Larimer County 2011 Indicators Report

United Way of Larimer County

Larimer County Human Services Department

2011

Community Indicators Report

Larimer County, Colorado

Economic Civic

Environmental Social

1

Larimer County Indicators Report

Past, Present and Future

Introduction

Welcome to the first edition of the Larimer County Indicators Report. This report is a supplement to the

COMPASS of Larimer County website, a collaborative effort beginning in 2000 between United Way of

Larimer County and Larimer County Department of Human Services.

Eight broad categories and 80 individual indicators were chosen for this report representing a cross section

of areas important to the quality of life for County residents: Demographics, Economy, Housing, Education

& Early Childhood, Health, Natural Resources, Public Safety, and Travel & Transportation.

As community leaders address the myriad issues affecting all County residents, it is our hope that this

report will be used to support informed decision making in an effort to make Larimer County the best place

to live, work, and raise a family.

We believe there is much useful information contained within this report and we encourage you to use it in

your strategic planning discussions. If you feel an important indicator has been overlooked, please contact

us. We encourage and appreciate feedback regarding what you found useful and informative. For more

information, contact the COMPASS of Larimer County project manager, Deborah Campbell. She can be

reached at 970.498.7619 or by email at [email protected].

Intr

oducti

on

http://www.larimer.org/compass

2

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

County Profile .............................................................................................................................. 6

Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 10

Age .................................................................................................................... 11

Diversity .......................................................................................................... 12

Population and Migration .................................................................................13

Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Gross Domestic Product .................................................................................... 15

Labor Force ...................................................................................................... 17

Wages .............................................................................................................. 19

Businesses ....................................................................................................... 21

Unemployment Rate ........................................................................................ 22

National Rankings ........................................................................................... 23

Assessed Valuations ......................................................................................... 24

Income Distribution ......................................................................................... 25

Childcare Costs ................................................................................................ 28

Poverty Rates ................................................................................................... 29

Public Assistance ..............................................................................................31

Free or Reduced School Lunch ......................................................................... 32

Food Bank ........................................................................................................ 33

Housing ....................................................................................................................................... 34

Affordability .................................................................................................... 35

Housing Foreclosures ...................................................................................... 37

Building Permits .............................................................................................. 38

Median Sales Price – Single Family Homes ...................................................... 39

3

Homelessness .................................................................................................. 40

Education & Early Childhood ................................................................................................. 41

CSAP Scores ..................................................................................................... 42

ACT Scores ....................................................................................................... 43

High School Graduation Rates ......................................................................... 44

Educational Attainment ................................................................................... 45

Libraries .......................................................................................................... 46

Preschool Attendance ...................................................................................... 47

Health .......................................................................................................................................... 49

Health Insurance Coverage .............................................................................. 50

Tobacco Use ...................................................................................................... 51

Sexually Transmitted Infections – Chlamydia .................................................. 52

Chronic Disease ............................................................................................... 53

Diabetes ........................................................................................................... 54

Obesity ............................................................................................................. 55

Physical Activity ............................................................................................... 56

Mental Health .................................................................................................. 57

Child Abuse ...................................................................................................... 58

Out-of-Home Placements ................................................................................. 59

Unintentional Injuries ..................................................................................... 60

Natural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 61

Water Quality................................................................................................... 62

Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 63

Managed Waste ................................................................................................ 64

Land Use/Conservation.................................................................................... 65

4

Public Safety ............................................................................................................................... 67

Crime Rate ....................................................................................................... 68

Juvenile Crime ................................................................................................. 69

Detention Center .............................................................................................. 70

Impaired Driving .............................................................................................. 71

Travel & Transportation ..........................................................................................................73

Commuting ...................................................................................................... 74

Public Transportation ...................................................................................... 75

Motor Vehicle Mortality Rates ......................................................................... 76

6

Larimer County is located in Northern Colorado, with Boulder County

to the south, Jackson and Grand Counties to the west, Weld County to

the east, and Wyoming to the north. It is the seventh most populous

county in the state and consists of eight incorporated communities and

several unincorporated areas.

POPULATION

Growth

In 2010, the state‟s demography office

estimated Larimer County‟s population at

302,600.

During the last decade, the population of

Larimer County has grown nearly 16%.1

Over the last two decades, the county‟s

population growth has averaged 2.4% per

year.2

Fort Collins is the largest city in Larimer

County with an estimated population of

139,587 in 2010. The city‟s population has

increased 13.5% over the last decade.3

The county‟s population is estimated to grow

to nearly 550,000 by the year 2040.4

Components of Population Change

Since the 1970s, migration has outpaced natural increase (births minus deaths) as the county‟s principal source

of growth.5

Over the last decade, net migration has averaged 3,096 per year, compared to an average natural increase of

1,532 per year.6

The state demography office estimates that net migration will continue as the principal source of growth,

averaging nearly 4,700 new residents per year, through 2040.

County Profile

7

Race/Ethnicity

In 2009, 84.8% of Larimer

County residents self-identified

as Non-Hispanic White,

compared to 10.2% Hispanic.7

Hispanic is an ethnicity, so they

may be of any race.

Approximately 5% of residents

residing in Larimer County in

2009 were foreign born.8

Among residents over the age of

5, 10% speak a language other

than English in the home.9

Of those, the majority (67%)

speak Spanish, and 3% of the

total population report they

speak English „less than very

well.‟10

Age

Larimer County‟s median age was 35

years in 2009.11

In 2009, 25% of the population was

under the age of 18 and 12% was over the

age of 65.12

Projections from 2011 through 2040

anticipate a 177% increase in the

population over the age of 65, compared

to an increase of 63% for all ages.13

The percentage of the population over the

age of 65 is expected to grow from 11% in

2011 to 19% in 2040.14

In comparison, although the number of

children under the age of 18 is expected to

increase by 56% between 2011 and 2040,

the percentage of the population in this

age group is anticipated to change only

marginally, from 25% of the entire

population in 2011 to 24% in 2040.15

Vital Statistics - 5-year Average (2005-2009)

Colorado Larimer

Total Population 4,896,051 288,062

Number of Births 69,819 3,490

Birth Rate (per 1,000 population) 70.1 82.5

Fertility Rate (per 1,000 population) 68.3 54.5

Percentage of:

Low birthweight babies 9% 8%

Received 1st trimester prenatal care 77% 80%

Medicaid paid for prenatal care 32% 31%

Births to teen mothers (15-19) 2% 1%

Births to unmarried women 24% 25%

Births to women with less than HS education 21% 16%

Deaths 30,232 1,620

Death Rate (per 1,000 population) 61.8 56.2

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

County

Pro

file

8

EMPLOYMENT

Larimer County‟s economy is diverse but changing:

In 2009, it‟s estimated there were in excess of 188,000 jobs in Larimer County, representing a 10.7% increase from 2001.16

Between 2001 and 2009, 18,214 jobs were added in Larimer County. The majority of those jobs were in the Retail Trade and

Government sectors. Construction (-1,571 or -10.6%) and Manufacturing (-6,598 or -35.4%) were the big losers, positions

that tend to pay higher average wages.17

The largest labor sectors in 2009 included Accommodation & Food Services, Professional and Business Services, Health Care,

Retail Trade and Government. No one sector comprised more than 15% of the labor market.18

Small businesses do well in Larimer County:

More than 75% of employees in the county are employed by firms with fewer than 10 employees.19

Between 2000 and 2008 small businesses with fewer than 10 employees added an estimated 3,041 jobs to the economy.20

Larimer County‟s unemployment rate is lower than national and state averages:

Unemployment is the highest it‟s been in 20 years – 6.6% in 2010 and 8.4% as of January 2011.21

Although historically high, Larimer County‟s 2010 annual unemployment rate was well below the national average of 9.6%

and the state average of 8.9%.22

HOUSING

As of January 2010, there were 132,157 housing units available in Larimer County23:

Two-thirds (66%) of occupied units are owner-occupied compared to one-third (34%) renter-occupied.24

In 2009, 98% of building permits issued in Larimer County were for single-family homes, compared to 94% in 2008.25

Over the last decade, building permits have declined 87% from a high of 2,835 in 2000 to a low of 369 in 2009.26

As of 2009, the average household size in Larimer County was 2.2 persons27:

Berthoud has the highest household size in the county (2.5).28

In addition to Berthoud, three other Larimer County communities have household sizes higher than the county average:

Loveland (2.4), Timnath-Wellington (2.4) and Fort Collins (2.3).29

LAND USE

Larimer County covers 2,640 square miles:

A substantial portion (39%) is occupied by the

Roosevelt National Forest.30

One-quarter of the County is devoted to

agricultural use.31

Approximately 10% is used for residential

purposes.32

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)

Out of 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

within the United States, Fort Collins-Loveland

ranked 157th in GDP in 2009.33

STATE AND LOCAL FINANCES

Larimer County has the 7th highest average mill

levy in the state, behind Adams, Broomfield,

Douglas, Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Pueblo

counties34:

In Larimer County, the largest percentage of property taxes supports public schools (52%).35

Just over 26% of collected property taxes go to Larimer County.36

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Larimer County‟s property taxes rank 641 out of 792 counties in the country, with #1

being the highest tax as a percentage of the home‟s value.

County

Pro

file

9

SOURCES

1Colorado State Demography Office 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. 5Ibid. 6Ibid. 7U.S. Census, 2009 American Community Survey 8Ibid. 9Ibid. 10Ibid. 11Ibid. 12Ibid. 13Ibid. 1

14Ibid. 15Ibid. 16Bureau of Economic Analysis 17Ibid. 18Ibid. 19U.S. Census – County Business Patterns 20Ibid. 21Bureau of Labor Statistics 22Ibid. 23Colorado Department of Local Affairs 24Ibid. 7

25U.S. Census Bureau 26Ibid. 27U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates 28Ibid. 29Ibid. 30U.S. Forest Service 31Colorado State University 32Ibid. 33Ibid. 16

34Ibid. 23

35Ibid. 36Ibid.

10

Key Findings

In Larimer County:

The population over the age of 65 is increasing;

Although the county is not racially diverse, the Hispanic population continues to grow;

Overall, the population of the county is increasing, with more people moving in than

leaving.

Demographics

11

Age

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the changing

composition of the demographics within

Larimer and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Understanding the demographic composition of

the County helps community leaders and

decision makers plan for future needs and

allocation of resources.

How is Larimer County doing?

Age

The median age in Larimer County went from

33.9 in 2005 to 35.1 in 2009, a 3.5% increase.

There were fewer school age children in Larimer

County in 2009 than 20 years ago, while the

population over the age of 65 continues to grow.

Dem

ogra

phic

s

The median age of Larimer and Weld County residents is increasing. The median

age of Larimer County residents is slightly higher than the median age of Weld

County residents.

12

Diversity

Diversity

Population by Race/Ethnicity - 2009

% of Total

Larimer County

White 91.8%

Hispanic 10.2%

Black/African American 0.9%

American Indian 0.6%

Asian 2.0%

Two or More Races 2.3%

Weld County

White 90.7%

Hispanic 27.6%

Black/African American 0.5%

American Indian 0.8%

Asian 1.1%

Two or More Races 3.4%

Source: U.S. Census

Although the Hispanic population

has increased 55% in the last 20

years, there has been little

diversification with respect to other

minorities.

The percentage of Hispanic

students enrolled in the public

schools in Larimer County has

grown substantially over the last

decade: Park (169.0%), Thompson

(86.6%) and Poudre (47.2%).

Dem

ogra

phic

s

Although Larimer and Weld Counties are predominantly White, the

Hispanic populations are steadily increasing.

13

Population and Migration

Migration Over the last decade, more people have moved into Larimer and Weld Counties than have moved out of the area. Net migration

in Weld County has been steadily declining since 2005.

Dem

ogra

phic

s

The populations of Larimer and Weld Counties continue increasing as

more people are moving into the area than are leaving.

14

Key Findings

According to the Milkin Institute, in 2010, Fort Collins-Loveland ranked higher in overall economic

performance than Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver or Greeley.

On average, wages in Larimer County remained flat between 2001 and 2009, with the exception of the

“Management of Companies” and “Professional and Business Services” sectors. These two sectors accounted

for 8.7% of total Larimer County jobs in 2009.

More than 75% of businesses in Larimer County employ fewer than 10 employees.

Although the unemployment rate has been on the rise since 2007, it still remains below the unemployment

rate for the state and nation.

Full-time child care for an infant now costs more than resident tuition at Colorado State University.

An increasing number of County residents now require some sort of public assistance to make ends meet.

Economy

15

Gross Domestic Product

Description of Indicator Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a specific area in a given year,

equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. In 2009,

nominal GDP (in current dollars) in the Fort Collins-Loveland MSA was $11,189M.

Why is this important? GDP is a good indicator of whether the local economy is growing, shrinking or holding steady.

How is Larimer County doing? Real GDP, or GDP adjusted for inflation, increased more than 17% between 2001 and 2009. Because of the countrywide

recession, real GDP in Larimer County decreased slightly in 2009 (2.3%). For individual sectors, Manufacturing produced the

highest percentage of the county‟s GDP (17%), followed by Government (15%) and Real Estate (12%). Manufacturing,

Professional & Business Services, and Healthcare all increased productivity since 2001, whereas Government, Real Estate, and

Construction all decreased.

Econom

y

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased every year in the Fort

Collins-Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) since 2001

before declining slightly in 2009.

16

Gross Domestic Product - continued

Of the 366 Metropolitan Service Areas (MSAs) in the United States, Fort Collins-Loveland

MSA‟s GDP ranked 160 in 2008. Between 2007 and 2008, GDP in the area increased 4.2% (in

Real GDP) and was ranked 30th out of 366 MSAs.

Colorado MSA U.S.

Ranking 2007 to 2008

% Growth in Real GDP

Grand Junction 1 12.3% Fort Collins-Loveland 30 4.2% Pueblo 38 3.6% Colorado Springs 48 3.2% Boulder 49 3.2% Denver-Aurora-Broomfield 97 2.0% Greeley 102 1.9%

Econom

y

17

Labor Force

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the total number of jobs available, the type of jobs and the average wage for those jobs in

Larimer and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? The health of the economy depends on providing a sufficient number of living wage jobs for the workforce.

How is Larimer County doing? No one sector employed more than 15% of the County‟s workforce in 2009:

The Government sector employed the largest percentage of workers in Larimer County (14.9%).

In Larimer County, Retail Trade employed 11.4%, followed by Health Services (10.1%), Professional & Business Services

(8.7%), and Accommodation & Food Services (8.1%).

Number of Jobs per Sector

Larimer County Weld County

2001 2009 2001 2009 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 457 624 1,076 902 Mining 701 1,368 1,648 3,845 Utilities 232 270 223 249 Construction 14,862 13,291 9,460 10,387 Manufacturing 18,635 12,037 11,893 11,120 Wholesale Trade 3,612 3,791 3,795 4,064 Retail Trade 20,141 21,437 10,610 9,901 Transportation & Warehousing 3,102 2,905 3,009 3,174 Information 3,483 3,555 1,229 1,347 Finance & Insurance 5,681 8,791 4,533 6,528 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 7,933 10,899 3,465 5,035 Professional & Business Services 12,560 16,375 3,885 4,756 Management of Companies & Enterprises 232 515 721 984 Administrative & Waste Services 9,957 10,584 5,441 5,892 Educational Services 1,941 2,753 607 1,101 Health Care & Social Assistance 13,221 18,931 8,064 9,673 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 3,664 5,264 1,372 2,022 Accommodation & Food Services 13,598 15,162 5,568 6,372 Other Services (exc. Public Administration) 8,298 9,602 4,966 5,939 Government 25,672 28,027 12,858 15,642

Total employment 170,056 188,270 100,461 115,069

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Econom

y

The total number of jobs in Larimer and Weld Counties has increased,

however a large number of high paying manufacturing jobs have been

lost.

18

Labor Force – continued

Larimer County had a net gain of 18,214 jobs between 2001 and 2009:

The majority of those jobs were in the Health Care, Professional & Business Services and Finance & Insurance sectors.

Three sectors lost jobs – Transportation & Warehousing, Construction and Manufacturing. Historically, the Manufacturing sector

has paid the highest wages.

Weld County gained a total of 14,608 jobs during this same time, the majority of which were in the Government sector.

Weld County also lost jobs in the Manufacturing, Retail Trade, and Agriculture sectors, but not nearly as many as in Larimer County.

Econom

y

19

Wages

Larimer County saw no increase in average wages between 2001 and 2009 when adjusted for inflation:

The Real Estate, Health Care, Professional & Business Services and Accommodation sectors all saw increases in average wages

between 2001 and 2009.

Just over one-half of the sectors listed above paid more than the average wage in 2009. Of those 11 sectors, Health Care and

Professional & Business Services employed nearly 20% of the County‟s workforce.

Average Wage per Job by Industry Adjusted to 2009 Dollars


2001 2009 2001 2009 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting $26,520 $28,444 $26,832 $30,056 Mining $42,432 $43,992 $56,992 $62,816 Utilities $56,524 $60,476 $70,928 $70,252 Construction $43,576 $44,720 $42,536 $46,592 Manufacturing $70,408 $67,912 $48,620 $42,016 Wholesale Trade $46,748 $51,272 $47,424 $53,560 Retail Trade $25,948 $23,556 $27,040 $25,116 Transportation & Warehousing $33,748 $35,308 $39,416 $41,496 Information $47,944 $48,932 $47,164 $43,368 Finance & Insurance $50,128 $49,764 $49,244 $47,892 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $30,680 $31,200 $30,212 $31,720 Professional & Business Services $51,480 $71,552 $38,844 $47,112 Management of Companies & Enterprises $53,664 $64,636 n/a $80,444 Administrative & Waste Services $27,508 $29,952 $22,308 $27,716 Educational Services $25,116 $24,596 $26,312 $22,828 Health Care & Social Assistance $39,364 $42,432 $36,348 $40,560 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation $15,496 $15,236 $13,728 $14,768 Accommodation & Food Services $13,728 $14,092 $11,336 $12,532 Other Services (exc. Public Administration) $25,948 $27,144 $26,208 $26,780 Government $44,512 $45,708 $35,880 $37,024

Average for All Industries $40,248 $40,248 $36,400 $37,648

Source: Colorado Department of Labor

Econom

y

When adjusted for inflation, wages in Larimer County have remained

flat since 2001. Weld County wages have increased a moderate 3.2%

since 2001.

20

Wages – continued

Only four employment sectors in Larimer County (Professional & Business Services, Manufacturing, Management of Companies, and

Utilities paid an average wage high enough to provide self-sufficiency for a family of four. Those four sectors, combined, employed an

estimated 16% of the total Larimer County workforce in 2009.

Econom

y

Highest/Lowest Average Wage in 2009

21

Businesses

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the total number of businesses by employee size, and the number of financial institutions and

their holdings.

Why is this important? The more diverse the economy, the better the County is able to weather downturns. The number of financial institutions and the

value of their deposits are a leading indicator of a community‟s economic activity and strength.

How is Larimer County doing? In 2009, the large majority of business in Larimer County

employed fewer than 10 employees:

More than 75% of businesses in the County

employed fewer than 10 employees in 2008.

There was a loss of a total of 40 businesses

in 2008 over 2007.

But there were 683 more small businesses

in the County between 2003 and 2008.

In the last decade, Larimer County added 7 more

financial institutions and increased total bank deposits

by 42.5% when adjusted for inflation.

In comparison, Weld County‟s financial institutions

increased total bank deposits by 35.7% when adjusted

for inflation.

Deposits of All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Larimer County

Weld County

Number of Institutions

Bank deposits

Year-to- year growth

Number of Institutions

Bank deposits

Year-to- year growth

FY2000

25

$2,551,450

25

$1,671,970

FY2001

25

$2,798,375

9.7%

24

$1,783,587

6.7%

FY2002

28

$3,079,794

10.1%

26

$1,845,181

3.5%

FY2003

27

$3,363,641

9.2%

28

$2,015,692

9.2%

FY2004

27

$3,446,943

2.5%

27

$2,236,438

11.0%

FY2005

32

$3,718,050

7.9%

29

$2,604,410

16.5%

FY2006

30

$3,958,649

6.5%

28

$2,989,000

14.8%

FY2007

33

$4,229,735

6.8%

28

$3,603,905

20.6%

FY2008

34

$4,412,234

4.3%

28

$3,856,448

7.0%

FY2009

33

$4,655,907

5.5%

27

$3,043,274

-21.1%

FY2010

32

$4,673,402

0.4%

26

$2,916,331

-4.2%

Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Econom

y

The number of businesses in Larimer and Weld Counties continues

to increase, with the majority employing fewer than 10 employees.

22

Unemployment Rate

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the

annual unemployment rate in

Colorado compared to Larimer and

Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Family well-being is dependent on

gainful employment. The

unemployment rate is a good

measure of the local economy‟s

ability to provide employment

opportunities to those who are able

and willing to work. Additionally, an

increased demand for social services

often goes hand in hand with higher

unemployment rates.

How is Larimer County

doing? Larimer County‟s unemployment

rate has been lower than the rate in

Weld County and Colorado:

Colorado‟s unemployment rate

was 8.3% in 2009, compared to

6.6% in Larimer County and 8.7%

in Weld County.

When comparing Larimer

County‟s rate with 10 comparable

communities around the country,

only 3 communities had lower rates in 2009: Amarillo, TX, Boulder, CO, and Lincoln, NE.

Historical Annual Unemployment Rates

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Amarillo, TX 3.9 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.6 5.3 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 7.2 7.9 8.7 8.2 7.6 5.9 5.3 6.5 9.6 Boulder, CO 3.7 5.8 5.8 4.9 4.5 3.8 3.4 4.2 6.4 Corpus Christi, TX 5.5 6.3 6.7 6.4 5.6 4.9 4.4 4.7 7.2 Eugene-Springfield, OR 6.8 7.1 8.0 7.3 6.2 5.4 5.2 6.7 11.9 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 3.2 4.7 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.2 6.6 Fort Smith, AR 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 4.9 7.9 Gainesville, FL 3.5 4.0 3.7 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.0 4.3 7.2 Greeley, CO 3.5 5.2 5.9 5.7 5.6 4.8 4.2 5.2 8.7 Green Bay, WI 4.1 5.1 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 8.1 Lincoln, NE 2.7 3.2 3.7 3.5 3.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 4.3

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Econom

y

The unemployment rate continues increasing. Larimer County‟s

unemployment rate has been consistently lower than the rate in

Colorado and Weld County.

23

National Rankings

Milkin Institute National Rankings Best Performing Cities Index

2003 2004 2005 2006* 2007 2008 2009 2010

Boulder 92 99 92 - 93 95 44 56

Fort Collins-Loveland 80 133 46 - 75 48 22 50

Colorado Springs 36 87 71 - 96 111 101 99

Denver 89 130 105 - 106 44 55 63

Greeley 104 141 31 - 29 20 20 101

*No report produced in 2006 Source: Milkin Institute

The Milkin Institute is a non-profit, independent economic think tank that publishes the annual “Best

Performing Cities: Where America‟s Jobs are Created and Sustained.” This report ranks cities by their

success in job creation and retention, the quality of those jobs, as well as their overall economic performance.

The table above shows where the largest metropolitan areas in Colorado ranked out of the 200 largest areas

in the United States. The Fort Collins-Loveland area ranked in the top 80 for 6 of the 7 years shown, with

2009 being the best ranking at 22nd.

Econom

y

In 2010, Fort Collins-Loveland ranked higher than Boulder, Colorado

Springs, Denver or Greeley in the Milkin Institute‟s Best Performing

Cities Index. Greeley ranked the lowest of the five Colorado cities.

24

Assessed Valuations

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the diversity of county-level tax assessments.

Why is this important? The more diverse the county‟s tax assessments, the more likely it is to weather fluctuations in the economy.

How is Larimer County doing? In 2009, the average mill levy in Larimer County was higher than in Weld County:

In Larimer County, the majority of property taxes were derived from residential taxes (52%).

Education collects the largest share of property taxes in Larimer and Weld Counties (52.2% and 40.7%, respectively).

Assessed Valuations by Property Class, 2009


$4,268,029,157 Total Assessed Value $5,779,693,520 Total Assessed Value $361,791,133 Total Revenue $386,779,350 Total Revenue

84.768 Average Mill Levy 66.920 Average Mill Levy

Property Tax by Taxing Authority Property Tax by Taxing Authority

School Districts $189,018,155 52.2% School Districts $157,368,384 40.7% Junior Colleges $1,901 0.0% Junior Colleges $31,120,999 8.0% County Government $95,663,385 26.4% County Government $96,972,420 25.1% City/Town Government $30,453,159 8.4% City/Town Government $28,804,105 7.4% Special Districts $46,654,534 12.9% Special Districts $72,513,442 18.7% Total $361,791,134 100.0% Total $386,779,350 100.0%

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Econom

y

In 2005, the average mill levy in Larimer County was 81.878 and

72.259 in Weld County. Larimer County‟s mill levy was higher in

2009, whereas Weld County‟s mill levy was lower.

25

Income Distribution

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at family income distribution. Median Family Income (MFI) is the point at which one-half of

incomes fall below that point and one-half are above that point. The Gini Index measures the degree of income inequality,

where 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (one person has

all the income). Per Capita Income is calculated by dividing the total population by the total income of an area. A higher Gini

Index will often skew Per Capita Income.

Why is this important? Median Family Income is a commonly used indicator of current family economic status, since it depicts pooled resources. It is

also commonly used to determine housing affordability. As for income inequality, it‟s likely to affect workers‟ health and

productivity the larger the gap grows.

How is Larimer County doing? According to the 2009 American Community Survey, 52.3% of Larimer County families had family income less than $75,000

In 2010, Larimer County‟s MFI was higher than Colorado‟s MFI ($71,000) and the United State‟s MFI ($64,400).

Historically, Larimer County‟s MFI has been higher than the MFI in Mesa, Pueblo, and Weld Counties.

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County‟s MFI has increased 0.9% since 2006.

Median Family Income

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Boulder $81,600 $82,500 $85,000 $89,100 $89,600

Larimer $68,600 $68,200 $75,000 $75,200 $74,900

Mesa $50,100 $49,800 $55,000 $57,200 $60,100

Pueblo $46,800 $48,000 $48,700 $51,300 $50,700

Weld $57,800 $59,800 $64,000 $64,300 $65,000

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Econom

y

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County‟s Median Family

Income (MFI) has increased 0.9% since 2006 compared to a

3.8% increase in Weld County.

26

Income Distribution - continued

In 2008, Median Family Income (MFI) in Larimer County was $75,000. More than half of Larimer County families (52%) earned

less than the MFI between 2005 and 2009.

An even higher percentage (59%) of Weld County families earned less than $75,000 during this same period, although Weld County‟s

MFI was $64,000 in 2008.

Generally speaking, income inequality in Larimer County is similar to that of the state and country (see table below). Income

inequality has been increasing over the last several decades and is considered quite high among industrialized societies. As a

comparison, according to the United Nations, Denmark has the greatest income equality (24.7) and Namibia has the greatest income

inequality (74.3).

Caution should be taken when considering the Gini Index presented below because of the relatively high margin of error. For

example, in 2008, the Gini Index in Larimer County was reported as 47.0, yet when considering the margin of error, it could have

been anywhere between 45.0 and 49.0.

Gini Index

United States Colorado Larimer Weld

2006 46.4 45.0 45.1 42.7

2007 46.7 45.2 44.6 42.9

2008 46.9 45.7 47.0 40.9

2009 46.9 45.3 44.6 42.4

Source: American Community Survey

Econom

y

27

Income Distribution – continued

In 2008, per capita income in Larimer County was less than in the U.S. or Colorado:

Per capita income in Larimer County remained fairly flat between 2000 and 2008; however there was an 11% decrease in

Weld County during this time period.

Larimer County saw a larger percentage increase in per capita income between 1970 and 2008 (115.3%) than the United

States (77.2%), Colorado (91.9%) or Weld County (43.5%).

Econom

y

28

Childcare Costs

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the childcare cost to families in order for them to work.

Why is this important? Without affordable childcare, parents are unable to work full-time in order to support their families.

How is Larimer County doing? As childcare costs in Larimer County have risen over the last decade, the number of children helped by the Child Care Assistance

Program (CCAP) has decreased:

In 2001, an average of 1,656 children per month was provided with child care assistance through the CCAP program. In 2010, that

number decreased to 1,076, a 35% decrease.

In the last decade, the average CCAP cost per household went from $472 per month to $709 per month, a 50% increase.

CCAP funding over the last decade has varied, but the current trend indicates that income thresholds for eligibility are being lowered.

As of January 2011, eligibility is limited to those with family incomes at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Larimer County Childcare Cost, 2010

Full-time cost in child care centers

Age Minimum Weekly

Maximum Weekly

Average Weekly

0-12 months $200 $305 $265

1-2 years $170 $383 $241

2-5 years $140 $338 $208

5-6 years $112 $338 $182

6+ years before/after school $103 $140 $119

Full-time cost in family child care homes

Age Minimum Weekly

Maximum Weekly

Average Weekly

0-12 months $90 $275 $164

1-2 years $90 $275 $162

2-5 years $30 $250 $153

5-6 years $65 $225 $148

6+ years before/after school $35 $225 $85

Source: Early Childhood Council of Larimer County

Econom

y

In 2010, average childcare costs for an infant ($13,780) were

approximately double the cost of resident tuition at Colorado State

University ($6,985).

29

Poverty Rates

Description of Indicators The following indicators describe the percentage/number of residents living below the poverty level, followed by those being

aided by the social safety nets provided to the disadvantaged residents of Larimer County.

Why is this important? The overall health of the economy is often ascertained by the number of people requiring social services assistance. In 2009, a

family of four with a household income of $22,050 or less was considered to be living in poverty.

Federal Poverty Guidelines for 48 Contiguous States and D.C.

Persons in Family

Unit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 $9,570 $9,800 $10,210 $10,400 $10,830

2 $12,830 $13,200 $13,690 $14,000 $14,570

3 $16,090 $16,600 $17,170 $17,600 $18,310

4 $19,350 $20,000 $20,650 $21,200 $22,050

5 $22,610 $23,400 $24,130 $24,800 $25,790

6 $25,870 $26,800 $27,610 $28,400 $29,530

7 $29,130 $30,200 $31,090 $32,000 $33,270

8 $32,390 $33,600 $34,570 $35,600 $37,010

Each additional person, add $3,260 $3,400 $3,480 $3,600 $3,740

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Econom

y

In 2000, 9.2% of Larimer County residents were living in poverty. By

2009, an estimated 15.6% of residents were living in poverty and

26.3% were living below 185% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

30

Poverty Rates - continued

How is Larimer County doing? Poverty rates in Larimer County have

increased over

the last decade:

Prior to 2009, Larimer County‟s poverty rate

was lower than the poverty rate of Colorado

and the nation.

A 13.7% poverty rate translates to an

estimated 41,000 Larimer County residents

living in poverty.

Since 2000, the number of children under

the age of 18 living in poverty has increased

68.5%, and the number of seniors 65 and

older living in poverty has increased 53.2%

As of 2009, an estimated average of 7,918

children and 2,156 seniors are living in

poverty in Larimer County.

Children (0-17) Living in Poverty

2000 2005-2009

United States 16.6% 18.6%

Colorado 11.3% 15.7%

Larimer County 7.3% 12.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Seniors (65+) Living in Poverty

2000 2005-2009

United States 9.9% 9.8%

Colorado 7.4% 8.5%

Larimer County 4.4% 6.7%


Econom

y

31

Public Assistance

Larimer County Public Assistance

Average Monthly Number of Households Receiving Assistance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Food Stamps 4,759 4,790 5,324 7,028 8,592

TANF 549 380 247 366 496

Source: Larimer County Dept. of Human Services

Average Monthly Number of Unique Clients

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Medicaid n/a n/a 16,684 19,596 24,173

Source: Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing

The number of households receiving public assistance increased

substantially in Larimer County as the recession deepened in

2008.

In Larimer County, the

average number of households

receiving Food Stamps

increased 81% in the last 5

years.

In the last 3 years, the average

number of individuals on

Medicaid increased 45%.

The Earned Income Tax Credit

(EITC) is a refundable tax credit

primarily for workers with

qualifying children.

In 2000, 8.3% of tax returns

filed by Larimer County

residents received an EITC,

compared to 10.1% in 2007.

The average EITC for Larimer

County residents increased

28% between 2000 and 2009.

Econom

y

32

Free or Reduced School Lunch

The number of students who qualify for the free and reduced school lunch program is a good indicator of the economic health of the

community:

Historically, the school districts in Larimer County have had a lower percentage of students qualifying for the free and reduced school

lunch program than the state.

Nearly a third (31%) of students attending school districts in Larimer County qualified for the free and reduced school lunch program

in 2010-11.

The percentage of students qualifying for the free and reduced school lunch program in Larimer County increased much faster than

the state average between 2001-02 and 2010-11.

Park School District saw the greatest percentage increase (108.8%) in students qualifying for the program between 2001-02 and

2010-11, followed by Thompson (65.1%) and Poudre (64.3%).

The number of students receiving free or reduced school lunches

has steadily increased over the past decade.

Econom

y

33

Food Bank

The number of individuals served by the Food Bank for Larimer County increased 51.6% between 2006 and 2010.

The number of children being served meals at the Kids Café sites in the County increased 85.4% during this same period.

According to the Food Bank for Larimer County, 1.3 million pounds of food were distributed to approximately 70 nonprofit

agencies in FYE2010, an 18.2% increase since FYE2006.

The number of residents utilizing the Food Bank for Larimer

County has steadily increased since 2006.

Econom

y

34

Key Findings

More than half of renters in Larimer County (54.5%) paid in excess of 30% of their income for housing in

2009.

Foreclosure filings have risen 403.4% since 2001.

In 2001, 3,664 building permits were issued in Larimer County compared to 451 in 2009.

On average, the median sales price for a single-family home in Larimer County increased approximately 2%

per year over the last decade.

The majority (54%) of the homeless in Fort Collins are households with children.

Homelessness is on the rise as the economy worsens and the number of affordable housing units falls short.

Housing

35

Affordability

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the affordability of housing

in Larimer County, whether it‟s home ownership or renting.

Why is this important? Affordable housing, whether it‟s home ownership or renting,

is key to raising a family and providing stability for the

economy.

How is Larimer County doing? The Housing Affordability Index (HOI) is a standard

established by the National Association of Realtors that

gauges the ability to afford a home based on the median

family income (MFI). A score of 100 means a family earning

the MFI could afford a typical single-family home with a 20%

down payment.

Since 2003, housing in Loveland and Fort Collins has been

more affordable than in the nation as a whole.

Generally speaking, housing in Loveland and Fort Collins

is becoming more affordable, although in 2010, a family

earning the MFI of $74,900 would not have sufficient

income to purchase a typical single-family home.

In 2009, more than half (54.5%) of renters and almost a

third (31.4%) of homeowners in Larimer County paid in

excess of 30% of their income for housing.

Housi

ng

In 2010, home affordability in Larimer County decreased for the

first time since 2006.

36

Affordability – continued

In 2009, foreclosure filings in Larimer County peaked at 2,037, creating a demand for affordable housing rentals. As fewer

rentals were available (lower vacancy rates), the average rental amount went from $665/month to $712/month, a 7.1% increase.

The recession and subsequent foreclosure peak also had an effect on traditional rental housing, with rentals peaking in 2009 at

$861/month when the vacancy rate was 4.4%.

Housin

g

37

Housing Foreclosures

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of foreclosure filings in Larimer County.

Why is this important? High foreclosure rates often correlate with high unemployment rates and low wages. Foreclosures also negatively affect new

home construction, weaken the real estate market and decrease the value of home prices, which in turn, lower the amount

collected in property taxes.

How is Larimer County doing? Foreclosure filings in Larimer County have risen dramatically since 2001:

Although there was 275 fewer foreclosure filings in 2010, compared to 2009, it is widely assumed this was due to the

mortgage industry voluntarily halting foreclosures while legal matters were resolved.

Since 2001, foreclosures have increased 403.4%.

Housi

ng

Between 2001 and 2009, foreclosure filings have steadily increased.

There were fewer filings in 2010 due to a voluntary suspension by the

mortgage industry. Industry experts anticipate another increase in 2011.

38

Building Permits

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at

the number and type of building

permits issued in Larimer and

Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Building permits, in conjunction

with housing starts, is a leading

economic indicator and is often

seen as a gauge for future real

estate supply levels. Growing

economies are often accompanied

by an increase in the number of

building permits issued.


doing? Over the last decade, the trend in

the number of building permits

issued has been downward:

Between 2001 and 2009, the

number of building permits

issued in Larimer County

decreased 88%.

In 2001, a total of 3,664 permits were issued, compared to 451 in 2009.

In 2010, the number of permits issued increased to 1,156, a 156% increase over the previous year.

Housin

g

The trend over the past decade has been a decrease in the number

of building permits issued.

39

Median Sales Price – Single Family Homes

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the median sales price

for a single family home in Larimer County. The

median sales price represents the point where half the

sales are of lower value and half the sales are of higher

value. In general, the median sales price is less biased

than the average sales price because it is less influenced

by a few sales of very expensive homes.

Why is this important? The median sales price of single family homes often

indicates if housing in the community is keeping up or

doing better than inflation. If real estate is seen as

doing better than inflation, real estate is viewed as a

good investment. However, if prices rise too quickly,

too many potential homeowners may be priced out of

the market.

How is Larimer County doing? Median sales prices in the County have generally

trended upward over the last decade:

In 7 of the last 10 years, median sales prices in Estes Park exceeded inflation.

In the Loveland-Berthoud area, prices didn‟t do quite as well and exceeded inflation 50% of the time.

The Fort Collins area saw the least amount of growth in that prices exceeded inflation in only 4 of the last 10 years.

Median Sales Price Increase vs. Inflation Rate

Estes Park

Fort Collins

Loveland/ Berthoud

Inflation Rate

2001 12.0%

9.1%

13.1%

2.83%

2002 2.6%

4.6%

5.1%

1.59%

2003 4.8%

2.6%

2.9%

2.27%

2004 3.1%

0.2%

10.2%

2.68%

2005 1.8%

4.3%

5.6%

3.24%

2006 10.1%

0.0%

2.8%

3.39%

2007 -1.5%

2.2%

-4.9%

2.85%

2008 7.6%

-0.9%

-4.7%

3.85%

2009 -11.5%

-3.0%

-5.5%

-0.34%

2010 5.0%

2.7%

4.9%

1.64%

Source: InflationData.com

Housi

ng

The median sales price for a single-family home has been somewhat

volatile throughout Larimer County during the last decade. On

average, the median sales price has increased approximately 2% per

year.

40

Homelessness

Description of Indicators The following indicators attempt to define the homeless community in

Larimer County. Counting the homeless is a difficult task because

many homeless people do not wish to be counted. In addition, the

number of homeless changes frequently.

Why is this important? Homelessness affects communities in a variety of ways, including an

increased financial burden to provide services for temporary housing,

medical care, food assistance, domestic violence, and policing of

criminal activity. It is also a reflection on the availability of affordable

housing. Children living with homelessness often do poorly in school,

are often truant, and are at risk of becoming juvenile delinquents

and/or graduating into adult criminal activity.

How is Larimer County doing? More Larimer County residents have become homeless or are at risk of homelessness as the economy has worsened:

The House of Neighborly Service in Loveland has seen an 81% increase in homelessness between 2006 and 2010.

A homeless point-in-time study, conducted in March 2010 by Homeward 2020, admittedly underestimated the homeless population

in Fort Collins at 518, with an additional 617 at risk of being homeless.

Of the estimated homeless in Fort Collins, 54% were in households with children and 46% were households without children. In

addition, only 11% of those counted were chronically homeless.

The plurality of those counted as homeless in 2010 (43%) reported the reason for their homelessness was due to losing a job or not

being able to find work.

Counting homeless students is problematic because of the stigma associated with homelessness. Students dealing with homelessness

often stay with friends or other family members and choose not to inform school authorities.

Housin

g

Homelessness is on the rise in Larimer County as the economy

worsens and the number of affordable housing units falls short.

41

Key Findings

Students in Larimer County generally score higher than the state average on standardized tests.

Since 2006, the general trend has seen slightly fewer Larimer County students graduating from high school.

In 2009, approximately 41% of Larimer County residents held a bachelor‟s degree or higher.

On average, 53% of Larimer County‟s 3- and 4-year olds attended preschool between 2005 and 2009,

compared to 45% of Colorado‟s 3- and 4-year olds and 47% of the nation‟s 3- and 4-year olds.

Education & Early Childhood

42

CSAP Scores

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at how students in Larimer County school districts score on standardized tests. The first CSAP

tests were given in 1996-97 and have been given every year since to students in grades 3 through 10. The tests are subject-based

(reading, writing, mathematics, and science) and all 4 tests are given to 5th-, 8th-, and 10th-grade students only. In the remaining

grades, students are tested in reading and writing.

Why is this important? Preparing today‟s students for the future is an important investment made by the community and is funded with taxpayer

dollars. Standardized testing provides a mechanism for evaluating the efficacy of the school districts‟ curriculum. Critics of

standardized testing point out that this type of testing doesn‟t measure creativity, initiative, imagination, and a host of other

valuable attributes.

How is Larimer County doing? Students in all three school districts within Larimer County historically score higher than the state average on the CSAP tests:

Third grade students attending schools in the Poudre School District often scored higher on the reading test than students in

the other districts.

Over the last 5 years, there was more variability

in scores in the Park School District . This is

often attributed to the smaller class size and the

larger number of students entering and leaving

the district.

On average, Larimer County 10th graders score

significantly higher on the math test than the

state average (30%); however 60% of Larimer

County 10th graders are unable to meet the state‟s

math standards.

CSAP (Achievement Scores)

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards

3rd Grade Reading

Colorado Poudre Thompson Park

2006 71% 80% 80% 80%

2007 70% 80% 76% 75%

2008 71% 71% 78% 66%

2009 70% 81% 73% 80%

2010 73% 81% 75% 56%

Average 71% 79% 76% 71%

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards

10th Grade Math

Colorado Poudre Thompson Park

2006 30% 45% 40% 29%

2007 30% 45% 37% 43%

2008 30% 45% 37% 43%

2009 30% 39% 37% 37%

2010 30% 42% 38% 37%

Average 30% 43% 38% 38%

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Students in Larimer County tend to score higher on Colorado‟s

standardized tests than the state average.

43

ACT Scores

As of 2000-01, all 11th-grade students

in Larimer County are required to

take the ACT tests in English,

reading, mathematics, and science

reasoning:

Larimer County students scored

higher than the state average on

the ACT reading test; however

students didn‟t consistently score

high enough to meet the ACT

Benchmark.

In the last 5 years, Larimer County

students scored higher on the ACT

math test than those in the state as

a whole with the one exception of

Thompson School District in

2008.

ACT math scores have been significantly

lower than the ACT Benchmark

throughout the state over the last

5 years.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

Larimer County students consistently score higher than the state

average in reading and math. Some school districts failed to meet the

ACT Reading Benchmark and none of the districts met the ACT Math

Benchmark for the years shown.

44

High School Graduation Rates

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of high school students in Larimer County who graduate from high school. As of

2005-06, the method used to calculate graduation rates changed. Prior to 2005, students who dropped out of school to pursue a

GED certificate did not affect the graduation rate. Starting in 2005, students who are pursuing a GED certificate are considered

dropouts, thus lowering the graduation rate.

Why is this important? High school dropouts are more likely to require public assistance, to get in trouble legally, to suffer more negative health effects,

and will earn significantly less income throughout their lives. In today‟s society, a good education is a necessity to becoming a

productive member of the community.

How is Larimer County doing? Graduation rates in all three school districts within Larimer County have been higher than the state average over the last 5

years:

Poudre School District has the highest graduation rates in Larimer County. For the Class of 2010, the graduation rate was

82.4. Some of the 17.6 percent of students who did not graduate with their class may have transferred to other schools, moved

out of the country, and/or earned a GED certificate.

In the last 5 years, Thompson School District has seen the most variability in graduation rates, from a high of 88.1 in 2006 to

a low of 77.9 in 2008.

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Although all three school districts located in Larimer County have

higher high school graduation rates than the state average, the

general trend is downward.

45

Educational Attainment

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the

educational level of adults over the age of

25 in Larimer and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? A highly educated workforce is a major

draw for businesses that are considering

relocating to Larimer County. An

educated workforce often means higher

wages and a higher standard of living for

the community.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 1990, a larger percentage of

Larimer County residents are more

educated:

The number of residents in the County

without a HS diploma has decreased

41% since 1990.

The number of residents whose

education ended with high school

declined by 20% since 1990.

Those residents earning an associate degree,

bachelor‟s degree or graduate/

professional degree increased by 16%, 21%

and 38%, respectively, during the same

time period.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

In 2009, 41% of Larimer County residents held a bachelor‟s degree or

higher, compared to 25% of Weld County residents. This represents an

increase since 1990 of 27% and 35%, respectively.

46

Libraries

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at library use

within the County. The number of materials

circulated per capita is often a factor of the

funding available to purchase a wide range of

materials.

Why is this important? Public libraries are often viewed as societal

equalizers. They provide Internet access to

those looking for jobs, they introduce the

world of learning to young people, and they

provide a place for the community to gather

and socialize.

How is Larimer County doing? According to the Hennen Report, in 2009,

the average number of materials circulated

per capita was 8.5 and the average number of

library visits per capita was 6.2:

All Larimer County libraries, with the exception

of Berthoud, met or exceeded the national

average of 8.5 circulations per capita.

Poudre River Library District (Fort Collins)

and Estes Valley Public Library District

saw the highest circulations per capita in

2009. They also receive the highest

funding of libraries within Larimer County.

Two of the six libraries in Larimer County

(Berthoud and Poudre River) had fewer

visits per capita than the national average

of 6.2.

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Four of six libraries saw more materials checked out per capita

over the last five years, whereas four of six libraries saw visits

per capita decrease during this same period.

47

Preschool Attendance

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of 3- and 4-year old children in Larimer County who were attending preschool in March

of the years shown.

Why is this important? According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), "children who attend high-quality preschool enter

kindergarten with better pre-reading skills, richer vocabularies, and stronger basic math skills than those who do not." Many child

development professionals believe the first 5 years of a child‟s life are crucial to success later in life and preschool attendance often puts

children on a lifelong path to academic and personal achievement.

How is Larimer County doing? Overall, the general trend is more 3- and 4-year olds are attending preschool in Larimer County. Over the last 5 years, an average of

53% of Larimer County‟s 3- and 4-year olds attended preschool, compared to 45% of Colorado‟s 3- and 4-year olds and 47% of the

nation‟s 3- and 4-year olds.

According to Qualistar Colorado, there are 58 preschools in Larimer County. Eight of them accept Colorado Child Care subsidies and

five accept sliding scale fees. The majority of preschools (35) are located in Fort Collins, followed by Loveland (13). Berthoud and

Wellington each have 3 and Estes Park, Wellington, LaPorte, Bellevue, and Red Feather Lakes each have 1.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

On average, approximately 53% of 3- and 4-year olds in Larimer County

attended a preschool program between 2005 and 2009. That number

is expected to drop when the economy is poor and one or both parents

are without employment.

49

Key Findings

The percentage of Larimer County residents who use tobacco has been declining since 2001, but remains

above the Healthy People 2010 objective of 12%.

Since 2003, the Chlamydia rate in the United States, Colorado, and Larimer County has been steadily

increasing.

The mortality rates for the top 3 causes of death in Larimer County (cancer, heart disease, and stroke) have

been steadily decreasing since 2000.

The nationwide diabetes epidemic has arrived in Larimer County and is well above the Healthy People 2010

objective of 2.5%.

From 2006 through 2009, the percentage of obese adults in Larimer County has been above the Healthy

People 2010 objective of 15%.

Health

50

Health Insurance Coverage

Description of Indicator This indicator measures the percentage of

residents, by age group, estimated to be

without any health insurance coverage.

Why is this important? Those lacking health insurance coverage are

vulnerable to a wide variety of health and

financial crises.

How is Larimer County doing? In all age groups, Larimer County has a lower

percentage of residents without health

insurance than the average for the state of

Colorado. Working adults -- those between

the ages of 18 and 64 – are the least likely age

group to be covered by health insurance.

Percent With No Health Insurance Coverage by Age Group

2008 2009

Colorado Larimer Colorado Larimer

Under 18 3.6% 1.4% 2.5% 1.6%

18 to 64 13.5% 10.1% 13.1% 12.4%

65+ 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

Total Population 17.2% 11.6% 15.8% 14.0%


Healt

h

The percentage of Larimer County residents without health

insurance coverage increased in 2009.

51

Tobacco Use

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of adults over the age of 18 who smoke cigarettes on a regular basis.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking harms nearly every organ in the body, causes many diseases, and reduces the

health of smokers in general. In Colorado, tobacco use continues to be the leading preventable cause of death and the single greatest

driver of health care costs. In Colorado, an estimated $1.31 billion will be spent annually on health care directly caused by smoking.

How is Larimer County doing? One of the Healthy People 2010 objectives aimed at reducing the percentage of chronic smokers in a population to 12% or less.

Although the overall trend in Larimer County over the last decade has been a reduction in the percentage of smokers, 2008 was the

only year the County met the Healthy People 2010 objective.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that Colorado spend $54.5 million on tobacco prevention programs. For FY2011,

Colorado will spend $7 million (or 12.9% of the CDC‟s recommended amount) of the $296 million tobacco-generated revenue on

tobacco prevention programs. (Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)

Health

The percentage of Larimer County adults who report smoking

cigarettes is declining. The Healthy People 2010 Objective of 12%

was achieved in 2008, but was exceeded in all other years

represented.

What is Healthy People 2010? Healthy People 2010 is a national health promotion and

disease prevention initiative establishing national

objectives to improve the health of all Americans, to

eliminate disparities, and to increase the years and quality

of life.

52

Sexually Transmitted Infections – Chlamydia

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of individuals, per 100,000 residents, diagnosed with Chlamydia each year.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Chlamydia is the most frequently reported bacterial sexually transmitted

disease in the United States, and if left untreated, often leads to serious reproductive health problems, including infertility.

Chlamydia is also more common in women under the age of 25. It is unclear whether the rise in diagnosed Chlamydia cases is

due to increased testing, a rise in the actual number of infections, or a combination of the two.

How is Larimer County doing? The percentage of County residents being diagnosed with Chlamydia has increased more than 30% since 2003. Although the

number of diagnosed cases continues to increase, the rate is still significantly lower than the rate in Colorado and the nation.

Healt

h

The overall trend in Larimer County, Colorado and the United

States shows an increase in the number of diagnosed Chlamydia

cases.

53

Chronic Disease

Description of Indicator The following indicator compares the top 10 causes of death in Colorado and Larimer County.

Why is this important? Of the top 10 causes of death in Larimer County, all but 3 (unintentional injuries, suicide and influenza/pneumonia) were chronic

diseases in 2009. In fact, close to 89% of Larimer County deaths in 2009 were attributable to chronic diseases.

How is Larimer County doing? A significantly higher percentage of Larimer County residents died from cerebrovascular disease (stroke) and kidney disease in 2009

than the state average.

Health

In 2000, the mortality rates for the top three causes of death in

Larimer County were: cancer (164.4), heart disease (183.9) and

cerebrovascular diseases (59.0). All three had dropped

significantly by 2009.

54

Diabetes

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of Larimer County adults living with diabetes and compares it to the Healthy

People 2010 objective.

Why is this important? Diabetes, one of the leading causes of death in Larimer County, is associated with a large number of other serious chronic health

problems, such as heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, and lower extremity amputations.

How is Larimer County doing? The incidence of diabetes in Larimer County adults is increasing and has been well above the Healthy People objective of 2.5% of

the adult population since 2005.

Healt

h

The incidence of diabetes in Larimer County adults is on the

rise and well above the Healthy People 2010 objective of 2.5%.





of life.

55

Obesity

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of Larimer County obese adults over the age of 20 and compares that with the Healthy


Why is this important? Obesity often increases the risks for many of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer and stroke. An increase

in chronic diseases also increases the community‟s overall health care costs and often leads to a reduction in productivity.

How is Larimer County doing? Larimer County last met the Healthy People 2010 objective of 15% of the population categorized as obese in 2005. Since then the

percentage of obese adults over the age of 20 has averaged 17.5%.

Health

The percentage of obese Larimer County adults is on the rise and has

been above the Healthy People 2010 objective of 15% since 2006.





of life.

56

Physical Activity

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of County residents who are regularly physically active and compares it to the

Healthy People 2010 objective. The percentages below represent those who practice regular, moderate physical activity at least

5 times per week for a minimum of 30 minutes or those who performed vigorous exercise 3 or more times per week for at least

20 minutes.

Why is this important?

Being physically active improves overall health and reduces the risks of obesity and its associated illnesses such as heart

disease, diabetes and some types of cancers (breast and colon, for example).

How is Larimer County doing? The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment surveys Colorado residents every other year with respect to the

amount of physical exercise they received. Since 2005, a significantly higher percentage of County residents met the minimum

requirements for physical activity as outlined under the “Description of Indicator” above.

Healt

h

The percentage of Larimer County adults who are regularly physically

active is on the rise and is well above the Healthy People 2010

objective of 30%.





of life.

57

Mental Health

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the number of

County residents seeking mental health

treatment as well as the number of suicides per

100,000 residents.

Why is this important? Mental health problems, including suicide, have

a lasting affect on a community and family

members. According to the Centers for Disease

Control, men are more likely to commit suicide,

whereas women more often attempt suicide, but

are unsuccessful.

How is Larimer County doing? Of those seeking help at Larimer Center for

Mental Health in 2010, nearly 70% were being

treated for mental health issues. This was a

slight increase over the previous year.

Over the last decade,

suicides in Larimer County

have been between 2 and 3

times higher than the

Healthy People 2010

objective of 5.0 per

100,000 residents. In half

of the last 10 years, the

suicide rate in Larimer

County has been higher

than the state of

Colorado‟s.

Health

The number of Larimer County residents seeking mental health

treatment was higher in 2010 than 2009. The number of residents

committing suicide has been consistently higher than the Healthy

People 2010 objective of 5 suicides per 100,000 residents.





of life.

58

Child Abuse

Description of Indicator The following indicator compares the rates (per 100,000 children) of reported child abuse cases with those chosen for

investigation and, of those investigated, the number of substantiated reports of child abuse.

Why is this important? Child abuse and neglect can have long ranging, devastating effects on families and society. Some of the problems associated

with child abuse/neglect include impaired brain development, poor physical health, poor mental and emotional health, cognitive

and social difficulties, juvenile delinquency, and alcohol and drug abuse. In 2001, Prevent Child Abuse America estimated the

nation‟s indirect costs of child abuse/neglect at $69 billion per year.

How is Larimer County doing? The rate (per 100,000 residents) of initial child abuse reports, investigations and substantiated cases has all decreased over the

last 5 years. In 2010, approximately 7% of initial reports resulted in substantiated child abuse, compared to 13% in 2006. Of

those reports deemed worthy of investigation, 15% of cases in 2010 resulted in substantiated child abuse, compared to 24% in

2006.

Healt

h

The rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 100,000

children has declined by nearly 53% since 2006.

59

Out-of-Home Placements

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the

average number of Larimer County

children in out-of-home placements as

well as the average rate of placements

per 1,000 children.

Why is this important? Removing a child from the home is a

traumatic experience for the child and

the family unit. Every effort is made to

keep families intact; however there are

times when a child must be removed for

safety reasons.


doing? Out-of-home placements peaked in

2005 at 327 and have been declining

dramatically ever since.

In FY2010, the cost per child for the

most common forms of placement

ranged from a high of $4,954 per month

for a residential treatment facility, to a low

of $833 per month for a placement with other

family members (kinship placement).

Children in Out-of-Home Placement - Larimer County

Number Rate per 1,000 Children

2001 299

4.9

2002 272

4.4

2003 287

4.6

2004 316

5.1

2005 327

5.3

2006 317

5.1

2007 284

4.5

2008 254

4.0

2009 223

3.5

2010 190

2.9

Source: Larimer County Department of Human Services

The total number of out-of-home placements in Larimer County

has decreased by 36% since 2001.

Health

60

Unintentional Injuries

Description of

Indicator The following indicator tracks

the number of accidental deaths

per 100,000 Larimer County

residents over the last decade

and compares it to the Healthy


Why is this important? Accidental deaths negatively

affect the community and can

create lasting emotional,

physical, and financial

problems.


doing? The unintentional injury

mortality rate in Larimer

County has been lower than the

rate in the state over the last 10

years, but has been significantly

higher than the Healthy People

2010 objective of 17.5 deaths

per 100,000 residents.

Unintentional Injuries in Larimer County

per 100,000 Residents

Fatal Non-fatal

2000 37.4

448.9

2001 28.6

469.1

2002 36.3

476.8

2003 36.8

461.8

2004 38.4

460.2

2005 36.0

484.8

2006 36.5

497.2

2007 35.9

539.1

2008 36.4

564.0

2009 33.3

499.2

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment

The overall trend for Unintentional Injury Rates in Larimer County is

slightly upwards. It is significantly higher than the Healthy People

2010 objective of 17.5 per 100,000 residents.

Healt

h





of life.

61

Key Findings

Less solid waste is entering the Larimer County landfill and more waste is being recycled.

Air quality (fine particulate) is good and has met the EPA standard since 2002.

60% of land in Larimer County is held for government/public use, compared to 10% for housing.

Natural Resources

62

Water Quality

Description of Indicator Precipitation acidity (pH) is considered normal when it

falls between 4.5 and 5.6 with an average value of 5.0.

(The lower the reading, the more acidic the moisture.)

The burning of coal and fossil fuels is often associated with

acid rain.

Why is this important? Acidic precipitation or “Acid Rain” is known to negatively

affect soil quality, aquatic life and vegetation.

How is Larimer County doing? Acid pH levels recorded in Rocky Mountain National Park

have ranged from a low of 5.0 in 2000 to a high of 5.4 in

2007 and 2009. These levels are well within the normal

range given above.

Precipitation

Annual precipitation amounts varied widely in Larimer

County over the past two decades. The driest year in Fort

Collins occurred in 2002 (9.2”) compared to the wettest

year when 25.2” fell (1997). Loveland‟s wettest year was

also 1997 when 20.0” of precipitation was recorded,

compared to the driest year when only 8.8” of precipitation

fell in 2000.

Over the last 20 years, the average precipitation level

recorded in Fort Collins was 16.2”, compared to 15.0” in

Loveland.

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Over the last decade, acid pH levels in moisture at Rocky Mountain

National Park have been within the normal range of between 4.5

and 5.6. Over the last two decades, annual rainfall has varied

between a low of 8.8” in 2000 (Loveland) and a high of 25.2” in

1997 (Fort Collins).

63

Air Quality

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the air

quality in Larimer County. PM2.5 measures

fine particulates (those 2.5 micrometers or

smaller) suspended in the air and is

measured at 251 Edison Drive in Fort

Collins. Readings that fall at the 98th

percentile and higher are selected and

averaged over a 3-year period.

Why is this important? According to the EPA, health studies have

shown an association between exposure to

fine particulates and an increase in death

from heart and lung disease.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 2002, Larimer County‟s air quality

has exceeded EPA standards for fine

particulates.

Air Quality PM2.5 Monitoring Results

2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09 2008-10

24-hr. 98th Percentile in

Micrograms/Cubic Meter (3-year averages) 20 20 22 22 23 22 22

EPA Standard 65 65 65 * * 35 35

*Standard dropped from 65 to 35 in 2007

Source: EPA

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Air quality in Larimer County has improved over the last decade with

less toxic materials being disposed of or released into the

environment and fine particulate levels (PM2.5) measuring below the

EPA standard.

64

Managed Waste

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the amount of

waste entering the Larimer County landfill:

hazardous, solid, and recycled.

Why is this important? Diverting recyclables and yard waste reduces

the amount of solid waste entering the landfill.

This, in turn, extends the life of the landfill

and reduces the need for expensive

alternatives while reducing the environmental

impact. Removing household hazardous

waste from the waste stream also helps

protect public health and the environment.

How is Larimer County doing? Over the last decade, an average of 902 tons of

hazardous waste has been collected at the

Larimer County landfill each year. Over this

same time period, there has been a 35%

increase in the amount of recycled waste

diverted from the landfill and a 31% reduction in

the amount of solid waste added to the landfill.

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

The overall trend for solid waste entering the landfill is de-

clining, whereas more waste is being recycled.

65

Land Use/Conservation

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the

distribution of land use in Larimer

County and the number of acres

devoted to open space.

Why is this important? Many quality of life issues are affected

by land use, such as air and water

quality, biodiversity, degradation of

infrastructure, traffic congestion, and

the ability to attract and retain

businesses paying a living wage.

As more land is devoted to

development, demands increase for

services such as wastewater treatment,

energy production, schools, etc.


doing? Larimer County is the state‟s seventh

most

populous county and the ninth largest

county by area.

In 2009, nearly 60% of land in Larimer County

was owned by the government or

devoted to public use and not available

for development. An additional 10%

was devoted to housing.

With only 3.2% of the county‟s land

available for development, it‟s likely

some of the nearly 25% of land being

used for agriculture will be used for

development sometime in the future.

In 1996, voters in Larimer County

approved a ¼¢ open space sales and

use tax that has raised $114 million

through 2009. The tax continues

through 2018, and is not imposed on

food or prescription drugs.

As of 2010, the Larimer County Open

Lands program has acquired 44,633

acres or nearly 70 square miles.

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

The number of acres acquired by the Open Lands program in

Larimer County has increased 266% since 2000.

67

Key Findings

The overall crime rate in Larimer County decreased 16.4% between 2000 and 2009.

Between 2005 and 2009, the average juvenile arrest rate was 77.1 arrests per 1,000 youths.

The number of Larimer County offenders participating in alternative sentencing increased 41% between 2001

and 2010. In 2010, the majority of those offenders (58.6%) were sentenced to community service.

Over the last decade, Larimer County exceeded the Health People 2010 objective of 4.0 alcohol-related

fatalities per 100,000 residents in all but 2 years (2001 and 2003).

Public Safety

68

Crime Rate

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of violent and property crimes committed in Larimer County per 1,000 residents.

Why is this important? The crime rate can have both a perceived and real affect on community safety and can have a negative effect on business

investment if the rate is considered too high.

How is Larimer County doing? The overall crime rate has decreased 16.4% between 2000 and 2009. Property crimes have decreased nearly 20% over that

time, whereas violent crimes have averaged 10.7 per 1,000 residents.

Public S

afe

ty

The crime rate has been steadily decreasing over the past

decade.

69

In 3 of the last 5 years shown, the

juvenile arrest rate has been lower than

the 5-year average of 77.1 arrests per

1,000 youth.

In 2008-09 and 2009-10, Larimer

County schools had a lower expulsion

rate (1.8 per 1,000) than the statewide

average of 2.6 per 1,000.

Juvenile Crime

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the number of

juveniles arrested per 1,000 youth ages 10 to 17 and

the number of students expelled from school per

1,000 student enrollment.

Why is this important? Although juvenile arrests constitute a small

percentage of overall arrests, criminal justice experts

believe early intervention of at-risk youths will often

reduce criminal activity in their adulthood.

How is Larimer County doing?

School Crime

Students are often expelled from school for violent or dangerous behavior, or for drug or firearm violations on school property. Since the shootings at Columbine HS in 1999, schools have adopted a zero tolerance policy.

Expulsions per 1,000 Enrolled Students

in Larimer County Schools

2004-05 1.3

2005-06 1.7

2006-07 2.6

2007-08 1.9

2008-09 1.8

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Public

Safe

ty

Between 2005 and 2009, the overall trend in the juvenile arrest rate

has been upward. More data are needed to determine if this trend will

persist.

70

Detention Center

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the breakdown of

detainees by age group and the breakdown of

offenders participating in alternative sentencing

programs.

Why is this important? The Larimer County Detention Center has been

operating at capacity since 2003 making it

necessary to question who should be incarcerated

and who should participate in alternative

sentencing.

How is Larimer County doing? In 2010, 77% of those incarcerated in the Larimer

County Detention Center were 40 years old or

younger.

Offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes are often

sentenced to one of four alternative sentences:

workender, work release, home detention or

community service. Offenders sentenced to

community service or home detention are not

housed in the Detention Center. In 2010, nearly 60%

of offenders receiving alternative sentences participated

in the community service program.

Public S

afe

ty

Although the Detention Center has been operating at capacity since

January 2003, the total number of offenders participating in

alternative sentencing has increased from 4,781 in 2001 to 6,720 in

2010.

71

Impaired Driving

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the rate of motor vehicle fatalities related to alcohol and compares it to the Healthy People 2010

objective.

Why is this important? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2008, an average of one alcohol-impaired driving fatality

occurred every 45 minutes. It is also estimated that the average alcohol-related traffic fatality in the United States costs $3.5 million:

$1.1 million in monetary costs and $2.4 million in quality of life losses.

How is Larimer County doing? Larimer County has exceeded the Healthy People 2010 objective of 4.0 alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 residents in 8 of the last

10 years.

Public

Safe

ty

The number of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities has been

declining. Since 2004, the rate has met the Healthy People 2010

objective of 4.0 alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 residents.





of life.

73

Key Findings

In 2009, approximately 80% of Larimer County workers spent less than 30 minutes getting to work and

roughly 74% did not carpool.

Since 2000, the number of workers in Larimer County working from home increased 40%.

Public transit use has steadily increased since 2001, especially as fuel prices have increased.

For 3 of the last 10 years, the motor vehicle mortality rate in Larimer County has met the Healthy People 2010

objective of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 residents.

Travel & Transportation

74

Commuting

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at how long it

takes to commute to and from work and the

number of commuters who carpool or work

from home.

Why is this important? Congestion on the roads is often cited as

contributing to a lower quality of life in a

community. In addition, the fewer people who

carpool or use an alternative means of

transportation, the greater the likelihood of air

pollution and damage to street pavement.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 2000, the percentage of commuters with

commute times 60 minutes or longer has

decreased by 50% and the percentage of

commuters with commute times less than 30

minutes has increased slightly.

Nearly two-thirds of commuters in Larimer

County (74%) did not carpool in 2009; the

percentage of commuters who did carpool has

increased 43% since 2000, and the percentage

working from home increased 40%.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

The percentage of Larimer County commuters with commute times

over 30 minutes has been declining since 2000 and more workers are

working from home.

75

Public Transportation

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number and types of riders in Fort Collins who use public transportation.

Why is this important? As the price of gasoline continues increasing, more and more residents are looking to public transit as an alternative to get to work and

school. And as the population ages, an efficient and well-designed public transit system becomes increasingly important. Increased

public transit use also has the added benefits of reducing carbon emissions and reducing traffic congestion.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 2005, there has been a 71% increase in the number of general population rides on the Fort Collins public transit system. In

comparison, the increase on the Loveland public transit system increased nearly 85% during this same period.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

As the price of gasoline has continued to increase, the number

of riders on public transit has also increased.

76

Motor Vehicle Mortality Rates

Description of Indicator The motor vehicle mortality rate represents the number of deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents per 100,000 residents. A

rate is used in order to compare from year-to-year in relation to a changing population.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control, motor vehicle injury prevention was named as a public health issue that is a

“winnable battle.” In the United States, motor vehicle–related injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 1–34, and

nearly 5 million people sustain injuries that require an emergency room visit.

How is Larimer County doing? After peaking in 2003 at 17.1 deaths per 100,000 residents, the rate dropped significantly the following year to 10.9 per 100,000

residents and has been below the Healthy People 2010 target of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 since 2007.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

The motor vehicle mortality rate has been trending downwards.

Since 2007, the rate in Larimer County has been below the Healthy

People 2010 objective of 9.2 per 100,000 residents.





of life.

Larimer County 2011 Indicators Report

Documents

Transcript of Larimer County 2011 Indicators Report