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

As you meet to consider extending the VHR moratorium, please consider carefully if this is the best method to control Short Term Rentals, especially in light of the fact that VHR permits apply to only 5% of the STRs in our community.

I could understand continuing the moratorium over areas of our community that are predominantly occupied by residents but having this in place at the mountain is disruptive to homes that will never be workforce housing, and neighborhoods that are predominantly second-homes. It's unnecessary collateral damage that could be avoided with a more thoughtful use of your powers.

You have garnered the attention of the community and you have the support of professional property managers to regulate the 95% of STRs that are most likely impacting community housing and neighborhood character. Let's get this done ASAP through licensing and overlay zones based on the data that has been provided.

robincraigen 4 months ago

While I totally agree that we have a housing crisis in Steamboat (in Colorado, in the US), I expect we are misplacing our focus on short term rentals as the key culprit, and I am will be watching the council on this as we move into the next election.

First, I would like to see the data demonstrating how many short term rentals we have as a percentage of the houses that have sold. I came to Steamboat four years ago as my work allowed me to work remotely. And I suspect the number of residence like me has increased substantially in the last year.

I suspect remote workers, along with national housing trends have much more to do with the housing shortage than short term rentals.

And in regard to housing, it also seems the city could be doing more to encourage development of new housing that is affordable. One has to look no further than the multiple attempts to build on the west side which have been blocked to see the hypocrisy in the councils actions.

So much of what the council has done in the past couple years has been strong, but the reaction to the housing crisis seems like a desire to find a quick fit to a difficult problem which has been brewing for years.

rhall 5 months ago

Short term renters are all party animals with unsavory character right? All long term renters are upstanding community members right? WRONG. Will we fix the "neighborhood character" problem by only allowing long term renters? NO. I have lived all over steamboat from downtown, to mountain village, and even west end. I've had more bad neighbors than good ones, drinkers, smokers, party animals etc. Guess what, they were all long term renters, not a single one was short term.

Someone from the public commented during the last City Hall meeting, "the short term rental house (in her neighborhood) sleeps 6 people, so it's a party house". Well, I grew up in a family of five, and we went on vacation every year. My parents would find airbnb style rentals for the five of us, just like the "party house" that Mrs. Anonymous spoke of. Were we partiers? Were we unsavory characters? NO. My parents are both highly respected professionals.

This issue is not black and white, like all the angry neighborhood folk believe it is. If I recall correctly, steamboat earned the title of "A drinking town with a ski problem". Sounds to me like the party animals have been here for a long time, and short term renters are just taking all the heat for it. Let's find a better way.

MatthewEngle 5 months ago

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have changed their lending guidelines this spring. Those impacts are just beginning to be felt but they are significant. Basically, if your buying a 2nd home you will no longer be able to finance your home in a traditional manner with the loan being sellable on the secondary market. This means the borrower will have to have a portfolio (local bank) loan which costs more and makes it much more difficult to qualify for. What the government did was simply classify all of the condos in the non-permit needed area as condotels. In actuality, there are only a few true condotels. A well-qualified client was turned down financing on a Yampa View condo due to its new classification even though it is clearly not a condotel. This alone will slow the pace of vacation condo sales thereby making what the city is proposing a double whammy. Not at all good for affordability for locals in my opinion since it will be only those who can pay cash or provide much more of a down payment to qualify and our experience has been that those folks rarely rent long term or short term...

Randall Hannaway 5 months ago

I’m interested in the identified Total Tax Revenue From The Non-hotel Accommodation Uses (4/20-3/21) that are listed on this website, and thought it might be useful to break down those numbers to see approximately how much the neighborhood STR’s are contributing. As stated, there are 4,296 active rentals with 211 active STR Permits. These total active rentals provide $3,156,501 to the General Fund Sales Tax, $789,125 to the Accommodation Fund Tax and $394,562 to the School Tax.

Doing some simple math, the 211 STR permit properties contribute approximately $155,035 to the General Fund Tax, $38,670 to the Accommodation Fund Tax and $19,335 to the School Tax. Looking at the approximate contribution that each individual STR contributes is $735 to the General Fund, $185 to the Accommodation Fund Tax and $95 to the School Tax for a total tax gain of $1,015 in order to put the contributions from the 211 individual STR’s in perspective. If these STR’s were rented 365 days a year, they each would pay $2.80 a day, or $0.12/hour.

I’m not suggesting that the tax dollars they contribute aren’t nothing, but looking at the big picture, it’s clear that the non-hotel accommodations big tax dollars are the units that were originally zoned as rentals.

I would hope that the residents and City Council need to seriously ask themselves if the 211 STR’s tax contributions are worth the hassle and aggravation that they are causing in our residential neighborhoods. I think not.

Blatoza

Blatoza 5 months ago

I'm curious, if we didn't have such a glut of STRs, would Ski Time Square have been rebuilt already? Why do we still have a 13-year-old dirt patch at the base of a very popular ski resort? There is no doubt that the developers take available lodging into account when planning a project.

mogulrobber 5 months ago

Let's dispel the idea that "workforce housing" is just lifties and restaurant staff. Steamboat is full of professions that support the town. From our healthcare workers and government employees to office workers and tradespeople, many of these families make above the median income for Steamboat. Yet they too struggle to find housing.

mogulrobber 5 months ago

"It's my property I should be able to do whatever I want with it" is not and never has been a valid argument. You can't put a business in a residential area, much less a strip club. You shouldn't be allowed to operate a STR-hotel in a neighborhood either.

Zoning ordinances exist for a reason. New tech of AirBnB just skirts the intention of these ordinances.

All STRs should be classified as Commercial property and taxed accordingly.

HamD 5 months ago

We are in a well-documented housing crisis, and many of us are uncertain about how we will be able to run our town considering the issues this creates with workforce. Policy makers need to use all the tools in the toolbox to meet this challenge and modifying regulations for short term rentals is one of them.

The citizens of Routt County have always been committed to community and neighbors. This is the secret to our success, and the definition of western hospitality. Historically, local policy makers have been intentional about tourism. Now it is time to be intentional about community. Please do not allow short term rentals in residential and designated multifamily neighborhoods. We currently have one short term rental next to our home and it is very challenging. Personally, if our home becomes surrounded by short term rentals, we will probably move. It will no longer be home to us because it is the people who are here full time living, working, contributing, and raising their families that make it the home it is.

Megan Moore-Kemp

meganmoorekemp 5 months ago

Does Steamboat Springs or Routt county have a dedicated task force that seeks out and applies for state and federal funds in the form of low interest loans, grants and programs to build affordable/subsidized housing for rent or purchase?

downhill 5 months ago

I have lived in Routt County on-and-off for the better part of 11 years. We as a community are very lucky to live in such a beautiful resort town, and unfortunately the secret is out! More people are traveling and moving here (mostly due to Steamboat Resort's relentless marketing efforts to draw more and more people.) This town has grown exponentially in popularity over the last 10 years, and we need to understand that tourism is now our main driver of revenue for this town. Many of us are employed by the tourism industry, and more specifically the hospitality industry, including STRs/VHRs. Turning our back on tourism, and taking jobs away from people, is not the way to solve the issues our community is experiencing. It comes down to this: If one cannot afford to live in Steamboat proper, simply move to an outlying area in Routt County, and commute. This does not seem like a big deal, as most of the world operates like this. Commuting is how most bustling towns and cities function, utilizing public transit to get to and from work. Eliminating STRs and VHRs will not solve any of these natural growth issues, and will instead put people out of work, and take valuable tax money coming in from these rentals from the community. The small percentage of larger homes that are/will be affected by tightening restrictions is not going to solve anything. Perhaps we should instead focus on the solutions that would actually change things: Better road maintenance to make commuting less of an issue, widening roads, utilizing the already-in-place railroad system and putting in passenger trains to shuttle commuters back and forth, beautifying Hayden and other outlying communities to make them more desirable places to live and raise families, etc.
A few facts to back up my points:

- There are only 211 active VHR permits in Steamboat
- 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%)
- Non hotel tax revenue is 68% of the total revenue of all lodgings/accomodation uses in Steamboat - THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY & JOBS
- 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
- Of a total of 211 VHR permits, there are 33 VHR permits in Old Town, 36 in Midtown (Blue Sage/Fish Creek/Hilltop area), 4 in Fairview, 3 in Sunlight, 3 in Brooklyn, 1 in Riverside, and 1 in West End Village. The rest are at the mountain
- Only 30 new VHR permits were applied for in 2020, 32 in 2019 and 22 in 2018. (these numbers do not seem like a big deal - and eliminating them would not solve any underlying housing issues.)


I think restricting how people use their own properties not only will be a detriment to our town and society, but I also think it is unpatriotic and morally wrong. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I ask that the moratorium on VHR Permits be lifted for the South and North Resort areas. This is the way.

Nick31 5 months ago

I live in the mountain area and am surrounded by short term rental properties. I know a few of the owners and personally like them, but they are clearly running a business next to me at my expense. I suffer with the short term renters dogs running thru my property, their kids using my property as a sledding hill, loud parties, music etc. Last week I contacted my neighbor who rents his property out about 90% of the year because their short term renters dog was barking all the time the guests were away. I received the following response:”Yes Bill, we will contact the guests about the dogs. I am sorry they are so annoying, hopefully they will respond.” Not the most comforting response to our plight. The dogs are still barking, and it’s more than a week since I got the response from the owner.

Short term rentals are a business. I had no idea when I moved into my residential neighborhood that I would be surrounded by businesses. I’m all for restricting short term rentals in residential neighborhoods, and only allowing them where they were originally planned. I’m also against all short term rental permits in perpetuity. The City should require that all new owners reapply for permits.

I look forward to City Council coming up with a solution to the problems caused by short term rentals in residential neighborhoods.

Blatoza

Blatoza 5 months ago

Steamboat Springs is a world class ski resort and a paradise for outdoor recreation enthusiasts. The economy of this vacation destination relies on the tourism dollars it attracts. Anywhere in the world , one could find, that the most expensive homes reside in the most desirable and magnificent locations. One price for a home in the city center and another price for 20 miles outside the city center. The most expensive homes located in the city center or on the mountain are not in competition with affordable housing. Affordable housing is subsidized, and it would be cost prohibitive to be built on the most expensive and desirable and convenient pieces of land.
Steamboat Springs Free public transportation supports workers ability to commute from outside the city center.
Subsidized housing or affordable housing never competes with high end housing because the two operate on completely different cost structures.
Does anyone really believe that affordable housing shortage will be solved by forcing Vacation Home Rental owners out of business? The thinking is if Steamboat Springs restrict short term rentals, then owners won’t be able to afford to maintain their homes, thereby forcing sales at a price the local workforce can afford. Problem solved. Not.
There are plenty of ski areas in Colorado that offer plenty of short term rental housing options. Limit short term rental housing availability in Steamboat Springs and drive tourists and their vacation dollars elsewhere. Steamboat is basically a service economy that relies on tourism. Kill the availability of nightly rental accommodations and kill the economy. Loss of jobs. Loss of revenue.
Workers need a place to live and tourists need a place to stay. Hurting one doesn't necessarily help the other.

downhill 5 months ago

Im an owner of a short term rental and believe these type of properties should be limited specific areas like the Resort designated zones to not impact locals and family's. Restricting the rentals to designated areas would also help stabilize the home and rental prices for locals that live and work in Steamboat. As a responsible owner of STR I make sure that my management enforces our occupancy rules and address any issues regarding unruly guest to make sure our neighbors are not negatively impacted. SRT are a great idea to support local tourism and generate tax revenue for the local economy but need to be regulated to insure quality of life for the locals of Steamboat

sixred 5 months ago

Please note that a huge chunk of our community rely on the revenue generated from STR's. Many LOCALS are STR owners(not just some nefarious big corporate entities) and any steps to limit/regulate/further tax this revenue source is a direct hit to the affordability of the town in general. Let's also not discount the people that work in the STR ecosystem and the fact that these government decisions have MANY trickle down effects. One of these impacts is the increase in property values over the years in Steamboat. I wonder how many of the loudest voices would give up the gains in the properties they own over the last 5 years? STRs have had an impact on property valuations, however; let's not discount the fact that STRs are a crucial component of our economy and have provided significantly to both the prosperity and the tax base of the community.

We have an undercurrent of Steamboat "natives" that continually bemoan anything related to a tourist and vigorously fight to return Steamboat to some bygone era that never actually existed.

Steamboat is thriving...more taxes and misguided regulation is not the answer, especially for properties near the mountain. The only way that taxes and regulation fix the housing affordability issue is that they could substantially decrease the supply and demand for this entire ecosystem...which will shrink our economy, decrease jobs and fix the housing supply issue in the worst possible way.

bever1323 5 months ago

As a short term rental owner in old town we made sure to make sure we followed all the rules to obtain our Permits and licenses when we started renting out our home last year. Please understand that there are many of us who are doing it the right way. We have very strict rules, regulations, etc and are very courteous to our neighbors. From what I see there are a lot of owners who do not do the same and these are the owners that need to be regulated better, etc…. Please take that into consideration when you make your decisions.

Leah hoffman 5 months ago

I am a homeowner who has been negatively affected by a recently granted VHR license and was cussed at this past weekend when the renters were kicked out because they were in violation of their rental agreement (12 people at the residence, not to mention a 12:45 AM call to dispatch regarding a noise complaint). I felt threatened and actually feared that these tenants would come back and deface my property.

In one short month since the VHR license was granted, we have had multiple large vehicles, boats, a camper pickup truck, and a commercial truck parked in the driveway. The City does not define the types of allowable vehicles, and only defines the number of vehicles allowed to be parked in the garage and on the driveway.

Furthermore, the City does not even consider whether there are existing covenants on file with Routt County that would prohibit the nightly rental activity (e.g., stipulation that a home be used solely as a single-family residence and no activity for gain). This particular homeowner bought the home 2.5 years ago, has spent very little time here, and now, as an absentee owner has converted the property to a commercial activity, but does not have to suffer the nightly disruption to a quiet residential neighborhood.

We are a small 12 home Association. We are in the process of amending our covenants to enhance the "no activity for gain" clause to specifically prohibit short term rentals. This is a time-consuming process. Amending covenants and establishing rules under the HOA is an unnecessary cost that has never been required in the 22 years I have lived in this home (where the covenants specifically state that the homes may be used as single-family residences and that no activity for gain is permitted). These future additional costs to enforce covenants /HOA rules that are already on the books and/or to further clarify covenant language that “no activity for gain” means no nightly rentals is a cost that the HOA otherwise would not have to incur.


This past holiday weekend resulted in someone calling dispatch due to a noise complaint at 12:45 AM on Saturday morning (7/3/21). There were at least 10 guests present although we think that there were actually 12 people present at the property this past Saturday (7/3) afternoon when the Airbnb Superhost arrived and kicked them out. Each person essentially paid $100 for the two-night rental in order to “party”. When they were kicked out they were all running around the property in bathing suits. The City would not permit a homeowner to house 12 people long term. Why is this permissible for a nightly rental?

When the Airbnb Superhost came to kick them out on Saturday afternoon one of the tenants (when getting into a car) actually looked directly at my home and at my neighbor's home and raised two bags of ice over his head and yelled "FU" twice. I was actually concerned that these tenants would come back and deface my property later in the weekend. I have also experienced hostility from the absentee owner for raising issues with the subdivision covenants.

It is unconscionable that we long term homeowners are subjected to this behavior because the City has been rubber stamping these VHR licenses. NONE of this chaos would be happening if the VHR license was not being automatically issued in residential neighborhoods.

Some of you will be offended at the next comments, but the truth is that we all make choices in life. I’m sorry, if you bought a property that you can’t afford. The purchase of real estate is a major financial investment and when making such investment you should have the financial wherewithal to maintain that property and either rely on long term rental income or carry the operating costs. My life should not be disrupted on a nightly basis so that you can generate sufficient cash flow to cover your "carrying costs" in order to hold on to your property when that property is located in a residential neighborhood. My late husband and I made many sacrifices in life and we lived within (or even below) our means and like many people, we moved to Steamboat on a “wing and a prayer”. When we bought this property I actually lost sleep as to how expensive the mortgage was. However, we saved, budgeted, and yes, we did without some luxuries (including not going out to eat and attending free events around town and not taking exotic international vacations). Trust me there were many homes we liked a whole lot better back in 1999, but we were not willing to overextend ourselves. I am sorry, but I should not have to suffer noise and constant disruption because you “need” to rent out your place under the more lucrative nightly rental fees in order to hold on to the property. I would also comment that your short-term rental property is likely being degraded and defaced more rapidly because of wear and tear and the fact that many vacationers are not very careful and scratch up the flooring and woodwork and break things. (I previously owned a condo that was rented out and there were never ending maintenance charges assessed by the management company to fix things that the nightly renters broke, and I even had a renter who burned wood in a gas fireplace).

I am not opposed to seasonal rentals with respectful tenants, but I am opposed to continued turnover on a nightly and weekly basis as well as allowing these homes to be rented to multi-family groups (which as noted are actually in violation of our specific covenants).

I understand there are strong viewpoints on the pros and cons of allowing property owners to monetize their property. However, we need to come together as a community in order to provide very clear definitions and guidelines as to the what, when and where these VHR licenses should be granted. A well thought out ordinance will reduce the problems and resources necessary to police such VHR properties (and avoid altercations with other owners or tenants).

As part of this VHR license moratorium, the City needs to consider the following:
• Cost/benefit of hiring additional code enforcement and law enforcement staff to police these nightly rentals.
o As noted in other comments, residential neighborhoods have no choice but to call police dispatch and unnecessarily deploy law enforcement as compared to condo buildings which are managed and have the professional staff to deal with rowdy renters.

• The statutory ordinance language needs to very specifically define terms such as not all inclusive):
o single-family residence,
o short term rental,
o long-term rental property,
o seasonal rental,
o what is permissible in an area zoned for residential activity,
o what is permissible in an area zoned for commercial activity

• Real and personal property taxes need to be updated to the commercial property rate.
o Property taxes need to be increased to the commercial property rate if these VHR rentals are allowed to operate as commercial businesses within neighborhoods zoned for residential dwellings.
o A personal property tax needs to be assessed for these single-family homes that are being used in a commercial activity. Why should these VHR owners not be taxed in the same manner as condo investors who must pay an annual personal property tax?
o The fee to apply for a license needs to be drastically increased. The current $500 fee is hardly an investment. If a property owner has to put up a much larger licensing fee, they likely are to better manage their property in order to not lose that fee if the license is later revoked due to problems.
 The fee could also be used to fund additional City resources (e.g., hiring additional police and code enforcement personnel).
 The VHR tax and licensing process should pay for itself. Other taxpayers should NOT have to fund the additional costs incurred by the City to enforce these VHR licenses.

o I also agree with the suggestions that higher nightly lodging taxes should be charged for these Airbnb nightly rentals. These Airbnb rentals are becoming a problem in many resort towns.
 My perception is that there are plenty of rental condos in Steamboat. Why should these VHR rentals spill over into the few residential areas available in Steamboat and inconvenience full time residents and very likely take away rental income from existing condos which are actively managed and marketed to the short-term rental market? Market forces of supply and demand would drive rental prices. Right now there is no supply so annual rental prices are sky high.

 There is also the ongoing discussion around removal of these residential properties from the long-term workforce housing market.

 And by the way, the Pilot’s Op-ed published a few weeks ago in which the authors stated their opinion that these VHRs licenses should be “OK” on the mountain side of town but “not OK” in Old Town is discriminatory and completely “NIMBE” and quite frankly part of the overall problem.
• I could make the same argument in reverse: There are already plenty of condos for rent on the mountain side of town and therefore VHR licenses granted for single family dwellings should only be permissible downtown where there are fewer short-term rental properties. Bottom line is that We ALL LIVE HERE folks, and what works for one owner may not work for someone else so there needs to be fairness across the board. That Op-ed viewpoint was so one-sided it was absurd.

• The City needs to define what is a permissible “vehicle”.
o Large trucks pulling boats and commercial trucks should not be permissible in a residential neighborhood (especially in a neighborhood whose covenants specifically prohibit trailers, campers, or boats on the driveway – yes, our covenants also have language to prohibit each of these).

 The City’s granting of a VHR such a license that conflicts with the covenants forces the HOA to expend resources and costs to enforce the covenants being violated under an approved VHR license.
o It is incredible to me that a three-bedroom home is allowed to have five (5) total vehicles. Most people arrive with a companion and thus five vehicles on its face presumably equals ten people in a three-bedroom home.

• These VHR properties must be required to hire a local property management firm if the owner does not reside locally. There needs to be a local contact who is responsible for ongoing security, including doing a daily walk by or drive by in order to ensure that the number of approved tenants is not exceeded (and not an Airbnb host that merely shows up before and after arrival but never in between).

o These VHR properties are a commercial activity. They are essentially able to operate at lower overhead costs than condos and hotels that operate and follow the rules (as pointed out by another commenter). Why should these VHR owners receive more favorable treatment than existing rental short-term lodging businesses?
o My understanding is that most condos hire security to police the properties after hours on a daily basis.
o Private homeowners should not be put in the position of having to report violations to police dispatch or report to the absentee owner. This creates unnecessary hostility. I have never had an issue with any neighbor in my entire life until voicing my concerns over this VHR license with the owner, and quite frankly the situation has turned hostile. But if I remain silent, I (and my neighbors) suffer the never-ending consequences and once this short-term rental activity is allowed, we can’t stop it in the future.

• The City needs to be more specific as to how many “pillows” can be approved under a VHR license after considering the number of actual beds in the dwelling.
o My personal view is that pull-out cots/ sofa beds should not be considered when granting a VHR license for a single-family residence (or duplex). Allowing temporary beds merely encourages large groups to show up, such as what my cul-de-sac experienced this past weekend when 10-12 renters stayed in a three-bedroom home that has three queen beds.

• The City needs to consider whether there are existing covenants for the subdivision that may be violated if a VHR license is granted.
o A VHR license should not be issued if it conflicts with existing HOA covenants that are legal documents on file in Routt County. The City should actually be enforcing such covenants on the books in conjunction with issuing these VHR licenses.

• The City absolutely must consider input from those homeowners who will be directly impacted by these nightly renters. In our case, the neighborhood feedback to the City was overwhelmingly against the granting of the VHR license and yet it was issued anyway and already in one month we have had several Code violations and a call to Police dispatch for a noise complaint.


In conclusion, the bottom line is:

Why should one homeowner be allowed to convert their single-family residence into a commercial business activity within a residential neighborhood and completely disrupt the life of every other homeowner surrounding that property? and

Why should these VHR owners not have to pay the higher commercial real and personal property tax rates because they are in fact conducting a commercial activity for gain?

I am a private person and really do not want to have to be dealing with this issue or put my name out there in public. However, the City’s automatic approval of this particular VHR license has negatively affected my very quiet life, and it has caused me to suffer hostility from the absentee owner as well as being threatened in the form of cussing by a displaced tenant who did not follow rules – all in the first 30 days that this license has been in existence.

DebbieS

spykede 5 months ago

I am a full time resident of Steamboat Springs but for many years I came only in the winter. During those years we owned a condo and then a townhome. Both were designed for short term rental. One of the main problems with homes being used for Short Term Vacation Rentals is that their is no one around to manage problems and, believe me there are plenty of problems. With a condo, townhome or hotel designed for ST rental one can easily call the managing company to resolve issues. We moved to a single family home when we became full time residents in order to have a neighborhood. Now my neighborhood has become inundated with Short Term Rentals. It is actually much worse than when I was in the condo or townhome becasue then we could have any problems taken care of. The renters often party loud and late into the night. Just last week they were up partying until 4 - 5 AM. I thought of calling the police but I was not sure which home it was coming from (there are so many now and sound really carries in the mountains). We have people with dogs off leash on our property, pooping anywhere they want. We have adults allowing their children to sled on our hill which is very dangerous as there are trees everywhere.
Steamboat Springs has options for people who want to rent their vacation place - numerous condos and townhomes. Leave the residential neighborhood alone please. Keep business out of the neighborhoods. We have a vacation rental to our immediate east (owners are never here, IT IS A BUSINESS) and one to our immediate south (again no owner presence, IT IS A BUSINESS). Since you announced the moratorium we have three more applicants that are going through the permit process because they applied within 24 hours of the cutoff. One of those is the developer of a new home. They are selling the ST vacation rental as a perk of buying in Steamboat Springs and we full time residents are paying the price. Relators were advising their clients to get their applications in before the vote for the moratorium.
The prices of homes are going up in some part because of allowing ST Vacation rentals and local workers are loosing their rental homes. I personally know of two renters who have been long time residents that had to leave their homes. I am sure their are many more. Please save our quality of life.

JBauer 5 months ago

It should be obvious that if a majority of homeowner vote against a short term rental the matter should be ended. Here are additional reasons: you have no idea who might be staying adjacent to a home in a family neighborhood even on a nightly basis, so many renting units are disrespectful to adjacent homeowners, the purchase of a home merely to use as a rental property takes a home away from someone who may need to purchase a home for a job and to raise a family. Probably the most egregious reasons is the use of water changed in hot tubs as often as weekly. Realtors simply need to inform potential buyers that a potential sale of a home may not include nightly rentals.

Wader1 5 months ago

I have lived full time in Steamboat for the last six years and in the Colorado mountains for almost twenty years. I have two kids in the Steamboat school system. I wanted to comment on the nightly rentals. There is no doubt nightly rentals impact the community from the change in character of neighborhoods to increased fire, police, rescue, etc…, to loss of affordable housing for workers. The impacts are simply caused by a substantial increase in numbers. For example, if there are an extra 2k people in town staying in nightly rentals there will be more calls for service that the entire community must pay for and more demand for workers.
I wanted to address three items regarding nightly rentals in Steamboat:
1. Moratorium: The current moratorium is imperative to provide time to develop a cohesive set of rules without a huge influx of new properties.
2. Regulations of nightly rentals are critical for the character and well being of residents: Other cities have already created the wheel on best practices. Denver is a good model: https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Business-Licensing/Business-Licenses/Short-Term-Rentals.
a. Zones need to be setup where nightly rentals are allowed and just as important not allowed. For example, areas that have been traditionally intended for “locals housing” . These areas should prohibit short term rentals other than on primary residences with some limitations mirroring the laws in Denver.
3. Pay fair share: Nightly rental property owners are benefitting from operating like a hotel, but are not paying their fair share. Why should someone operating their property like a hotel not pay the same amount as someone operating a hotel? They should not. Nightly rentals should have a registration base fee of $2000 + $1,000 a bedroom. For example a 3 bedroom house would be an annual fee of $5,000 to register their nightly rental. For primary residences, this fee should be substantially lower (for example $500 registration fee).
a. These funds should be split 3 ways: 1) affordable housing 2) police/fire/rescue 3) Howleson/trails/etc…
b. The increased licensing fees would create a stable source of funds in to provide long term funding for major resident priorities.

There are impassioned voices on both sides of the nightly rental discussion. We as a community need to take a pragmatic approach to nightly rentals to craft the best long-term solution for the well-being of residents and businesses of this community. Implementation of a moratorium, increased regulations on nightly rentals, and registration fees would help balance the impacts of nightly rentals with community needs.

glweinbe 6 months ago
Page last updated: 11 November 2021, 09:12