Short Term Rental (STR)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

With the proliferation of vacation ownership and nightly rentals, City Council is interested in understanding the topic more in depth and how this matter is or is not impacting the community as it pertains to long-term rental housing, neighborhood character, sales & lodging tax collection, safety and enforcement.

What is a Short-Term Rental?

  • Lodging and Accommodations uses occurring within dwelling units.

Lodging Accommodations uses include:

  • Sleeping or housing establishments intended to be occupied on a short-term, transient basis.
  • Payment for occupancy is typically on a daily or weekly basis, and an average length of stay is 30 days or less.
  • Includes the uses of hotels, hostels, vacation home rentals, vacation rentals, and bed & breakfasts.
  • Defined by the Community Development Code (CDC) as commercial land uses

The CDC defines several Short-Term Rental uses:

  • Vacation Home Rental (VHR) = Single-Family home or duplex unit; the entire unit is rented
  • Vacation Rental = multiple-family unit; entire unit
  • Bed & Breakfast = SF home; owner/operator occupied; 2+ guestrooms*
    • *does not include Rental of 1 bedroom in resident-occupied dwelling unit
  • Temporary Short-Term Rental = SF home or duplex unit; entire unit; limited term and occurrence, Limited use, limited districts, no permit required

Short Term Rentals = all of the above

With the proliferation of vacation ownership and nightly rentals, City Council is interested in understanding the topic more in depth and how this matter is or is not impacting the community as it pertains to long-term rental housing, neighborhood character, sales & lodging tax collection, safety and enforcement.

What is a Short-Term Rental?

  • Lodging and Accommodations uses occurring within dwelling units.

Lodging Accommodations uses include:

  • Sleeping or housing establishments intended to be occupied on a short-term, transient basis.
  • Payment for occupancy is typically on a daily or weekly basis, and an average length of stay is 30 days or less.
  • Includes the uses of hotels, hostels, vacation home rentals, vacation rentals, and bed & breakfasts.
  • Defined by the Community Development Code (CDC) as commercial land uses

The CDC defines several Short-Term Rental uses:

  • Vacation Home Rental (VHR) = Single-Family home or duplex unit; the entire unit is rented
  • Vacation Rental = multiple-family unit; entire unit
  • Bed & Breakfast = SF home; owner/operator occupied; 2+ guestrooms*
    • *does not include Rental of 1 bedroom in resident-occupied dwelling unit
  • Temporary Short-Term Rental = SF home or duplex unit; entire unit; limited term and occurrence, Limited use, limited districts, no permit required

Short Term Rentals = all of the above

Comments

Please provide comments, concerns or ideas for the Community and City Council to consider.

You need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved

Removed by moderator.

Sunny Brstina 3 months ago

Regarding short term rentals in steamboat I think there is too much uncertainty over what the goal is. Are we trying to create more inventory for buyers or long term renters, are we trying to appease the locals that are complaining, are we trying to create neighborhoods for locals only, are we trying to open the discussion and perhaps allow individual neighborhoods the opportunity to create or adjust their CCR's, are we trying to make the mountain area the destination for all short term guests, what is the goal? That is one of the most confusing parts for me in this discussion. While I do not think we should regulate how owners choose to use their homes, we can regulate the outcome if they do choose to use their home/2nd home/investment as a business i/e short term rentals - by running a business out of your home, discussing the requirement of a commercial tax isn't unfathomable, etc, etc. Certain neighborhoods here already have created rules that do not allow short term rentals in their neighborhood, fairway meadows for example. Have we considered developments like Eagles Vista, the new development at the top of River Queen, in which the HOA voted to allow short term rentals? Will city council ensure that areas such as Eagles Vista are exempt from the "prohibited" area of the interactive map. My personal interest in this, is that I would love for my mom to purchase a property here in Steamboat so she can live closer to me, but a full time move to Steamboat is not in the cards for her at the moment. She would prefer to spend a month or two at a time here, and would like to rent her home out when she is not here to offset the expense. We have interviewed property managers here to ensure that when we do find the right property the home will be taken care of when she is not here and manage guests questions/issues/noise/home repairs/etc, as I cannot take on another job at this time. Now with this moratorium we have had to put the search on hold to see what makes the most sense for her- buying a home and letting is sit empty for weeks on end isn't super exciting for us nor does it provide space for locals housing. Instead of council creating the interactive map, why don't we let homeowners vote on what they want to happen in their neighborhood. Because i am truly wondering if it is the masses that don't want this or a few squeaky wheels. The reason this comes to mind is because a client of mine has a property in the Fish Creek area and has his home in the short term rental pool permitted and all- at first his neighbor wasn't so keen on this, and called to complain about noise, parties, trash and other complaints, which were found to be false. Turned out he just didn't want his neighbor renting his house out. However, after meeting the property manager, opening up that communication, and seeing how quick the mgmt team is to answer his questions, clean the house, maintain the property, he found that he would rather have people in the home rather than have his neighboring property sit vacant as the neighbor does not live there full time. Now come to find out the neighbor is going to be relocating and has been so happy with how Steamboat Lodging has handled the neighbors unit he is considering putting his home in the short term rental pool. That is just one of a number of stories I have had clients share with me that were positive about either their short term rental or their neighbors short term rental. All in all, this is not an emergency, it doesn't even seem like we truly know what we are looking to do as a community. City County is working to figure out what the issue is and possibly remove a ton of lodging for guests while the mountain is investing hundreds of millions of dollars to get more guests here - perhaps we pump the breaks and try to figure out the destination before we continue driving in circles.

For these reasons, and many many more, I ask City Council as an active member of the community who wants to continue to keep the doors open for others to live here, to remove the moratorium but allow us all to continue the discussion.

Thank you,
Michelle Parilla
Steamboat Springs Board of Realtors

*i would like to reserve the right to have a change in opinion, become more educated, and help find a solution. please do not hold my words against me should I adjust my thoughts in the future*

Mparilla 3 months ago

For all of those who support making it illegal for a property owner to rent their condo or home on a short-term basis, remember the impact this will have on your roperty prices. If you already own your property, you should be strongly against this in my view. Even if you occupy your property as your primary home (as do I), this is a very bad deal for you as it will substantially limit the pool of buyers for your property, should you desire or need to sell at some point in the future. Many, many buyers want a property they can both use for themselves and rent out to others when they aren't able to use it.

What's even more frustrating is that this policy will drive up the prices of units and homes in "allowed" short-term rental areas. So, in effect, this is a transfer of wealth from those who currently own property in these areas which are being considered for restrictions to those who own homes and condo units outside of any such areas; it also will be an artificial depressant on home prices in the restricted areas, so it will favor future home buyers at the expense of the current owner.

Even though I dislike short-term rentals in my condo neighborhood and I don't personally rent my unit out as I live here full-time, this is a very bad policy proposal in my view. It is in effect a theft of equity of those who currently live in or own property in the areas being considered from restrictions, and a redistribution of that equity to other areas. I feel like people aren't fully understanding the effect on their future home prices should this sort of nonsense become the new norm.

Not to mention it would seem to bring forth equal protection issues constitutionally, but hey the courts let the government get away with pretty much anything these days so I guess that probably isn't much a concern to anyone anymore is it?

-Andy Sturgell

flyer_andy 3 months ago

We currently live in Denver and own a home in Steamboat just outside of A1 in your interactive map and zoned residential. Our streets, Snowflake Circle and Snowflake Court have been a peaceful mix of permanent, seasonal, and vacation home rentals since they were built. We bought our home here specifically because it was close to the mountain and suitable for both our personal use and occasional rentals. Our goal is to keep it until we can permanently move to Steamboat in 4-5 years. It makes no sense for the home to sit vacant when we are not there, and to call our little cul-de-sac a “prohibited” zone is simply overruling our exceptionally well-run HOA and the rights of individual owners. I fail to see how prohibiting our home, which is already permitted and in good standing with the city, from renting solves any of the problems raised. The data just doesn’t support potentially eliminating VHR permits in our area, and at a minimum, all pre-existing permits issued should be grandfathered and honored with the current owners.

A few points from my perspective:
• Restrictions on vacation home rentals like mine won’t force owners to switch to long term renting. We want to use our homes and rent them while we are away. Our home, and others like it, will simply sit empty, thus reducing potential visitation, hurting local businesses, and reducing tax revenue to be used by the city.
• By potentially restricting VHRs like ours, you are pushing out owners who wants to spend time in Steamboat while supplementing with rental income, and instead encouraging only the super-rich to be able to buy and leave the houses “dark” 90% of the year.
• Our home is a duplex and both sides have been rented and used as VHR’s on and off for years. The issues you’re trying to resolve were not caused by a few pre-existing (permitted) VHR’s in our area.
• Bans on short-term rentals will likely reduce property values for both second-home owners and locals alike. Homes like ours on Snowflake (Cir and Ct) are not viable for long term rentals due to their size and value.
• I agree that measures need to be put in place to register permits for rentals, address complaints (hotline), and deal with the occasional “bad actor”, but unilaterally placing a moratorium on VHR permits and putting existing permitted properties at risk for the future, is an overstep at this time.

We love the Steamboat community and remain committed to making a positive contribution both short term and long term. Banning VHR’s in our area will effectively kill our dream to move into our home in the future and will not fundamentally solve the specific issues raised

adamweisswasser 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Hunter Burdick 3 months ago

Dear City Council,

I am a property owner in the Running Bear neighborhood which falls into the Yellow/Prohibited Overlay Zone. It is my opinion that prohibited overlay zones will have a devastating financial impact on the community, and is not a fair way of rule making. Currently, I maintain a VHR permit, and partner with Moving Mountains, a “Locally” owned and operated management company to rent my house 4 months out of the year. To accommodate STR’s we employee, shuttle drivers, house cleaners, maintenance personnel, lodging experts, and management. There are local teenagers that shovel snow in the winter, and mow my yard in the summer. We hired Beau @ Vaussa Contracting when we needed to remodel our house, we bought our hottub from Tim at Aqua Vita Spas, Josh at Pacific Spas does our maintenance, Scott at All Weather Services plows the driveway anytime there is an STR, and Twin Enviro provides Trash Service, just to name a few. All of these are Steamboat owned and operated companies that benefit greatly from STR’s. Personally, I am for permitting, regulation, and rules, but to exclude my property from being an eligible VHR based on a map is not fair as it has maintained a permitted VHR status for many years under 2 different owners. Nor is it fair to the many business and business owners and employees listed above that benefit from tourism. I propose, permitting ALL VHR’s, enforcing quiet times, parking regulation and getting rid of the bad actors that are not in compliance. Why should me and my steamboat partners pay for the actions of a few bad actors that do not respect or contribute to the community.
I ask the Council to vote no on the second reading of extending the VHR Moratorium on Aug 24th. The moratorium is doing nothing to address enforcement of bad actors, or the effort to get all 3,000+ STRs licensed and regulated.

Hunter Burdick 3 months ago

We agree completely with the valid points made August 17 by Doug Dombey - specifically “VHR should NOT be allowed in areas zoned for single family residential use”.
It’s a simple solution to a huge problem. Eliminate all of the illegal (VHR) use of single family residences, return those homes/neighborhoods to their intended use for our community residents, have tourists stay in the vast number of hotel rooms/suites that are available and following established zoning laws. Michael and Cindy Turner

Michael Turner 3 months ago

I have completed your survey. Unfortunately it appears that the results will have little value in that no questions were asked that provide context to the answers provided. Examples of such questions are, do you own a VHR, are you a property management employee or owner, are you a full time resident, do you have kids, is there a VHR on your street, are you a real estate agent, etc. These questions and others would provide context to the responses received .
I believe VHR's should not be allowed in areas zoned for single family residential use. The expectation of this zoning is that you are buying into a single family neighborhood. To allow VHR's is to ignore the zoning's intent.
It should also be a requirement to obtain a majority approval from neighbors on private roads that are zoned RN1. These are private roads, the city should not change the zoning's intent and the character of such roads by fiat. This is how private road VHR permits were handled until recently. The city should go back to this practice and respect the wishes of said homeowners. If someone wishes to own a VHR purchase a property where it is a right of ownership rather than ask the city to ignore their zoning guidelines and change the character of our neighborhoods.
DD Steamboat resident since 1996

DDombey 3 months ago

I'd like to comment as a new resident of Steamboat looking for a place to buy and call home. Along with the impact on family neighborhoods, the proliferation of second-home and vacation buyers is also making it nearly impossible for local families like ours to find a decent place to buy as full-time residents.

We moved up from Denver just this month, but have been looking for a home in Steamboat to purchase since February. We've have had no luck competing against the insane offers from those looking to buy a vacation property or second home, so are biding our time by renting until we find a place (not an STR; we signed a year lease).

Our son is entering 9th grade at Steamboat Springs High School, and we are looking forward to establishing roots and becoming contributing members of the community. Just as many local families would prefer full-time residents as neighbors, we too would love to settle in to a neighborhood as full-time residents.

- Keith Miller

Keith Miller 3 months ago

In reviewing the meeting packet for the August 17 meeting I see that our condo falls into the area labeled A1. I disagree that this is a uniform designation as there are several condo complexes along Columbine Drive and a much different collection of much higher value homes further down the hill. This is even acknowledged in the packet with a dashed line separating A1 into two parts. I strongly believe that at least the portion of this area along Columbine Dr. should be allowed to continue offering short term rentals. This portion of Area A1 includes several condo complexes and also the Inn at Steamboat, which I know also has several units that are individually owned and rented on a short-term basis. As I noted before, none of the units in our condo complex are owner-occupied and several of us have decided that a mix of personal use and short term rentals are the best fit for our situations. I suspect this is the case with other condo complexes in this area.

It is important to note that A1 is not the type of single home neighborhood that has generated such discussion and there are many of us in A1 that have been renting our units for years. I'm sure others can attest that this is area represents a good mix of owners offering short term and long term rentals and few owner-occupied units within this relatively small area.

Please don't take the drastic move of restricting our ability to choose how we use our property! We have offered visitors an excellent option for their visit to Steamboat, had no neighbor complaints, and have been contributing sales taxes for 10 years now and I don't see how taking that option away from us benefits anyone involved. I hope others in this area will also speak up and confirm that there are many individual owners who will be negatively impacted by a restriction on short term rentals in area A1 and no real reason that it is necessary.

mrobertson6 3 months ago

It has been interesting reading the comments on this subject. One thing that has not been adequately addressed is the need for more nightly rentals. When the original zoning map was drawn, the mountain was not what it is today. Terrain has been added along with more uphill capacity making it a destination ski resort attracting visitors from every state. Now it is being expanded again, with a new gondola, more expert terrain and a new ski school area. That is not being done with the expectation of attracting fewer visitors to the mountain. With the extra families and skiers coming to Steamboat, there will be a greater need for short term housing. It has been said the Fairfield Inn and Hampton Inn are being converted to long term housing. If true, that will take many more affordable rooms out of the nightly rental pool. It would seem to be a prudent choice to look at the overlay zones that are adjacent to the existing RR/G zones and make them available for nightly rentals. Accessibility to the mountain and resort should be the driving force in future decisions. There needs to be some kind of permanency on this subject to avoid some of the disappointments and problems that have occurred with the moratorium. If a home is purchased in Tree Haus or Dakota Ridge, the buyer knows before purchasing the home that it cannot be used as a short term rental. The same could apply to zones not accessible to the resort. Setting limits on how many STR's can exist in a residential neighborhood will not solve the problem as many of the residents would resent even one of these rentals on their block. By making areas unavailable for these rentals, buyers would know they cannot access this source of income. In the same measure, if a full time resident chooses to purchase a home in a zone designated for STR activity, their expectation will be to welcome visitors to Steamboat as their neighbors for a week.
Tourism will remain a mainstay of Steamboat Springs, however much we would like to deny it. Similar towns in the state, have remained small, quiet communities but they do not have a large ski mountain in their backyard. It can be argued, the prosperity and growth of the community over the years has been a byproduct of the Steamboat Ski Resort. Many have chosen to live here after visiting the mountain, and that will continue. Shrinking the areas of available nightly rentals will not be effective. Concentrated areas of STR's and restricting it elsewhere to preserve a sense of community could be a viable alternative. Setting the blame of a lack of long term housing on 211 VHR permits has been proven false by the stats provided. If all 211 were put into the long term market, it would not solve the problem. Trying to class them as commercial ventures will not be a fair and workable idea. A commercial property operates as such 365 days of the year. A second homeowner who rents their home or condo 10 or 12 weeks of the year when they are not in town should not receive a commercial designation. Any way this subject is looked at, it needs a permanent solution and this animosity it is generating should be ended, not postponed to be discussed another day!

ck345 3 months ago

Nightly Rental is a Commercial Activity

Short-term nightly rental is a commercial activity. Occupancies of less than 30 days in duration are subject to sales and occupancy taxes. Monthly rentals are not. This validates this conclusion. Once this is recognized, then the property should be subject to the usage requirements of commercial property, including ad valorem commercial property taxing rates, zoning, planning criteria, and the appropriate codes and statutes governing such property usage.

Nightly Rentals in Residential Property do not require the same standard of life/safety as Commercial Property zoned for Nightly Rental

For example, commercial nightly rentals (hotel, motel, lodge, condominiums, etc.) have endured a rigorous planning process and are constructed within the appropriate zoning, must provide ADA access and life/safety (fire detection/suppression, equipment access, inspections, etc.) standards. The approval of commercial rental activity in a residential property places those guests in a less-safe environment than a purpose-built nightly rental property. Consider the family of four that died of carbon monoxide poisoning on Thanksgiving 2008 in an Aspen rental house as a result of an improperly installed boiler and the builders opting not to spend $600 to install hardwired carbon monoxide detectors.

Nightly Rentals in Residential Property are assessed at favorable residential property tax rate vs. Commercial property tax rate

This results in an unfair economic advantage favoring the Residential property owner at the expense of the commercial property owner for nightly rentals.

Sales and Accommodation Tax collection compliance and Code Enforcement demands additional City resources

The City finance office is tasked with trying to monitor multiple, often below the radar, operations to ensure compliance with sales and accommodation tax compliance. It would appear that the City does not have the resources and labor to effectively enforce compliance, though they do an admirable job with what they do have. Also, code enforcement does not have the resources to proactively enforce the licensing, as evidenced above in my example. The Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code contains pages of rules and regulations but cannot ensure compliance, and even when reported, there is a flaw in the enforcement provisions of the code.

Allowing the conversion of single family/duplex residential property to Nightly Rentals, results in eroding housing opportunities for Long-Term rental

This is in conflict with community housing goals by creating more long-term housing demand while at the same time removing potential monthly rental inventory from the market. Currently, the practice is converting residential housing inventory into commercial income/investment property.

Nightly Rental activity is incompatible with primary home usage

The continued approval of nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods is a form of “bait and switch” by the City for homeowners that did not realize that the neighboring home was able to transition into a commercial nightly short-term rental operation, circumventing zoning criteria. This is inherently deceptive. The Community Development Code (CDC) was drafted with the full knowledge and intent to plan for the various land uses. The Residential Resort (RR) Zone was created to accommodate the short-term nightly usage. Conversely, the Residential Neighborhood (RN) Zone Neighborhood did not speak to or anticipate the concept of nightly short-term rentals. Unless mistaken, the entire premises of zoning and land use planning is to provide consistency in neighborhoods, preserve value and life-style, and allow citizens to make a choice as to the environment they chose to live and/or invest in.

Consider the following definitions from the CDC:

• RN - Residential neighborhood zone district.
1. Purpose and intent. The residential neighborhood zone district is intended primarily to provide areas for single-family, duplex and accessory dwelling units in a range of residential densities, as well as to provide uses complimentary (sic) to and in harmony with residential uses.

• RR - Residential resort zone district.
1. Purpose and intent. The purpose of the residential resort district is to provide areas for the highest intensity of residential use consistent with a mountain resort community. The primary use of dwelling units within this district may be for short-term rental units (italics mine).

Zone district designations allow for a property buyer to make an informed decision as to the type of property they wish to purchase. There are those who wish to purchase, live, and have the ability to participate in short-term rentals and may consciously make an informed decision to do so. Then there are those that wish to live in a more stabilized environment and not be subjected to nightly short-term rental activity.

The concept of nightly short-term rentals encroaching into historically residential (as opposed to commercial or resort zone) use areas is a very intrusive and divisive issue. I am astounded as to why the City staff and Council continues to distort and corrupt land use criteria through variances and not follow the CDC. Community involvement is requested in shaping our community, then the City, through Councils actions, undermines the input and final work product, eroding the entire process.

People make major purchasing decisions based on the predictability provided by zoning to determine the type of neighborhood they want to live in.

Nightly short-term rentals are important to the overall economy of Steamboat, but the practice should be confined to property that is zoned appropriately for this use.

CWP 4 months ago

My wife and I own and live in a home in downtown Steamboat. We rent out the house when we go away on vacations. We would never rent either a room or the house on a long term basis. Limiting short term rentals would be short sighted especially given the shortage of hotel rooms needed to meet visitor demand. Without the short term rentals, there would significant less demand for restaurants and businesses in our city, which would negatively impact those businesses and reduce their need for workers - certainly a way to alleviate demand for workforce housing, but definitely not beneficial to the community. Short term rentals are NOT the problem. They are meeting a critical component of visitor demand and we need those visitors to keep our local business running. Short term rentals are not taking a material amount of long term rental stock out of inventory. The ONLY answer to solving the workforce housing shortage is to build more housing, especially workforce housing.

repickett3 4 months ago

I have completed the questionnaire but wish to comment on the proposed overlay.

I've lived in the Ridge Road neighborhood for over 20 years. We have seen some of the worst consequences of the VHR movement. My concerns are typical: changing the character of the neighborhood, traffic and no parking on our narrow street, and noise. .

Our neighborhood appears to be in the blue, open for discussion overlay area, but without any streets named, I am unsure. My first recommendation would be to prohibit VHR as this is substantially a single family neighborhood, just as in similar neighborhoods closer to town. In fact our land covenants prohibit any multi-family or duplex construction.

My comments are my own, but because I am a Director of our neighborhood HOA, I feel my comments represent the feelings of the vast majority of folks on Ridge Road.

Respectfully,
Alan Geye

AlanGeye 4 months ago

We encourage the City Council to end the VHR moratorium on Sept 8th and move forward with requiring registration/license/permit for all Short Term Rentals in all property types and neighborhoods. We support VHR permits no longer running with the land, as all STR permits/licenses would have to be re-applied for when there is ownership change.

This will allow the City to take further action in the future to possibly limit some use in traditional Steamboat neighborhoods (ie. Old Town/Brooklyn/Fairview) after they collect accurate data on usage, and/or limit use in multi-family (condo) buildings where originally-long-term-housing exists and is now being short term rented.

When registered/permitted for an appropriate fee, STRs can then be expected to adhere to safety, noise, trash, parking and pet standards that will not negatively impact neighbors. We believe that a 24-hour STR hotline and enhanced complaint tracking and code enforcement, will also provide better data for future decision making.

We do not believe that enacting broad restrictions on the presence or percentage of STRs or VHRs in the community, or in particular neighborhoods, is a good solution. We encourage the city council to give future staff the ability to identify STRs or VHRs that show a valid, documented pattern of violation of rules or regulations, and take steps towards an eventual loss of the right to rent the property. The current VHR ordinance has such a procedure built in, and we encourage the city to use this procedure to address STRs or VHRs which are an actual problem, rather than limiting all STRs or VHRs, punishing those owners and property managers who do a good job, and costing the city economically.

EL510720 4 months ago

I really like the overlay zone idea for limiting short term rentals, and am happy to see Parkview Drive in the yellow proposed zone. Id prefer to keep lodging activities in less residential areas. thank you!

HollyWeik 4 months ago

My husband and I bought our home on Burgess Creek two years ago with the intent of staying here forever. We recently both lost our jobs due to business closure and cannot find viable employment locally. We love our home and are hopeful that the job market improves for us but for now, we have to move for work opportunities. In order to keep our home and be able to return to it periodically or hopefully permanently, we have to rent it for the short term. Our neighborhood has numerous rental homes and is in appropriate location for visitors to rent and access the mountain. Our house is not one that is going to be a solution for work force housing, although I do agree that a solution is needed. I am happy to comply with regulations and follow the rules. I don’t want to lose my home because of inability to rent it until I can return.

natasha 4 months ago

My wife and I are physicians who bought a home and planned on being long term owners and eventually retiring here, but the practice owners sold and we have been unemployed. Our home is up Burgess creek adjacent to the resort and walkable to thunderhead. We do not want to give up and sell this property and short term rentals is our best option as we are not sure when we will have to or be able to return. This is a single family home on a half acre and not in location for viable work force housing. I can see why downtown should push but we are in the resort area where short term family rentals are absolutely necessary.
Thank you
Erik

Wyoerik 4 months ago

My husband and I are long time property owners in Steamboat Springs. We do not believe that enacting broad restrictions on the presence or percentage of STRs or VHRs in the community, or in particular neighborhoods, is a good solution. We encourage the city council to give future staff the ability to identify STRs or VHRs that show a valid, documented pattern of violation of rules or regulations, and take steps towards an eventual loss of the right to rent the property. The current VHR ordinance has such a procedure built in, and we encourage the city to use this procedure to address STRs or VHRs which are an actual problem, rather than limiting all STRs or VHRs, punishing those owners and property managers who do a good job, and costing the city economically.

Some facts to consider:
- Today, only 5% of all STRs in Steamboat are required to have VHR licenses, meaning only 211 active VHR permits out of 3650 STRs in Steamboat (source: KeyData)
- About 3,000 STRs of the 3,600 are in the RR/G1/G2 (Gondola area) and Yampa/Lincoln zones. (source: AirDNA)
- Only 12 of 260 single family and townhomes sold in the last 18 months applied and were granted a VHR permit (that's less than 5%). The vast majority of buyers chose to occupy their homes, rent them long-term, or use them as a second home without renting. (Source: MLS)
- 3,127 (90%) of 3650 STRs are condos (not affected by the VHR moratorium) (Source: KeyData)
- Non hotel tax revenue is 68% of the total revenue of all lodgings/accommodation uses in Steamboat. STRs are a significant component of lodging. (source: City of Steamboat Springs)
- Non-hotel accommodation generated $3,156,501 in sales tax from 4/20 - 3/21 and $789,125 in accommodations fund tax as well as $394,562 in school tax. STRs contribute significantly to community infrastructure and budget needs. (source: City of Steamboat Springs).

Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.

Respectfully, Terry Adams

Terry Adams 4 months ago

I own a vacation condo in the Trappeur's Resort Complex near the gondola - we enjoy the condo and rent it out, so that others can enjoy it as well. I do not believe the configuration of the Trappeur's facility nor many of the condos near the gondola were designed to house LT owners, nor are there any apartment like facilities as each condo is individually owned. Seems to me like this should have been addressed years ago through the zoning process. While there are a few LT residents in the condo's, typically those owners are retired, downsized and looking for a simpler "post raising a family" existence. As is the case with Trappeurs - almost of the the developments near the gondola were not set up to house FT tenants as most units cater to tourists. Tourism without amenities would mean there is no need to have LT housing, because there would be jobs as there would be no guests to serve, feed, drive, clean for, or maintain. Tourism is one of the primary economic drivers in Steamboat, however, that must be balanced with options for LT tenants who might or might not ultimately settle in Steamboat. I also own properties in Breckenridge which are duplexes and have housed both LT and ST tenants in each of the respective units - I have found that the wear and tear, pot smoking, cram 10 people in a bedroom, and cavalier attitudes of LT tenants has soured my desire to rent to them. Furthermore, typically those tenants are not LT residences in the community - coming in for a year or two for a good time, but not really putting roots into the community or giving back to their neighborhood or the Town. Therefore, rather than limiting ST rentals with the idea that it will somehow encourage LT tenancies - instead I fear it will likely drop the value of all vacation real estate, but not enough to allow for LT tenants to either buy or rent. Therefore, the best solution is to purposely build facilities to house lower income persons, and that responsibility is a collective burden on the taxpaying community and local government. That can be facilitated by lodging, sales and property taxes that are collected on tourism dollars - and property owners, but should not be facilitated by encumbering privately held property. Taking a property interest could be considered an unconstitutional taking subjecting the City to lawsuits to compensate property owners for devaluing their properties by limiting its use.

Jbvorndran 4 months ago
Page last updated: 11 November 2021, 09:12