generally the high level analysis is still valuable. Bird added that the general
trends haven’t changed significantly and should still be pertinent.
Chair Sartor asked what the long-term goal of the memorandum was? Checkett stated it will
inform further planning documents, help with grant applications, and help prioritize planning
decisions. Sartor asked if the Town is considering updating population projections. Bird replied that
updating population projections is anticipated as part of a future effort, and the current
projections are based on the best precedent the Town has. Checkett added that most of the
recommendations of the HNA should hold true regardless of the rate of growth.
Chollet asked how the tax numbers inform affordability and the gaps. Checkett said that it’s a
proxy for economic health and vitality which is indicative of housing affordability and contributes
to the measure of displacement risk. Staff will ask the consultant team assisting with this update
for more information on how this might affect the community.
Chollet asked what is the ratio of rental housing to owner housing units in the housing gap table?
Checkett replied that Staff would ask the consultants if a breakdown could be included in the final
version.
B. 2027 Planning Commission Meeting Dates and Submission Deadlines
Commissioner Chollet moved to adopt the 2027 Planning Commission Meeting Dates and
Submission Deadlines Schedule. Commissioner Stringer seconded.
Yeas –Chollet, Springer, Spraker, McCaffrey, Sartor
NaysAbstainMotion carried.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
A. 3rd Quarter 2026 Residential Building Permit Activity and Lot Inventory Report
Bird shared the report. Commissioner Chollet asked the status of the Sage Farms subdivision. Bird
stated that it is still in the entitlement process and we are waiting on a submittal for final plat.
Page 4 of 52

Chollet asked if the HNA Technical Memorandum would have any impact on the subdivision. Bird
said that the subdivision would contribute to meeting some of the housing gaps identified in the
HNA.
B. Updates on Current and Upcoming Planning Work
Bird shared an update on the current and upcoming projects the Planning Department is working
on. Chollet asked if Staff anticipated any updates to the Land Use Code for data centers or other
development standards. Bird replied that evaluating commercial standards and setbacks for light
industrial uses is on Staff’s radar but an action on this topic is not anticipated in the coming
months.

8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sartor adjourned the regular meeting at 7:30 PM
Approved this 2nd day of November, 2026.

Recording Secretary

Page 5 of 52

Planning Commission Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Subject:

November 2, 2026
Aidan Checkett, Planner 1
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Memorandum Final Draft Acceptance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final version of the Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Technical Memorandum is
presented for review and acceptance. The Planning Commission discussed a previous draft of the Memorandum
at the October 5 meeting and provided feedback. That feedback, along with input from Town Staff, was
addressed in the updated version of the Memorandum. The changes made can be viewed in the attached
"Wellington Comment Matrix" document. Town Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the
Memorandum.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2024, the Town contracted with Matrix Design Group to complete a Housing Needs & Affordability
Assessment (HNA) to comply with state requirements stipulated in SB24-174. In April, 2025, the Planning
Commission accepted the Town's HNA, and the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) accepted the document
in January, 2026. The accepted HNA is available for review on the Town's website - Wellington Housing
Needs & Affordability Assessment.
As the Town anticipates undertaking studies for housing plans and policies, including a Housing Action Plan
(HAP) required by SB24-174, it is important to ensure that the HNA has the most up-to-date information
available. The accepted HNA employed the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) dataset as its principal
data source. Following the HNA's creation and acceptance, more recent 2024 ACS data has been released by
the U.S. Census Bureau. The Town engaged with Matrix Design Group to create a Technical Memorandum to
the HNA to incorporate the more recent data.
In addition to incorporating the new ACS data, the memorandum also incorporates new Department of Local
Affairs (DOLA) guidance for evaluation of an HNA, including evaluations for displacement risk, employment
growth projections, and homelessness data. The memorandum does not propose any new policies or
recommendations or alter any existing policies or recommendations. The policies and recommendations of the
accepted HNA are still valid and remain unchanged. The HNA, supplemented by this memorandum, provides a
good foundation for the upcoming Housing Action Plan anticipated to be completed in 2027.
The final Technical Memorandum recommended for acceptance is attached. The Planning Commission
previously reviewed a draft of the Technical Memorandum at the October 5 meeting and provided feedback.
Staff and Matrix Design Group, Inc. made changes to the report in alignment with feedback. The changes
reflected in the final Memorandum are identified in the attached document "Wellington Comment Matrix."
Changes include providing additional context to aid comprehension, created better connections between the
Technical Memorandum and the original 2025 HNA, corrected typos, improved visual representation of data,
and other minor formatting changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Move to accept the Final Draft of the Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Technical
Memorandum.
Page 6 of 52

ATTACHMENTS
1.
Wellington Comment Matrix
2.
Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Technical Memorandum Final

Page 7 of 52

Town Comment
Would it be feasible to more directly tie the new
data to the 2025 Housing Needs &
Affordability Assessment? There are some data
points (i.e. the renter-homeowner income
ratio) for which the changes between the two
models are noted. Is there a way to note some
of the differences more explicitly without changing
the recommendations or the findings of
the HNA? It could be a useful way to identify any
trends you think could be statistically
significant or relevant. The decrease in the
percentage of single-family homes comprising
the total housing stock could be another one worth
mentioning.

Some of the updated information is presented in
different table formats from the originalHNA. While
we understand that this may be current best
practice, it can make it harder tocompare the two
documents. Employment, housing stock,
vacancies, and housing gaps areall presented in
substantially different formats from the original.
Could you identify if anycould be presented in their
original form without compromising data
integrity/bestpractices? If not, a clearer description
of the change between the two datasets could
behelpful—especially for the housing gaps.

It would be helpful to explicitly delineate what the
new data/requirements that were not
addressed in the HNA are, and to differentiate them
from the updated data both in the
introduction and throughout the text. A bulleted list
in the introduction and a statement
before each new piece of data could suffice.
The introduction as a whole could more clearly
delineate the purpose of the memorandumand

Matrix Response
We have added several targeted references to the
2025 HNA throughout the updated memorandum,
including comparisons of household income
trends and the composition of Wellington's housing
stock. Importantly, the two assessments rely on
partially overlapping five-year ACS datasets, which
limits their suitability for evaluating changes over
time. The Census Bureau recommends using
nonoverlapping ACS periods when assessing
trends, as overlapping estimates are not
statistically independent. Additionally, differences
between estimates can result from sampling
variability rather than changes in underlying
conditions. We have therefore framed these
comparisons cautiously, highlighting potentially
relevant differences without characterizing them as
statistically significant trends or altering the
original HNA's findings and recommendations.
Since the completion of the 2025 HNA, Matrix has
transitioned from Excel-based analysis to the R
programming language and statistical computing
environment. This transition allows for more
efficient, reproducible, and consistent data
processing, analysis, and visualization. As a result,
some figures and tables in the updated
memorandum differ in appearance from those in
the original assessment. The revised formats more
closely align with data visualization best practices
and are also intended to conform with DOLA's
guidelines for presenting housing-related data.
These changes are primarily presentational and do
not alter the underlying analytical findings.
Regarding the housing gap analysis, DOLA has
established a specific methodology for estimating
housing needs that differs from the approach used
in the 2025 HNA. We have added narrative
explaining these methodological differences.
A bulleted list has been added to the Introduction
identifying the DOLA-required analyses that were
absent from the previous HNA but are included in
the update.

We have revised the Introduction to more clearly
establish the purpose and scope of the technical
memorandum. Specifically, we have added a

Page 8 of 52

clarify what its purpose is and what information is
new vs updated

The memorandum describes 74% of Wellington
residents as cost-burdened. The slide deck
Matrix provided identified 74% of households with
annual income under $75,000 as costburdened.
Please clarify which figure is correct.
The memorandum identifies a dramatic decrease
in the income of rental households. Do
you have any idea why this might be? Is it possible
it’s a statistical anomaly, or is it likely to
be substantive?

The text above table 3 states an 11% employment
growth in aggregate, while the table
states 10%

bulleted list identifying the additional analyses
undertaken to address DOLA's SB 24-174 guidance,
distinguishing these from the analyses that
primarily update findings from the 2025 HNA. We
have also clarified that the memorandum is
intended to supplement, rather than replace, the
original assessment by incorporating more recent
data, additional indicators, and updated
methodologies.
The DOLA-recommended cost-burdened metric is
specific to households earning below $75,000. The
report text has been updated accordingly.
The apparent decline in renter household incomes
is noteworthy, although we would caution against
interpreting it as definitive evidence of a
substantial deterioration in renters' economic
circumstances. One potential explanation is
statistical variability associated with the ACS.
Wellington has a relatively small renter population,
and ACS estimates for smaller population
subgroups can be sensitive to sampling variability.
Notably, the 2025 HNA also identified Wellington's
renter incomes as unusually high relative to
homeowner incomes and surrounding
communities. It is therefore possible that the
earlier estimates were elevated, at least in part, by
sampling variability. Changes in the composition of
Wellington's renter population may also contribute
to the observed difference. For example, an
increase in smaller or lower-income renter
households could reduce the median without
necessarily indicating that existing renter
households experienced comparable income
declines.
Without additional analysis of sampling uncertainty
and changes in household composition, we cannot
determine how much of the observed decline
represents a substantive change as opposed to
statistical variability. We have therefore framed the
findings cautiously in the memorandum and would
not characterize the decline as an established
trend.
This has been corrected.

Page 9 of 52

I find Figure 7 somewhat difficult to read,
especially with the alternating positions of
thedifferent dots across jurisdictions. Is there
another way to present this data?
In table 9, the ranges for the rental units appear to
be in the inverse order of the rest of the
columns (high to low rather than low to high, i.e.
71-70 units needed).
In figure 10, the “total ratio” dots are overlapping
and the 2019 figure is not immediately
evident. Additionally, is there a way to make it
clearer that number on the x-axis refers to
jobs-to-housing ratio? I know it’s identified in the
title but it could maybe also be identified
on the x axis.
Is the 1.1 household size for supportive/visitable
housing empirically supported or is it just a
standard practice?

Would it be possible to show the demographic data
for each census block group to
understand which factors lead to a higher
displacement risk in certain regions? At least, a
textual explanation of the specific factors in the
given neighborhoods could be helpful. The
full breakdown may be better suited for an
appendix. We are assuming you have this
information as part of the calculation for
displacement risk and understand that if you don’t
it might be out of scope. If an illustrative example
would more appropriate, that could also
be helpful.
If certain data points are likely statistical artifacts
(the per-capita income decrease), how
does that affect the reliability of the data and
findings as a whole? How much weight should
we give to the numbers?

The dot plot has been replaced with a table.

Thank you for pointing this out. It has been
corrected.
We have revised Figure 10 to explicitly label the xaxis as the jobs-to-housing ratio. We also vertically
offset the overlapping Total Ratio dots to make the
2019 and 2024 values easier to distinguish.

The 1.1 assumption is a planning rule of thumb
rather than an empirically derived estimate specific
to Wellington. It recognizes that some individuals
with mobility limitations may share a household
and therefore would not necessarily require
separate accessible housing units.
A table has been added to the Appendix that
reports the individual indicators used to construct
the Displacement Risk Index for each Census block
group.

The possibility that certain estimates are
influenced by statistical variability does not
undermine the reliability of the assessment as a
whole. The ACS is a widely used and generally
reliable source for demographic and housing
analysis, although estimates for smaller
communities and population subgroups are
subject to greater uncertainty. We recommend
interpreting individual estimates and changes over
time cautiously, particularly when they appear
inconsistent with other indicators. Importantly, the
assessment draws on multiple data sources and
indicators. Its central findings regarding continued

Page 10 of 52

If the population projections don’t come to pass,
how does that affect the findings and
takeaways of the memorandum and the report at
large? Could you provide clarifying
language to note that the general
recommendations hold true even if population
does not
increase in the same way as projected.

Can we clarify the sales tax and business
opening/closing figures further and their role in
the assessment? Some further clarification could
make the presence of these figures more
obvious to readers—our Planning Commissioners
were initially confused.
A commissioner requested that the current and
future gaps (tables 9 and 10) be broken down so
the portion of each category as a percentage of the
whole is represented. For example, the percentage
of necessary ownership units at <30% AMI is 9.9%
of all necessary ownership units in 2034, but the
commissioner was wondering what percentage of
TOTAL (ownership and rental) units that would be.

housing demand, limited housing diversity, and
affordability challenges are supported by this
broader body of evidence. Accordingly, greater
weight should be placed on consistent patterns
across multiple indicators than on individual
estimates or isolated changes.
If actual population growth differs from projections,
the magnitude and timing of future housing
demand would change accordingly. However, the
report's broader findings and recommendations
are also grounded in existing housing conditions,
including affordability challenges, housing
diversity, and the needs of current residents. As a
result, the general policy recommendations remain
relevant even if population growth is slower than
anticipated, although the scale and timing of
implementation may need to be adjusted. We have
added language to "Current and Projected Housing
Needs" affirming the relevance of the
recommendations even if population projections
are not realized.
Narrative has been added to the "Demographic and
Economic Trends" section explaining the
relationship between these DOLA-recommended
indicators and displacement risk.
I recommend retaining the current presentation of
those tables. Expressing owner and renter
percentages relative to the total number of units
would answer a different question and make it
more difficult to interpret the distribution of needs
within each tenure category. Providing both sets of
percentages would require additional columns,
increasing the table's complexity and potentially
creating confusion regarding the different
denominators.

Page 11 of 52

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability
Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

707 17th St
Suite 3150
Denver, CO 80202

Updated: October 28, 2026

Page 12 of 52

Introduction
In July 2026, the Town of Wellington retained Matrix Design Group to prepare this SB 24-174-aligned technical
memorandum updating the Town's 2025 Housing Needs and Affordability Assessment. The purpose of this update is to
provide an updated evaluation of Wellington's housing market conditions, housing needs, and affordability challenges
using quantitative indicators recommended by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The memorandum
examines demographic and economic trends, housing inventory and market conditions, homelessness and displacement
risk, jobs-housing relationships, and current and future housing needs. These analyses provide a data-driven foundation
to support the Town’s forthcoming Housing Action Plan. In addition to updating existing indicators, the memorandum
introduces several analyses consistent with DOLA guidance that were not included in the 2025 HNA. These include:
◼
Employment projections
◼

Jobs-housing balance

◼

Homelessness and housing instability

◼

Displacement risk indicators

◼

Geographic displacement risk

◼

Accessible, visitable, and supportive housing needs

While some of these analyses extend beyond traditional housing market indicators, they provide important context for
understanding the economic and demographic conditions that may contribute to housing instability and displacement risk.
For example, employment trends and local economic activity can influence household financial stability, housing
affordability, and the ability of existing residents to remain in their communities.
This memorandum builds on the findings of the Town's 2025 Housing Needs and Affordability Assessment, incorporating
more recent data and additional analyses consistent with SB 24-174 guidance. Where relevant, changes in key indicators
are highlighted; however, comparisons should be interpreted cautiously because the assessments draw on partially
overlapping ACS datasets and, in some cases, different data sources or methodologies. Observed differences have not
been tested for statistical significance and do not necessarily indicate meaningful changes in underlying housing market
conditions.

Key Findings
◼

Wellington’s population nearly doubled between 2010 and 2024, reaching almost 12,000 residents, while the
number of households increased from 2,188 to 4,316. This sustained growth is placing increasing pressure on the
local housing market and contributing to demand for additional housing across a range of price points.

◼

Approximately 86% of housing units are single-family detached homes, while the overall vacancy rate is just 1%,
substantially below regional and statewide rates. The combination of limited housing diversity and extremely low
vacancy levels restricts housing choice and contributes to competition for available units.

◼

Wellington's median household income remains higher than that of Larimer County, Weld County, and Colorado
overall, yet a substantial share of households experience housing cost burdens. Over one-in-five Wellington
households earn less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), and renters are disproportionately represented
among the community's lowest-income households.

◼

Regional homelessness has increased since 2020, while displacement risk indicators suggest that vulnerability to
housing-related pressures varies within Wellington, with greater vulnerability in north-central Wellington. Overall,
however, Wellington exhibits low displacement risk compared with the broader region, although elevated
housing cost burdens and rapid recent rent growth remain important trends to monitor.

◼

Additional housing will be needed to address current shortages and accommodate future demand. Wellington's
current housing need is estimated at 273 to 432 units, while cumulative housing need is projected to reach 877 to
1,034 units by 2034. Need exists across all income levels but is particularly pronounced among households
earning 80% of AMI or less, underscoring the importance of expanding housing options that are affordable to
lower- and moderate-income residents.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

1

Page 13 of 52

Demographic and Economic Trends
This section examines the demographic and economic characteristics that influence housing demand in Wellington. The
findings show a community that has experienced rapid population and household growth, maintains relatively high
household incomes, and supports a diverse employment base. These trends provide important context for understanding
local housing needs, affordability challenges, and the demand for housing across a range of price points. Sales tax trends
and business openings and closures are also examined as DOLA-recommended indicators of economic change and
potential displacement pressures, as changes in commercial activity and business turnover can result from shifts in local
economic conditions that may affect the stability of existing businesses and the communities they serve.

Population
Wellington has experienced substantial population growth over the past several decades, with the community expanding
from approximately 1,215 residents in 1980 to nearly 12,000 in 2024 (see Figure 1). Growth accelerated particularly
during the late 1990s and 2000s, when the population increased from 2,268 in 1998 to 6,295 in 2010. Wellington
continued to grow steadily through the 2010s and early 2020s, reaching 11,997 residents in 2024. According to the
Town’s official projections, this growth is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, with the population forecasted
to reach approximately 25,000 in 2040—an increase of 108% from 2024. Continued population growth will generate
additional demand for housing, infrastructure, and community services, while also reinforcing the need for a diverse
housing supply capable of accommodating both existing residents and future households.

Figure 1. Historical and Projected Population in Wellington, 1980–2040

Source: Colorado State Demography Office; Town of Wellington; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: The 2040 population projection of 25,000 was provided by the Town of Wellington. Projections for intervening years
were estimated using linear interpolation. The Town also anticipates growing to 33,000 residents by 2050.

Town of Wellington

2

Page 14 of 52

Household Characteristics
Household formation in Wellington has accelerated considerably since 2010. The number of households increased from
2,188 in 2010 to 4,316 in 2024, nearly doubling over the 14-year period (see Figure 2). The most pronounced gains
occurred between 2014 and 2017, when Wellington added more than 800 households. The Town’s 2040 projected
population of 25,000 is projected to be divided across 8,955 households, representing an increase of about 107%
from 2024. This projected increase equates to roughly 4,600 additional households through 2040. Such substantial
household growth will influence nearly every aspect of community development, highlighting the importance of proactive
planning to maintain quality of life, support public services, and ensure that the benefits of growth are broadly shared
among current and future residents.

Figure 2. Historical and Projected Households in Wellington, 2010–2040

Source: State Demography Office; Town of Wellington; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Household projections are based on the Town of Wellington’s official population projections. To convert projected
population into projected households, the analysis applies Wellington’s historical households-per-person ratio. That ratio
is modeled over time and extended through 2040. Annual household counts are estimated by multiplying each year’s
projected population estimate by the applicable households-per-person ratio.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

3

Page 15 of 52

Income
Wellington households have historically reported higher median incomes than households across the surrounding region,
although the Town experienced a decline in inflation-adjusted median household income between 2019 and 2024 (see
Figure 3). Wellington’s real median household income was $112,351 in 2019, compared with $88,750 statewide, $88,198
in Larimer County, and $90,982 in Weld County. By 2024, Wellington’s median household income had decreased to
approximately $107,000, while typical incomes increased to $95,470 in Colorado, $93,765 in Larimer County, and
$97,097 in Weld County. However, part of Wellington’s observed decline may be a statistical artifact arising from sampling
variability rather than a meaningful change in underlying economic conditions, particularly given the relatively small ACS
sample available for a community of Wellington’s size. Despite the decline, Wellington’s median income remained more
than $11,000 higher than the statewide figure and $10,000–$13,000 above the two counties. The Town’s
comparatively strong household incomes indicate a relatively favorable capacity to support housing costs, but rising
housing prices and other household expenses may place increasing pressure on affordability for lower- and moderateincome residents.

Figure 3. Real Median Household Income, 2019 & 2024

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Values were adjusted for inflation to constant 2024 dollars.

Town of Wellington

4

Page 16 of 52

Median household income varies substantially by tenure in Wellington, with notable differences between renters and
homeowners and changes in the relative position of each group since 2019 (see Figure 4). In 2019, Wellington renters
had a real median household income of $113,089, more than twice the levels observed in Larimer County ($52,924),
Weld County ($53,813), and Colorado ($57,977). By 2024, Wellington’s renter median income had fallen to $74,973,
though it remained above the comparison areas, where renter incomes ranged from $54,856 in Weld County to $63,537
statewide. Among homeowners, Wellington’s median household income was $112,102 in 2019 and decreased
slightly to $108,384 in 2024, while homeowner incomes grew in Larimer County, Weld County, and Colorado. As a
result, Wellington homeowners’ median income in 2024 was below the corresponding figures for all three comparison
geographies, although these differences should be interpreted with caution as they were not tested for statistical
significance. Applying the commonly used standard that housing costs should not exceed 30% of household income, the
median Wellington homeowner could afford approximately $2,710 per month in housing costs, compared with $1,874 for
the median renter. Overall, the results show that Wellington’s decline in median income was not experienced equally
across tenure groups; among households captured by the ACS sample, renters experienced substantially larger income
declines than homeowners.
These findings build on the 2025 HNA's assessment of household incomes and affordability, while providing a more
recent perspective on differences between renters and homeowners. Although the updated estimates suggest a notable
decline in renter incomes relative to homeowner incomes, the overlapping ACS reporting periods and potential sampling
variability warrant caution in interpreting this change as an established trend.

Figure 4. Median Household Income by Tenure, 2019 & 2024

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Values were adjusted for inflation to constant 2024 dollars.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

5

Page 17 of 52

Employment
Wellington’s resident workforce is employed across a diverse mix of professional, service, and trade-related industries
(see Table 1). The largest employment category was Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance,
which accounted for approximately 18% of employed residents, with median annual earnings of $49,529.
Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative and Waste Management Services represented another
12% of employment and had substantially higher median earnings of $78,375. Construction and Retail Trade also each
accounted for about 12% of employed residents, with median earnings of $50,263 and $39,795, respectively, while
Manufacturing represented 9% of employment with median earnings of $51,993. Public Administration had the highest
median annual earnings among Wellington’s major employment sectors at $110,889, although it represented only 5% of
employed residents. Overall, Wellington’s employment base spans a broad range of industries, with a meaningful
presence in both higher-paying professional and public-sector occupations as well as construction, retail, and serviceoriented employment.

Table 1. Resident Civilian Employment by Sector in Wellington, 2024
Sector

Employment

Median Annual
Earnings

Public Administration

318

5%

$110,889

Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative and
Waste Management Services

719

12%

$78,375

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining

108

2%

$71,176

Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

428

7%

$69,115

Information

149

3%

$63,950

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

273

5%

$62,054

Manufacturing

531

9%

$51,993

Construction

688

12%

$50,263

Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance

1,089

18%

$49,529

Retail Trade

697

12%

$39,795

Wholesale Trade

317

5%

$34,588

Other Services, Except Public Administration

265

4%

$29,875

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and
Food Services

363

6%

$19,420

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Estimates are based on workers’ place of residence, regardless of where they are employed.

Town of Wellington

6

Page 18 of 52

Wellington’s local workforce, defined as individuals employed within the community regardless of where they reside, has a
somewhat different industry composition than the Town’s resident workforce. Table 2 presents this breakdown, with
sectors sorted in descending order based on median earnings. Construction is the largest source of local
employment, accounting for approximately 18% of jobs, followed closely by Educational Services, Health Care and
Social Assistance at 17%. Retail Trade represents another 13% of local employment, while Professional, Scientific, and
Management, and Administrative and Waste Management Services account for 12%. Finance and Insurance, and Real
Estate and Rental and Leasing comprise an additional 9% of jobs, with Public Administration representing 8%. Compared
with Wellington’s resident employment profile, the local job base places greater emphasis on construction, retail, and
other community-serving industries, while also maintaining a substantial presence in professional and public-sector
employment. This mix suggests continued demand for housing that is accessible to workers across a broad range of
occupations and income levels, particularly those employed in the community’s larger construction, retail, health care, and
service sectors.

Table 2. Composition of Wellington's Workforce by Sector, 2024
Sector

Employment

Public Administration

185

8%

Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative and Waste
Management Services

273

12%

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining

40

2%

Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

203

9%

Information

70

3%

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

13

1%

Manufacturing

118

5%

Construction

411

18%

Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance

369

17%

Retail Trade

283

13%

Wholesale Trade

20

1%

Other Services, Except Public Administration

61

3%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services

177

8%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Sectors are sorted in descending order based on median earnings for Wellington residents as reported in the 2020–
2024 ACS five-year estimates. Estimates are based on location of employment, regardless of where workers reside.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

7

Page 19 of 52

According to long-term employment projections, the broader regional economy is expected to continue expanding through
2035, with total projected employment among reported industries in the Fort Collins-Loveland MSA, which
encompasses Larimer County, increasing from approximately 172,159 jobs in 2025 to 191,014 jobs in 2035—a
gain of about 10% (see Table 3). Educational Services is projected to remain the region’s largest employment sector,
growing by 7% to more than 31,000 jobs, while Health Care and Social Assistance is expected to achieve more
substantial growth of 22%, adding more than 5,200 positions. Construction and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation are
also projected to grow by approximately 19%, followed by Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services at 16%.
Wholesale Trade and Other Services are anticipated to expand by 13% each. In contrast, employment in Information is
projected to decline by 7%, while Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services is
expected to decrease by 4%. For Wellington, these trends are indicative of continued housing demand associated
with growth in health care, construction, professional services, and other expanding industries. Maintaining a
range of housing options and price points will be important to accommodate both higher-wage professional workers and
employees in essential service, retail, and other sectors as the regional economy grows.

Table 3. Existing and Projected Employment Composition by Industry in the
Fort Collins-Loveland MSA, 2025 & 2035
Industry

Percent
Change

Employment
2025

2035

Educational Services

29,267

31,448

7%

Health Care and Social Assistance

23,674

28,930

22%

Retail Trade

18,897

20,443

8%

Accommodation and Food Services

18,908

20,348

8%

Manufacturing

14,448

15,585

8%

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

13,297

15,439

16%

Construction

10,847

12,893

19%

Local Government

8,348

8,965

7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration)

7,400

8,356

13%

7,458

7,138

-4%

Wholesale Trade

5,824

6,552

13%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

3,440

4,083

19%

Finance and Insurance

3,706

3,888

5%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

3,445

3,803

10%

Information

2,203

2,040

-7%

Management of Companies and Enterprises

997

1,103

11%

191,014

10%

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and
Remediation Services

Total
172,159
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; Matrix Design Group, Inc.

Note: Totals reflect the sum of industries with available projections and do not represent all employment within the
regional economy.

Town of Wellington

8

Page 20 of 52

Commercial Vitality
Wellington has experienced continued business openings in recent years, although new registrations have fluctuated
while business closures have generally increased (see Figure 5). From 2019 to 2023, new businesses ranged from
roughly 12–13% of all businesses, but in 2024, this share fell to roughly 9%. In contrast, closures represented over
3% of business activity in 2023 and 2024, a higher share than in earlier years. The fact that registrations continue to
substantially outpace inactivations indicates continued net business formation. Nonetheless, the recent increase in
business closures warrants monitoring. While business turnover is a normal feature of a growing economy, elevated
closure rates can signal shifts in local market conditions and consumer demand. In some communities, changes in the
mix of active businesses have accompanied broader demographic and economic transitions, including the loss of longstanding businesses that primarily serve lower-income households and the emergence of businesses catering to higherincome residents. As a result, business turnover may not only contribute to economic vulnerability for some workers and
entrepreneurs but may also serve as an indicator that displacement-related changes are already occurring within the
community. Although the available data do not establish a direct causal relationship, continued monitoring of both
business activity and housing affordability trends can help identify whether changes in the local commercial environment
coincide with broader shifts in Wellington's resident population.

Figure 5. Business Closures and Openings in Wellington, 2019–2024

Source: Colorado Secretary of State Business Entities in Colorado; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Values indicate the percentage of all active registered business entities that were newly registered or became
inactive during the year. Entities are identified based on a principal address in Wellington and may not correspond to a
physical storefront or operating establishment within the Town.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

9

Page 21 of 52

Wellington's combined real sales and use tax revenues peaked at approximately $6.3 million in 2022 before declining
to $5.4 million in 2025, indicating that overall tax collections have not kept pace with inflation over the period (see Figure
6). Most of the decline is attributable to sharp reductions in building materials use tax and motor vehicle use tax revenues.
Inflation-adjusted building materials use tax collections fell from approximately $776,000 in 2022 to $354,000 in 2025,
likely due to slower construction activity amid elevated interest rates and higher development costs. Motor vehicle
use tax revenues also declined substantially, falling by more than half during the same period, which may indicate
weaker vehicle sales activity as consumers faced higher borrowing costs and vehicle prices. In contrast, inflation-adjusted
sales tax revenues remained relatively stable, fluctuating within a narrow range of approximately $4 million to $4.2 million
annually, suggesting that underlying retail spending and economic activity have remained comparatively resilient. Sales
tax trends provide additional context for assessing displacement risk because changes in local spending and commercial
activity can signal economic pressures affecting existing businesses or shifts in the commercial environment associated
with neighborhood change. Although these trends do not directly measure displacement, they can help identify economic
changes that warrant further examination alongside housing affordability and other displacement risk indicators.

Figure 6. Tax Composition in Wellington, 2021–2025

Source: Town of Wellington; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Values were adjusted for inflation to constant 2025 dollars

Town of Wellington

10

Page 22 of 52

Housing Inventory and Market
This section evaluates the characteristics of Wellington’s housing stock and the extent to which it is positioned to
accommodate current and future housing demand. The findings indicate that Wellington’s housing inventory is dominated
by single-family detached homes, providing relatively limited variety in housing types, while exceptionally low
vacancy rates suggest that available housing supply is constrained. These conditions can restrict housing choice,
increase competition for available units, and make it more difficult for households with different needs, preferences, and
budgets to find suitable housing within the community.

Housing Stock
Wellington’s housing stock is predominantly composed of single-family homes, with detached units accounting for the vast
majority of both owner- and renter-occupied housing (see Table 4). Of the estimated 4,469 total housing units,
approximately 86% are single-family detached homes, while another 7% are single-family attached units. Multifamily
housing makes up a relatively small share of the overall stock, including 3% in structures with two to four units, 2% in
buildings with five to nine units, and just 1% in buildings with 10 or more units. The composition varies somewhat by
tenure: detached single-family homes comprise 89% of owner-occupied units compared with 74% of renter-occupied
units, while renters are more likely than homeowners to occupy attached and multifamily housing. Even so,
approximately three-quarters of Wellington’s rental units are estimated to be in detached single-family homes.
This heavily single-family-oriented housing stock provides limited diversity in housing types, which may constrain options
for households seeking smaller, attached, or multifamily homes.
The 2025 HNA estimated that single-family detached homes accounted for approximately 92% of Wellington's housing
units in 2022. This six-percentage point decline may indicate a gradual diversification of the Town's housing stock,
although the use of overlapping ACS datasets, combined with sampling error, limits the conclusions that can be drawn
about changes over time. Despite this apparent shift, Wellington's housing inventory remains overwhelmingly
concentrated in single-family detached homes, underscoring the continued need for a broader range of housing options.

Table 4. Housing Stock Composition in Wellington, 2024
All Units

Unit Type

Owner-occupied
Units

Renter-occupied
Units

Single family, detached

3,862

86%

3,110

89%

612

74%

Single family, attached

297

7%

213

6%

77

9%

Multifamily, 2-4 units

128

3%

87

3%

38

5%

2%

38

1%

63

8%

Multifamily, 5-9 units

103

Multifamily, 10 or more units

40

1%

0

0%

39

5%

Mobile home or other

39

1%

38

1%

0

0%

Total

4,469

100%

3,486

100%

829

100%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Colorado State Demography Office; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Totals may not sum precisely due to rounding. Estimates of housing units by type are based on self-reported data
from the 2024 five-year ACS and were proportionally scaled to match total housing unit figures published by the Colorado
State Demography Office. “All Units” includes vacant units, which is why the total exceeds the combined count of “renteroccupied” and “owner-occupied” units. The “mobile home or other” category includes boats, recreational vehicles (RVs),
vans, and other nonpermanent structures used as housing.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

11

Page 23 of 52

Vacancies
Wellington has an exceptionally tight housing vacancy profile compared with the surrounding region (see Table 5). The
town’s overall vacancy rate is estimated at just 1%, substantially below the rates reported for Larimer County (6.4%),
Weld County (4.1%), and Colorado (8.3%). Notably, no vacant units available for rent or sale were identified in the ACS
sample. This does not necessarily mean that no rental or for-sale listings existed in Wellington at the time of data
collection; rather, it indicates that none were captured in the survey sample. The limited number of vacant units that were
reported were primarily classified as sold but not yet occupied, meaning they were largely unavailable to prospective
renters or homebuyers. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a constrained housing market characterized
by limited available inventory. Such conditions can intensify competition for available homes, reduce housing
choice, and place upward pressure on prices and rents, particularly as Wellington continues to attract new residents.

Table 5. Vacancy Rates by Tenure, 2024
Jurisdiction

Total Vacancy Rate

Rental Vacancy Rate

Owner Vacancy Rate

Wellington

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Larimer County

6.4%

3.3%

0.7%

Weld County

4.1%

6.1%

0.8%

Colorado

8.3%

5.1%

0.8%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.

Town of Wellington

12

Page 24 of 52

Housing Problems
This section examines indicators of housing instability and displacement risk in Wellington and the surrounding region.
Overall, Wellington faces relatively low displacement risk compared with surrounding counties and the state, although
high housing cost burdens remain a potential source of vulnerability. Risk also varies within Wellington, with some
neighborhoods more susceptible to housing pressures. These indicators provide context for identifying populations and
areas that may benefit from targeted strategies.

Homelessness
Homelessness in the Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland/Larimer, and Weld Counties Continuum of Care has remained a
significant regional housing concern, with most individuals experiencing homelessness residing in emergency
shelters or in unsheltered settings (see Figure 7). The number of individuals counted in emergency shelters increased
from 496 in 2020 to 567 in 2025, while those in transitional housing rose from 73 to 107 over the same period.
Unsheltered homelessness also increased from 196 individuals in 2020 to 286 in 2025. In total, the 2025 count included
960 individuals across the three shelter categories, compared with 765 in 2020. The increase in both sheltered and
unsheltered populations highlights continued regional demand for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent
housing options.

Figure 7. Individuals Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Type in Fort Collins, Greeley,
Loveland/Larimer, and Weld Counties Continuum of Care

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development Point-in-Time Count; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Data on unsheltered individuals are unavailable for 2021 due to the COVID-19 transmission risks associated with
conducting an in-person survey.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

13

Page 25 of 52

Displacement
The displacement risk analysis identifies variation in vulnerability across Wellington’s Census block groups (see Figure 8).
The analysis uses a composite index constructed from DOLA-approved displacement risk indicators available at the
Census block-group level, including the percentages of racial or ethnic minorities, housing units built before 1970, adults
without a high school diploma, renter households, single-householder households, and households with incomes below
50% of AMI. Areas shown in darker shades indicate higher concentrations of households and characteristics associated
with displacement risk, while lighter areas denote lower risk. Higher-risk households are concentrated in north-central
Wellington, while several newer or more peripheral areas exhibit lower levels of displacement risk. 1 Overall, the map
suggests that displacement pressures are not evenly distributed throughout the community, highlighting the importance of
targeted housing strategies in areas where vulnerable households are more concentrated. 2 The individual indicators used
to construct the index are reported for each Census block group in the Appendix.

Displacement often occurs gradually, as rising housing
costs, redevelopment, and demographic change make it
increasingly difficult for existing residents to remain in
place. By identifying areas with higher concentrations of
vulnerable households, the Town can proactively target
resources and policies to help residents remain in their
homes and communities as Wellington grows.

1

According to the Town, no Wellington residents reside in the westernmost Census block group displayed on the map.

2

The results do not demonstrate that displacement has already occurred or predict that it will occur. Block-group estimates are also subject to ACS

sampling error, which may be substantial in areas with relatively small populations.

Town of Wellington

14

Page 26 of 52

Figure 8. Displacement Risk by Census Block Group

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

15

Page 27 of 52

Table 6 presents the full suite of DOLA-approved displacement risk indicators available for Wellington, Larimer and Weld
Counties, and Colorado overall. Overall, Wellington exhibits relatively low levels of vulnerability across many of the
indicators when compared with the surrounding counties and the state. In particular, the community has comparatively
low shares of racial or ethnic minority residents, older housing, residents with limited English-speaking ability, lowerincome households, and renter households. Housing cost burden, however, stands out as a potential source of
displacement vulnerability, affecting 74% of Wellington households compared with 70% in Larimer County, 67% in
Weld County, and 68% statewide. Wellington has also experienced comparatively rapid rent growth, with real median
gross rent increasing at nearly three times the statewide rate. Taken together, these indicators suggest that Wellington
faces relatively limited displacement vulnerability overall, although high rates of housing cost burden may leave some
households particularly susceptible to future housing market pressures.

Table 6. Key Displacement Risk Indicators, 2024
Wellington

Larimer
County

Weld
County

Colorado

Population with a Disability

6%

11%

12%

11%

Overcrowded Households

2%

1%

3%

2%

Racial or Ethnic Minority Population

28%

21%

38%

35%

Housing Stock Built Before 1970

5%

16%

17%

24%

Population with Limited English Speaking Ability

1%

1%

4%

3%

Single-Parent-Led-Households

6%

5%

8%

7%

2%

4%

11%

7%

Cost-Burdened Households with <$75K Income

74%

70%

67%

68%

Renter Households

19%

36%

24%

34%

Below 30% AMI Households

12%

18%

16%

17%

Below 50% AMI Households

20%

31%

30%

30%

Below 80% AMI Households

38%

51%

49%

50%

Change in Real Median Gross Rent from 2019

36%

8%

16%

13%

Change in Real Median Home Value from 2019

17%

27%

29%

28%

Metric (%)

25-and-Over Population without a
High School Diploma or Equivalent

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Due to data limitations, HUD’s published FY 2024 median family income (MFI) for the area ($118,800) serves as a
substitute for AMI.

Town of Wellington

16

Page 28 of 52

Current and Projected Housing Needs
This section evaluates Wellington's housing needs through several complementary lenses, including the relationship
between jobs and housing, the need for accessible, visitable, and supportive housing, and the quantity and affordability of
housing required to address current shortages and accommodate future growth. The findings suggest that Wellington
functions primarily as a residential community, with many workers commuting to or from the Town, while lower-wage
workers face a limited supply of housing affordable to their incomes. At the same time, there is measurable demand for
housing that supports residents with mobility limitations and for a modest number of supportive housing units. Building on
these findings, the housing needs analysis identifies both Wellington's existing housing shortfall and the additional
housing needed to maintain a healthy market as the community grows. Collectively, the results indicate a need for a
broader range of housing types, price points, and accessibility features to ensure that current and future residents can find
housing that meets their needs.

Wellington functions primarily as a residential
community, with fewer jobs than housing units and a
limited supply of homes affordable to many lower-wage
workers. The analysis identifies a current need for 273
to 432 additional housing units and a cumulative need
for 877 to 1,034 units by 2034. Meeting these needs will
require a mix of housing types and price points that can
serve households across the income spectrum.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

17

Page 29 of 52

Jobs-Housing Balance
Wellington’s jobs-housing balance suggests that the community functions primarily as a residential community rather than
a major employment center within the region (see Figure 9). In 2024, Wellington had 0.53 jobs per housing unit, a
slight increase from 2019 but well below the corresponding ratios in Larimer County, Weld County, and Colorado, which
ranged from 1.1 to 1.21. While this finding aligns with the Town’s role within the broader regional economy, it also
highlights the extent to which many residents likely rely on employment opportunities outside Wellington. At the same
time, low-income workers, defined as earning less than $35,000 annually, substantially outnumber the housing units
affordable to them. In 2024, Wellington had four low-income jobs for every housing unit affordable to a low-income
worker, an improvement from the 2019 ratio of 6.8. Although this ratio compares favorably with those of Larimer County,
Weld County, and Colorado overall, it nevertheless indicates a persistent mismatch between the incomes earned by
many workers and the price points of available housing.

Figure 9. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio, 2019 & 2024

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, a low-income job is defined as one with annual earnings below $35,000. An
affordable housing unit is defined based on standard affordability benchmarks: for renters, gross rent must not exceed
30% of monthly income; for homeowners, the purchase price must not exceed three times annual income.

Town of Wellington

18

Page 30 of 52

Accessible/Visitable and Supportive Housing Needs
Notable demand for accessible and visitable housing exists in Wellington. Accessible housing is designed for residents
with mobility limitations, while visitable housing incorporates basic features that allow people with mobility impairments to
enter a home and access essential living spaces. The analysis identifies a need for approximately 280 accessible or
visitable units, equivalent to 6% of Wellington's housing stock (see Table 7). Typical features include step-free
entries, wider doorways, and a usable main-floor bathroom. This estimate represents the number of units that would
ideally be available in a balanced housing market, accounting for shared living arrangements and a modest market
availability factor. The findings underscore the importance of expanding housing options that support aging in place and
changing mobility needs over time.
Wellington's estimated need for supportive housing is comparatively small but still meaningful. Supportive housing
provides long-term, service-enriched housing for individuals experiencing homelessness or housing instability who require
ongoing assistance to maintain stable housing. The analysis identifies a need for three supportive housing units,
representing 0.1% of Wellington's housing stock. Because homelessness data are only available at the broader Fort
Collins, Greeley, Loveland/Larimer, and Weld Counties Continuum of Care level, Wellington's share was estimated based
on its share of households earning less than $25,000 annually, reflecting the strong relationship between extremely low
incomes and homelessness risk. Consistent with homelessness research, the estimate assumes that roughly 30% of
individuals experiencing homelessness require intensive, long-term supportive services to remain stably housed.3 While
modest in scale, the findings indicate a persistent need for service-enriched housing even in a community where
homelessness is relatively uncommon and often less visible.

Table 7. Total Demand for Accessible/Visitable and Supportive Housing in Wellington
Housing Type

Total Unit Demand

Percent of Total Housing Stock

Accessible/Visitable

283

6.3%

Supportive

3

0.1%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Accessible and visitable housing unit needs were estimated based on the population with an ambulatory disability.
To translate the number of individuals into unit needs, it was assumed that an average of 1.1 people with a disability
would share each accessible unit, recognizing that some individuals live with family members or caregivers. To ensure a
healthy level of availability and account for typical vacancy rates, a 5% vacancy buffer was applied. Because HUD Pointin-Time (PIT) data on homelessness are reported only for the two-county region encompassed by the Continuum of Care,
Wellington’s share of supportive housing needs was estimated separately by allocating the regional homeless population
according to the town’s share of households earning below $25,000 annually. It was further assumed that 30% of
individuals experiencing homelessness require supportive housing.

3

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1 – Point-in-Time Estimates of

Homelessness. December 2023.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

19

Page 31 of 52

Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 8 illustrates Wellington’s household income distribution by AMI tier and highlights meaningful differences between
renter and owner households. In total, 529 households, or approximately 12% of all households, earn 30% of AMI or
less, equivalent to annual incomes of $35,640 or below. These extremely low-income households are disproportionately
concentrated among renters, who are more than twice as likely as homeowners to fall within this income category.
Similar disparities exist among very low-income households earning between 31% and 50% of AMI (roughly $35,600 to
$59,400 annually), which account for 15% of renter households compared with 8% of owner households. In contrast,
homeowners are more heavily represented in moderate- and higher-income categories, with one-third of owner
households earning between 81% and 120% of AMI ($95,000 to $142,600) and one-quarter earning more than 200% of
AMI, or $237,600. Overall, about 21% of Wellington households earn less than 50% of AMI, underscoring the
importance of housing options affordable to lower-income residents, particularly renters, who are disproportionately
represented among the community’s most economically vulnerable households.

Table 8. Households by AMI Tier in Wellington, 2024
AMI Tier

All Households

Owner-occupied
Households

Renter-occupied
Households

Extremely Low Income (≤ 30% AMI)

529

12%

341

10%

188

23%

Very Low Income (31–50% AMI)

394

9%

271

8%

123

15%

Low Income (51–80% AMI)

721

17%

561

16%

160

19%

Moderate Income (81–120% AMI)

1,325

31%

1,160

33%

165

20%

Middle Income (120% AMI–200%
AMI)

331

8%

288

8%

43

5%

Upper Income (201%+ AMI)

1,015

24%

866

25%

149

18%

Total Households

4,316

100%

3,487

100%

828

100%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; State Demography Office; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Totals may not sum precisely because of rounding. Due to data limitations, this analysis approximates AMI tiers
using HUD’s published median family income (MFI) for the area ($118,800).

Town of Wellington

20

Page 32 of 52

Table 9 summarizes Wellington's estimated current housing need based on a scenario-driven framework that accounts for
overcrowding, housing market tightness, and the relationship between jobs and housing. Because many forms of housing
need are not directly observable in household or market data, the analysis seeks to estimate latent demand through a
methodology consistent with DOLA Housing Needs Assessment guidance and the requirements of SB 24-174.
The analysis incorporates two baseline measures of existing housing need. First, consistent with DOLA guidance, every
overcrowded household is assumed to generate demand for 0.5 additional housing units. Second, the assessment
evaluates the number of units required to achieve target vacancy rates of 2% for owner-occupied housing and 5% for
rental housing, rates generally associated with a healthy and functioning housing market. Combining these two factors
indicates that Wellington currently faces a need for approximately 149 additional housing units before
considering workforce-related demand.
SB 24-174 also encourages communities to evaluate the relationship between employment and housing availability.
The assessment therefore estimates the housing that would be needed if a portion of workers who currently commute into
Wellington were able to live within the community. Because future residential preferences and commuting patterns are
inherently uncertain, the analysis evaluates a range of scenarios based on housing 15% to 35% of Wellington's incommuting workforce. Under the 15% scenario, Wellington's estimated housing need totals 273 units, including 176
owner units and 97 rental units. Under the 35% scenario, estimated need increases to 432 units, consisting of 305 owner
units and 127 rental units. Although housing need spans all income groups, over 40% of total need is among
households earning 80% of AMI or less, while households earning between 81% and 120% of AMI account for the
largest share of needed units. Note that this methodology differs significantly from the 2025 HNA, which primarily
quantified housing affordability gaps by comparing the distribution of households by income with the availability of housing
at corresponding price points, meaning the results are not directly comparable.

Table 9. Existing Housing Needs in Wellington, 2024
AMI Tier

All Units

Owner Units

Renter Units

Extremely Low Income (≤ 30% AMI)

40–59

14.7%–
13.7%

18–30

10.2%–
9.8%

22–29

22.7%–
22.8%

Very Low Income (31–50% AMI)

27–43

9.9%–
10.0%

13–24

7.4%–
7.9%

14–19

14.4%–
15.0%

Low Income (51–80% AMI)

48–74

17.6%–
17.1%

29–49

16.5%–
16.1%

19–25

19.6%–
19.7%

Moderate Income (81–120% AMI)

78–126

28.6%–
29.2%

59–101

33.5%–
33.1%

19–25

19.6%–
19.7%

Middle Income (120% AMI–200%
AMI)

19–31

7.0%–
7.2%

14–25

8.0%–
8.2%

5–6

5.2%–
4.7%

Upper Income (201%+ AMI)

61–99

22.3%–
22.9%

43–76

24.4%–
24.9%

18–23

18.6%–
18.1%

Total Units

273–432

100%

176–305

100%

97–127

100%

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; State Demography Office; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Totals may not sum precisely because of rounding. Due to data limitations, this analysis approximates AMI tiers
using HUD’s published median family income (MFI) for the area ($118,800). Estimates are presented as a range based
on alternative in-commuter assumptions of 15% and 35%, while maintaining consistent structural assumptions related to
overcrowding relief and vacancy targets.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

21

Page 33 of 52

Table 10 presents Wellington’s cumulative housing needs through 2034, combining both the community’s current housing
shortfall and the additional housing required to accommodate projected household growth. Based on the Town of
Wellington’s population projections, the community is expected to surpass 7,000 households by 2034. To ensure that
existing shortages are addressed while also providing sufficient housing for new households and maintaining healthy
market vacancy levels, Wellington is estimated to require between 877 and 1,034 additional housing units by 2034,
including 563 to 726 owner units and 308 to 314 rental units. Rental housing needs remain disproportionately
concentrated at lower income levels, with households earning below 80% of AMI accounting for nearly 57% of projected
rental need. Collectively, these findings indicate that accommodating Wellington’s anticipated growth will require a broad
range of housing types and price points.
Although future housing demand estimates depend in part on projected population growth, the broader findings and
recommendations remain relevant even if actual growth differs from these projections. Recommendations addressing
existing affordability challenges, housing diversity, and the needs of current residents are not contingent on a particular
growth trajectory. Slower or faster growth would primarily affect the magnitude and timing of future housing needs,
underscoring the importance of periodically reassessing projections and adjusting implementation priorities accordingly.

Table 10. Cumulative Ten-Year Projected Housing Needs in Wellington, 2034
AMI Tier

All Units

Owner Units

Renter Units

Extremely Low Income (≤ 30% AMI)

127–141

14.5%–
13.6%

56–71

9.9%–
9.8%

70–71

22.6%–
22.7%

Very Low Income (31–50% AMI)

89–103

10.1%–
10.0%

43–57

7.6%–
7.9%

46–46

14.6%–
14.9%

Low Income (51–80% AMI)

152–177

17.3%–
17.1%

91–117

16.2%–
16.1%

60–61

19.4%–
19.5%

Moderate Income (81–120% AMI)

250–302

28.5%–
29.2%

188–241

33.4%–
33.2%

61–62

19.7%–
19.8%

Middle Income (120% AMI–200%
AMI)

63–75

7.2%–
7.3%

46–60

8.2%–
8.3%

15–17

5.4%–
4.9%

Upper Income (201%+ AMI)

196–236

22.3%–
22.8%

139–180

24.7%–
24.8%

56–57

18.2%–
18.2%

877–
1,034

100%

563–726

100%

308–314

100%

Total Units

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; State Demography Office; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Totals may not sum precisely because of rounding. Due to data limitations, this analysis approximates AMI tiers
using HUD’s published median family income (MFI) for the area ($118,800). Cumulative future housing need through
2034 reflects the combination of existing structural needs and the housing required to accommodate projected new
households. Estimates are presented as a range based on alternative in-commuter assumptions of 15% and 35%, while
maintaining consistent structural assumptions related to overcrowding relief and vacancy targets.

Town of Wellington

22

Page 34 of 52

Appendix: Displacement Indicators by Census Block Group
Tract
25.07,
Block
Group 1
(Northeast)

Tract
25.07,
Block
Group 2
(North
Central)

Tract
25.08,
Block
Group 2
(South &
Southwest)

Tract
25.08,
Block
Group
3
(South
Central)

Overcrowded Households

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.9%

1.5%

0.0%

Racial or Ethnic Minority
Population

36.9%

35.0%

1.3%

13.6%

22.6%

33.8%

Housing Stock Built Before
1970

5.4%

18.4%

35.4%

6.1%

17.7%

0.0%

Population with Limited
English Speaking Ability

0.0%

4.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Single-Parent-Led-Households

5.7%

5.7%

0.0%

8.3%

9.4%

0.0%

25-and-Over Population
without a

4.0%

9.6%

21.3%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

Cost-Burdened Households
with <$75K Income

100.0%

0.0%

NA

90.7%

100.0%

100.0%

Renter Households

7.7%

15.0%

0.0%

26.0%

14.1%

21.4%

Below 30% AMI Households

7.6%

2.0%

14.3%

14.0%

17.3%

17.3%

Below 50% AMI Households

23.8%

20.1%

40.9%

20.8%

17.3%

21.2%

Below 80% AMI Households

46.1%

48.8%

52.0%

32.9%

25.6%

46.3%

Metric (%)

Tract
Tract
25.07,
25.08,
Block
Block
Group 3
Group 1
(Northwest) (Southeast)

High School Diploma or
Equivalent

Source: Five-Year American Community Survey; Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Note: Due to data limitations, HUD’s published FY 2024 median family income (MFI) for the area ($118,800) serves as a
substitute for AMI.

Wellington Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment Update: Technical Memorandum

23

Page 35 of 52

Planning Commission Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Subject:

November 2, 2026
Cody Bird, Planning Director
Updates on Current and Upcoming Planning Work

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Below is a preliminary schedule for upcoming projects that will be presented to the Planning Commission in
the next several months. These timelines are estimated using project schedules that are in development or
ongoing, and therefore are subject to change. This list and schedule will be updated as needed, and an update
shared with the Planning Commission at each meeting.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
December 2026
• Comprehensive Plan Element Updates - Adoption (required by SB24-174 to be completed by December
31, 2026)
• Property Inventory and Preliminary Site Analysis for Infill Housing (associated with the DOLA Local
Planning Capacity Grant) - Joint meeting with Wellington Housing Authority
January 2027
• Transportation and Mobility Plan - Draft Presentation
• Property Inventory and Preliminary Site Analysis for Infill Housing - Meeting #2
February 2027
• Property Inventory and Preliminary Site Analysis for Infill Housing - Meeting #3 and Final Presentation
• Transportation and Mobility Plan - Adoption
March 2027
• Work Session - Initiatives associated with the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) Local IMPACT
Accelerator Grant and associated ADU and Infill Rebate Program
• Draft Landscape and Irrigation Manual for review and discussion
Other Items for Future Consideration
• A Request for Proposal (RFP) is anticipated to be released in Q4 of 2026 for professional services to
assist with evaluating initiatives associated with the CEO Impact Accelerator Grant. This includes
advancing becoming an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Supportive Jurisdiction and establishment of
Neighborhood Centers, as well as evaluation of and creation of an ADU and Infill Housing Rebate
Program. Information regarding this topic is anticipated to be presented to the Planning Commission in
Q1 of 2027.
• An RFP is anticipated to be released in Q4 of 2026 for evaluation and updates to the Waterwise
Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual. This effort is in association with HB25-1113 requiring
Page 36 of 52

communities to update standards for irrigation by December 31, 2027. Information regarding this topic
is anticipated to be presented to the Planning Commission in Q1 of 2027.
• An RFP is anticipated to be released in Q4 2026 for a Housing Action Plan required by SB24-174, with
adoption of the plan required prior to December 31, 2027. Information regarding this topic is
anticipated to be presented to the Planning Commission in Q2 of 2027.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This item is for information purposes only - No action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
None

Page 37 of 52

Planning Commission Meeting
Date:
Submitted By:
Subject:

November 2, 2026
Comprehensive Plan Strategic Growth & Water Supply Elements Discussion

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town is undertaking updates to its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with requirements of SB24174. The senate bill requires municipalities to incorporate a Strategic Growth Element and a Water Supply
Element into the municipality's Comprehensive Plan. The Town has engaged professional services with Logan
Simpson Design, Inc. to assist with evaluating existing Town efforts and plans, and compiling available
information to incorporate these two elements into the Wellington Comprehensive Plan 2021.
This work session is intended to present findings and insights from a review of existing conditions and initial
recommendations, and solicit feedback and discussion from the Planning Commission. The findings are
informed by work previously completed by the Town in the Wellington Comprehensive Plan 2021, the 2025
Water Source Development Plan, the 2025 Housing Needs & Affordability Assessment (HNA), recent
amendments to the Land Use Code (2025 amendments updating residential lot sizes, maximum densities, and
other housing related updates), and others. Findings are also informed by multiple work sessions with Town
Staff from Planning, Engineering, Finance, Parks & Recreation, Administration, and Utilities. The initial
recommendations are based on satisfying guidance for compliance with SB24-174 created by the Department of
Local Affairs (DOLA) published in July 2026.
Feedback and direction from this work session will guide updates that will be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect the required Elements. A public hearing to consider adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments is anticipated for the December 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This item is intended for discussion. No action may be taken in a work session.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Work Session Presentation

Page 38 of 52

Comprehensive Plan Update
Water Supply and Strategic Growth Elements

Page 39 of 52

What SB24-174 Requires
• Colorado's 2024 land use and housing law directs municipal, county, and regional comprehensive plans to add
two new elements, and to keep them current.

2

12/31/26

5 yrs

new required elements

adoption deadline

maximum update cycle

Water Supply and Strategic Growth

Elements must be in the adopted
comprehensive plan

Updated no less frequently than
every five years

Page 40 of 52

Two Elements, Two Purposes

Water Supply Element

Strategic Growth Element

Helps a community understand water supply
availability and constraints, and apply that
understanding to future land use and
development decisions.

Discourages sprawl and promotes infill and
redevelopment of vacant and underutilized
land, to address demonstrated housing needs
and reduce the need to extend infrastructure
into natural and agricultural lands.

Focus: water supply, demand, and conservation

Focus: where and how the community develops new housing

Page 41 of 52

Water Supply Element Requirements
Consult water providers
Develop the element in consultation with the entities
that supply water within the municipality.

Include conservation policies
Include water conservation policies.

Estimate future needs
Estimate a range of water supplies and facilities
needed to support the potential public and private
development described in the plan.
Also: when adopting or amending the plan, consider the Colorado Water Plan where applicable or appropriate.

Page 42 of 52

Water Supply Element Requirements
Consult water providers
Develop the element in consultation with the entities
that supply water within the municipality.

Three Working Sessions (10/07, 10/22, and
11/5) with Planning, Public Works/Utilities,
Parks & Recreation, Finance, and Town
Administration

Include conservation policies
Include water conservation policies.

Estimate future needs
Estimate a range of water supplies and facilities
needed to support the potential public and private
development described in the plan.

Page 43 of 52

Water Supply Element Requirements
Consult water providers
Develop the element in consultation with the entities
that supply water within the municipality.

Include conservation policies
Include water conservation policies.

Highlight existing conservation policies and
integrate new policies in-line with Water
Source Development Plan.
Housed within the current Reliable &
Resilient Public Services chapter.

Estimate future needs
Estimate a range of water supplies and facilities
needed to support the potential public and private
development described in the plan.

Page 44 of 52

Water Supply Element Requirements
Consult water providers
Develop the element in consultation with the entities
that supply water within the municipality.

Include conservation policies
Include water conservation policies.

Estimate future needs
Estimate a range of water supplies and facilities
needed to support the potential public and private
development described in the plan.

Share planning-level water supply and
projected demand data from Water Source
Development Plan.
Housed within the current Reliable &
Resilient Public Services chapter.

Page 45 of 52

Other Water Supply Initiatives
The Town also just adopted several significant and key pieces related to our water supply planning on October 27.

• Resolution 41-2026 - Approving a Water Supply Agreement with North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) (based
on water source development plan recommendations)
• Resolution 42-2026 - Approving a Storage and Carraige Operations Agreement
• Resolution 43-2026 - Adopting a Water Distribution System Master Plan (based on water source development
plan and treatment plan master plan)
• Ordinance 14-2026 - Establishing Utility Fees based on water planning efforts and modeling
• Ordinance 15-2026 - Establishing updated capital investment fees for water and utilities based on consistent
master plans and modeling

Page 46 of 52

Strategic Growth Element Requirements
Analyze infill sites
Analyze vacant, partially vacant, and
underutilized land near transit or job
centers for potential infill or
redevelopment.

Analyze greenfield sites
Analyze undeveloped land under
consideration for future development,
including infrastructure needs, service
needs, and long-term fiscal impacts.

Develop policies
Describe existing and potential policies
and tools to promote strategic growth
and prevent sprawl.

Page 47 of 52

Strategic Growth Element Requirements
Analyze infill sites
Analyze vacant, partially vacant, and
underutilized land near transit or job
centers for potential infill or
redevelopment.

Analyze greenfield sites
Analyze undeveloped land under
consideration for future development,
including infrastructure needs, service
needs, and long-term fiscal impacts.

Develop policies
Describe existing and potential policies
and tools to promote strategic growth
and prevent sprawl.

New Strategic Growth chapter will highlight findings from new analysis
and Housing Needs Assessment, described as narrative and supported
by maps. The full description of methodology and assumptions will be
housed in a supporting appendix document.

Page 48 of 52

Strategic Growth Element Requirements
Analyze infill sites
Analyze vacant, partially vacant, and
underutilized land near transit or job
centers for potential infill or
redevelopment.

Analyze greenfield sites
Analyze undeveloped land under
consideration for future development,
including infrastructure needs, service
needs, and long-term fiscal impacts.

Develop policies
Describe existing and potential policies
and tools to promote strategic growth
and prevent sprawl.

Strategic Growth chapter will
include new goals and strategies
that embody the “purposeful
planning” approach.

Page 49 of 52

Page 50 of 52

Update Process and Key Dates

Nov. 16-30, 2026

Dec. 31, 2026

Every 5 Years

Draft Element Review

Statutory deadline

Update cycle

The draft elements will be available online
for public review. DOLA will do a curtesy
review.

Municipalities must submit their adopted
comprehensive plan elements to DOLA.

Both elements must be updated no less
frequently than every five years.

Dec. 7, 2026

Jan. 1, 2027

Adoption

Grant priority begins

Planning Commission adoption hearing for
both elements in the comprehensive plan.

State land use grants begin prioritizing
communities with completed elements.

Page 51 of 52

Thank you
Questions?

Page 52 of 52