HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Special Study Session 2022-03-01March 1, 2022
5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
5:30 p.m. -Dinner
The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of
Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek related to COVID-19 and provided for with
the adoption of Ordinance 04-20.
To view or listen to the Study Session by Zoom Webinar
ONLINE (Zoom Webinar): https://zoom.us/j/91077906778 Webinar ID: 910 7790 6778
CALL-IN (Telephone): 877-853-5257 (toll-free) Meeting ID: 910 7790 6778
If you are joining the Zoom meeting and are experiencing technical difficulties, staff will be
available by phone for assistance 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting at 970-577-4777.
1.Vacation Home Rental (Short Term Rental) Fee Study
Review. (Town Clerk Williamson)
2.Revised Policy 225 Childcare Funding Guidelines.
(Assistant Town Administrator Damweber)
3.Adjourn.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
VIRTUAL
1
2
TOWN CLERK OFFICE MEMO
To: Mayor Koenig
Town Board of Trustees
Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Date: March 1, 2022
RE: Vacation Home Rental (Short Term Rental) Fee Study
Purpose of Study Session Item:
To review with the Board the vacation home rental draft fee study report prepared by Root
Policy and receive direction from the Board on preparing an ordinance establishing a fee for
Board consideration.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests direction from the Board on the following items:
- As implementing a fee is a policy decision, staff request Board direction on whether to
draft for the Board’s consideration an ordinance establishing a fee to offset the impact of
vacation home rentals on the availability of workforce housing in Estes Park.
-If the Board would like staff to draft an ordinance, staff would need direction on the
following issues in order to draft the ordinance appropriately:
1.Which model should be used, the one based on Colorado data generally or the
one that also incorporates data from areas in Colorado that have economies with
above-median reliance on tourism (the Colorado Tourism model)?
2.Should the fee be set at the amount justified by the study, or a lesser amount?
3.At what interval should the fee be collected?
Annually, at the same time as the existing license fee?
Nightly, per rental night?
Or a two-tiered combination of the two, with part collected annually and
part nightly?
4.Should the fee apply to vacation home rentals in all zoning districts, or should it
exclude certain districts?
5.Should the fee be indexed to the consumer price index (CPI) to keep pace with
inflation?
Present Situation:
At the Town Board study session on June 8, 2021, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink proposed the idea
of instituting a use tax or fee for vacation home rentals (short-term rentals), a rental of a
residential unit for less than 30 days. The Board directed staff to pursue a fee study related to
the nexus of vacation home rentals and workforce housing during the August 24, 2021 meeting.
At the following meeting the Board approved funding for the study and commented the study
would provide the Board with information on the impact of said rentals on the availability of
workforce housing, provide fee options to be considered by the Board through a public process,
and further recognized a need for multiple approaches to address the workforce housing. 3
The Town engaged the services of Root Policy Research to conduct a fee study to quantify the
relationship between the operation of vacation home rentals and the cost and availability of
workforce housing. A special study session was held on December 1, 2021 to review the scope
of the study, methodology to include descriptive statistics and demand analysis, and if the study
finds an impact exists, the Board could approve and collect a fee to offset the impact.
Proposal:
During the February 8, 2022 study session, Root Policy reviewed the data collected and the
outcome of the supply impact analysis which applied a coefficient from a national and state
model to the Estes Park data.
As explained by Root Policy, the study uses a powerful method to isolate how much the trends
in Estes Park toward housing unattainability are caused by vacation home rentals as opposed to
other factors. The study does not presume that every short-term rental is a lost opportunity for
workforce housing. Instead, the purpose of the study is to determine the degree to which short-
term rentals have that impact.
In that vein, the methodology did not presume that the study would result in a finding that a fee
was supported. As Root Policy explained, the methodology allowed for the possibility that,
depending on what the data showed, the model could theoretically indicate that short-term
rentals in Estes Park have no impact on workforce housing, or even a beneficial impact. If the
data had shown no impact, the calculated supportable fee, in other words, would have been $0.
Root Policy examined and modeled the data, and found as follows: “Every 100 STRs in Estes
Park leads to a loss of 3-9 rental units and 4-9 ownership units that would otherwise be
occupied by local residents (total resident housing loss of 7-18 units). In addition, every 100
STRs in Estes Park result in an $11 increase in monthly rent of resident units and a $6,500
increase in home prices.”
The draft report has been further developed to include Section IV: Supportable Fee Calculation.
Using an affordability gap methodology, the study found that the amount of the fee justified by
the data to mitigate the impact on the availability of workforce housing units in Estes Park would
be an annual fee of up to $1,390 per unit or a nightly rental fee of up to $8.32 per unit. On
average, this would equate to as much as about 2.5% or 2.6% of gross receipts from the rental
of these units.
After discussion with Root Policy, staff concludes that this calculation of the impact and the
supportable fee is conservative, for a number of reasons:
• First, data more current than 2019 are not yet available, and housing may have become
less attainable since then.
• Second, the data indicate that the more tourism-centered a local economy is, the greater
an impact each additional short-term rental is likely to have on overall housing
attainability. In order to have a broad enough dataset to reach the necessary statistical
power, even the Colorado Tourism model uses all areas that have an above-median
share of business establishments that belong to the accommodation and food services
industry. Estes Park may have a share that is well above the median, suggesting that
the impact may be underestimated.
• Third, the affordability gap approach used in Section IV assumes that the current income
distribution of Estes Park owners and renters is the appropriate distribution. It does not
account for the possibility that lower-income households might be disproportionately shut
out of the Estes Park market. This appears to be a standard and reasonable approach
4
because there is no ready way to estimate any other desired income distribution, but it is
conservative in how it affects the ultimate calculation of the supportable fee.
• Fourth, the fee calculated is not the amount it would take to replace all the units that
have been calculated to have been lost due to short-term rentals. The cost of replacing
those units would need to be supplemented by contributions from workforce housing
occupants themselves, based on what they can reasonably afford under standard
calculations.
Staff offers these observations after conversations with Root Policy, but staff is not offering an
overall policy recommendation on whether to establish a fee. While the study is establishing the
amount of a fee that would be supported by the data, the Board is under no obligation to set a
fee. That is a legislative policy decision that rests with the Board.
In the study session, if the Board indicates a desire to consider a fee ordinance, staff does
intend to offer some recommendations on the more specific issues pertaining to the
implementation of the fee, based on practical considerations. If the Board directs staff to
prepare an ordinance, staff would aim to present it at the March 22 regular session.
Advantages:
• The report provides a defensible nexus between an increase in vacation home rentals and
the availability of workforce housing.
• A fee could provide an additional dedicated funding source, along with the Town’s dedicated
funds outlined in Policy 227 Workforce Housing Guidelines, for the development of
additional workforce housing units up to 175% AMI.
• The fee would support the housing goals outlined in Policy 227.
Disadvantages:
• A fee whether annual or nightly would most likely be passed on to the guest and increase
the cost of a nightly stay by approximately $8 per night based on the average number of
nights a vacation home is rented annually.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The potential financial revenues will be discussed during the presentation.
Level of Public Interest
Medium. Property owners, property managers and realtors have been engaged in the topic and
have questioned the fee study, the potential impact of the study and the cost.
Attachments
1. Root Policy Draft Report
2. Policy 227
5
Root Policy Research
6741 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80220
www.rootpolicy.com
970.880.1415
Town of Estes Park
Vacation Home Rental
(Short Term Rental)
Fee Study
PREPARED FOR: UPDATED
Town of Estes Park 2/22/2022
INTRODUCTION
The object of the Estes Park Vacation Home Fee Study is to quantify the relationship
between the operation of homes in the Town as short-term rentals (STRs) and the cost and
availability of workforce housing. The study is founded on a rigorous methodology such
that the Town could base a fee on the results if desired.
In this report, the term “Vacation Home” is used interchangeably with “Short Term
Rental” or “STR,” consistent with the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code which defines
a Vacation Home as “a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied for
accommodation purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days.”
The study begins with an overview of the historical housing market and economic trends in
Estes Park followed by an analysis of the Town’s STR market to provide context for the
impact analysis and concludes with a fee calculation based on the impact results.
Attachment 1
6
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Demographic & Housing Market Context
This section offers an overview of socioeconomic trends and the housing market in Estes
Park to provide context for the impact analysis.
This would include shifts in housing stock, prices, and affordability; vacation/second home
trends; the number of short term rentals (along with market metrics for price, occupancy,
and characteristics of short term rentals), and socioeconomic trends (e.g., demographics,
resident incomes, industries, and wages). Key data sources for this analysis would include
US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Larimer County Assessor, Multiple List
Service; Multifamily Vacancy Survey; the Estes Valley Housing Authority subsidized housing
inventory; and MUNIRevs (STR database).
Demographic Profile
According to estimates from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the
permanent resident population of Estes Park peaked in 2016 at 6,777 and has declined
slightly over the past few years to 6,208 in 2019 (the most recent year of data available).
Figure I-1 shows population trends by age in Estes Park. Seniors account for over one-third
of the permanent resident population (37%, up from 29% in 2010). The proportion of
middle age residents and children has declined over the past decade (from 28% middle age
to 20% and 16% children to 8%).
Figure I-1.
Population and Age
Source: DOLA and ACS.
7
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 2
Figure I-2 shows population trends alongside employment and commuting trends.
Although total Estes Park jobs has increased, the number of resident workers has
remained flat. In other words—worker growth is not keeping up with job growth,
particularly in the last few years. This means individual workers are taking on more jobs
and/or the number of jobs held by in-commuters increases. As shown in the table below
the figure the proportion of Estes Park jobs held by in-commuters has increased from 61%
in 2015 to 65% in 2019.
Figure I-2.
Jobs and Workers
Source: LEHD.
Housing Profile
Trends in the Estes Park housing market show rising rents and home prices, a rise in
homes used for seasonal/recreational use (which includes second homes and short term
rentals), and limited available inventory (for both rental and for-sale products).
Figure I-3 shows the total housing units in Estes Park and reveals trends in occupancy over
the past decade. As illustrated, the total number of units has increased only slightly and the
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total Estes Park Residents 5,865 6,015 6,219 6,276 6,412 6,658 6,777 6,490 6,412 6,208
All Estes Park Jobs 3,094 2,843 3,085 3,069 3,063 3,383 3,354 3,592 3,733 3,830
All Estes Park Resident Workers 2,291 2,204 2,321 2,276 2,374 2,721 2,673 2,711 2,761 2,668
Residents Living & Working in Estes 1,075 972 1,128 1,075 1,101 1,323 1,242 1,343 1,378 1,351
Jobs to workers Ratio 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4
% Estes Park jobs held by in-
commuters 65% 66% 63% 65% 64% 61% 63% 63% 63% 65%
% of Estes Park working residents that
are out-commuters 53% 56% 51% 53% 54% 51% 54% 50% 50% 49%
8
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 3
composition of those units has shifted in recent year toward more seasonal use and fewer
resident occupied units. These trends may indicate a shortage of housing for workforce—
either due to price increases or competition from second home buyers and investors.
Figure I-3.
Housing Units and Occupancy
Source: DOLA and ACS.
Building permit activity has increased over the last couple years with notable activity in the
multifamily market. However, it isn’t clear from the permit data if these units will be
occupied by local workforce or if they are primarily marketed as second home condo
opportunities.
Figure I-4.
Building
Permits
Source:
Town of Estes Park.
9
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 4
Average asking rent in Estes Park is about $1,845 per month (according to an analysis of
recent listings on apartment sites, including Craigslist). This reflects a 32% increase in
average rent since 2015, when the same analysis showed average rents at $1,395.
Figure I-5 shows the distribution of all rents (including those currently occupied and not on
the open market) in 2010, 2015, and 2019. As illustrated, rents have consistently shifted
upwards over the past decade.
Figure I-5.
Rental
Distribution
Note:
Average listed rent increased
32% between 2015 and 2021,
from $1,395 to $1,845.
Source:
Note from Craigslist data;
chart from ACS.
Figure I-6 shows trends in the for-sale price of homes and illustrates the drastic increase in
home prices over the past five years. The average sales price in Estes in 2021 was $677,000.
Figure I-6.
Average Sale Price
Source: Larimer County Assessor.
10
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 5
SECTION II.
Short Term Rental Market
There are currently 480 registered short term rentals (STRs) in Estes Park: 322 in residential
zone districts and 158 in commercial districts. As shown in Figure II-1, STRs have increased
in both residential and commercial zone districts, particularly over the past six years.
Figure II-1.
Registered STRs by Zone, 2010-2021
Source: Town of Estes Park.
Data from AirDNA (an online aggregator of STR listings) shows similar increases in the
number of active STR listings in Estes Park over the past five years (regardless of
registration status), despite a slight dampening of activity during COVID (2020-2021).1
Figure II-2.
Active STR Listings
by Zone, 2017-2021
Note:
Active Commercial Listings
excludes listings in A
(Accommodation) Zone Districts
but includes A-1 zones.
Source:
AirDNA and Root Policy Research.
1 For the purposes of this analysis, “active” means a property listed on AirBNB, VRBO, or other HomeAway site at least
once per month in at least six months of a given year. The analysis focuses on “entire home” listings in order to exclude
residents who may rent out a room in their home on occasion.
11
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 6
Figure II-3 show the geographic location of active STRs in Estes Park: yellow dots indicate
STRs in residential zone districts and red dots indicate commercially zoned STRs.
Figure II-3.
Active STRs, 2020-2021
Note: Includes all Commercially zoned STRs, even those in A (Accommodation zones).
Source: Town of Estes Park and Root Policy Research.
On average, Estes Park STRs have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms with a guest capacity of six
people. The average daily rate is $328 per night. STRs in residential zones tend to be larger
on average than those in commercial zones and, as such, command higher average daily
rates than STRs in commercial zones.
Figure II-4.
Estes Park STR
Characteristics
Source:
AirDNA and Root Policy
Research.
The typical STR in Estes Park is rented 167 days per year and generates $53,684 in revenue
annually.
Bedrooms Bathrooms
Guest
Capacity
Average
Daily Rate
All Active STRs 2.2 1.9 6.1 $328
in Residential zones 2.7 2.1 6.7 $366
in Accommodation zones 1.8 1.9 5.9 $314
in Other Commercial zones 2.0 1.9 5.7 $315
12
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 7
SECTION III.
Impact Analysis
The housing profile and STR market anlaysis presented in prior sections highlight recent
trends that reveal an increase in vacation home stock, declining permanent resident
occupancy, rising rents and home prices, and an increase in STR registration and activity in
Estes Park. This section uses a regression analysis to determine whether there is a causal
relationship between these trends. Specifically, the impact analysis is designed to isolate
and quantify the effect of STRs in Estes Park on the availability (and price) of housing for
the local resident workforce.
The methodology used to quantify STR impacts in Estes Park builds on the work of a
national, peer reviewed study published in 2021: “The Effect of Home-Sharing on House
Prices and Rents: Evidence from Airbnb.”2
This national study uses a dataset of Airbnb listings at the zip code level from the entire
United States merged with U.S. Census data to assess the impact of home-sharing on
residential house prices and rents, and the reallocation of homes from the long term rental
(LTR) to the short term rental (STR) market. The findings indicate that Airbnb has an
upward impact on house prices and rents: a 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a
0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices. Formal statistical tests
show the Airbnb effect is driven by the reallocation of the housing supply and that the total
supply of housing is not affected by the entry of Airbnb, but that Airbnb listings decrease
the supply of long-term rental units. The econometric model built for the national study:
Controls for local demographic trends including changes in population, income,
employment and education—over time and across geographies.
Uses a fixed effects specification that controls for shocks to housing market conditions
that are common across geographies, as well as controlling for the average differences
across geographies in any unobservable amenities; and
Uses an instrumental variable (IV) approach that measures causal impacts of growth
in STR’s on different measures of housing supply.
In addition, the study reflects a national analysis, which is broadly applicable, and has the
credential of being published in a well-respected academic journal with extensive peer-
review vetting.
2 Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from
Airbnb. Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47.
13
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 8
Root Policy Research adapted the methodology developed for the national study to the
Estes Park context in two ways:
1. Applied the coefficients of the national regression analysis to Estes Park input data on
housing stock and tenure; and
2. Built a Colorado-specific regression analysis following the methodology and
econometric specifications of the national study using updated local datasets and
expanding the time period covered.3
Root also tested variations of the Colorado model to focus on results specific to areas with
an above-average share of tourism-driven economic activity. Construction of a regression
using only Estes Park data was not feasible due to the relatively small geography of the
Town.4 However, applying coefficients from both the national model and state model to
Estes Park data allows us to extrapolate a robust estimate of the local impact.
Model results. Figure III-1 shows the results of applying the coefficients of the national
and state models to Estes Park’s input data. The estimates shown measure the impact of a
1% increase in STRs on the overall supply and acute availability of specified housing types.
The figure shows the results of the IV model for the national analysis (which isolates the
causal impact of STRS). Results of the state model show both the baseline model (without
instrumental variables) and the IV model (which uses the instrumental variable to pinpoint
the causal impact). It is common practice to review both baseline and IV models when
replicating an analysis as the baseline model helps to confirm the underlying approach and
the precision of the model structure; however, the IV model reflects a more clear
representation of magnitude of the impact created by the presence of STRs.5
Note that the national model does not estimate the impacts on the owner stock; however
the estimates of on the rental stock and vacant homes are similar to enough to our
Colorado model, implying the owner stock coefficients are probably similar to what would
be estimated at the national level.
Price impacts derived from the national model (with Estes Park inputs) are also included,
though Root was not able to replicate the price impact in the Colorado with the data
available (price impacts require a separate monthly regression analysis but Root’s analysis
focused on replication of the national annual model).
3 The national study covers the years 2011 to 2016; the Colorado model covers the years 2011-2019.
4 The model specification uses ZIP code level panel data and since the majority of the Town is covered by a single ZIP
code, there simply aren’t enough observations to yield results.
5 Coefficient bias is reduced by the IV specification, although the estimates have larger standard errors which result in
lower statistical significance—a common statistical outcome of IV models.
14
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 9
Figure III-1. Model Results Applied to Estes Park: Supply Impacts of a 1%
Increase in Short Term Rentals in Estes Park
Note: * indicates statistically significant result. Coefficients applied to zip code 80517. National model covers years 2011 to 2016.
Colorado model restricts sample to Colorado only and extends the time period to 2019.
Source: Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb.
Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47, AirDNA, U.S. Census, Google Trends, and Root Policy Research.
Results presented in the Figure can be interpreted as follows:
According to the general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s decreases the
rental stock by approximately 1.4%; according to the estimates produced by the
Colorado model a doubling in the number of STR’s can decrease the rental stock by as
little as 1.9% and as much as 2.8%.
On the ownership market, according to the estimates produced by the Colorado
model doubling the number of STR’s decreases the ownership stock by as little as 1.1%
and as much as 2.2%. (The general model does not estimate the impacts on the owner
stock; however the estimates of on the rental stock and vacant homes are similar to
enough to our Colorado model, implying the owner stock coefficients are probably
similar to what would be estimated at the national level).
An increase in STR’s leads to a tighter rental market with lower vacancies. In the
general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s decreases the number of vacant
units for rent by 2.9% and in the Colorado model, a doubling of the number of STR’s
can decrease the number of vacant units for rent by 2.2% and up to 5.7%.
In the general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s increases the number of
vacant units for seasonal and recreational purposes by 7%, while in the Colorado
model the impact ranges from a 7% to a 15.7% increase in vacant units for seasonal
and recreational purposes.
Due to the significant reduction in the sample size from the national to the state level,
several of the coefficients in the state model are not statistically significant. However, the
Supply Impacts
Rental Stock -0.0138%*-0.0195%*-0.0285%-0.0413%
Owners Stock n/a -0.0108%*-0.0223%
Vacancy Impacts
Vacant for Rent -0.0291%*-0.0225%-0.0570%-0.2240%
Vacant for Seasonal Use 0.0705% * 0.0750% * 0.1572% *
Price Impact
Rents 0.0290% *
Home Price 0.0470% *
high error
high error
not quantifiable with current data
not quantifiable with current data
National Colorado Model
General Model
(IV)
Baseline
Model
Baseline with Causal
Instrument (IV)
Above-Average
Tourism (IV)
15
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 10
fact that in general the magnitude and direction of the coefficients are in line with the
findings of the academic paper provide evidence that the model is well specified but lacks
statistical power due to the reduction in the number of observations. The Colorado
coefficients from the baseline models on the rental stock, ownership stock, and seasonal
vacancies, are statistically significant, as well as the IV estimate for seasonal vacancies.
The number of observations is further reduced when we restrict the sample to zip codes
with more tourism driven economies6 which makes the variables more prone to
measurement error and the estimates more imprecise. However, they also more closely
reflect the specific characteristics of Estes Park as such may more accurately represent true
impacts.
Summary of STR impacts. The model output above highlights the housing market
impacts caused directly by the home sharing economy. Home sharing can create a
reallocation of the rental stock from the long-term rental to the short term rental market.
This can increase rental rates and house prices, decrease vacancy rates in the long-term
market, and create a tighter market for long-term renters.
Figure III-2 summarizes the direct impact of STRs in Estes Park on the supply of workforce
housing (both rental and owner) by converting the percentage impacts identified in the
model into unit-level impacts based on current STR and market data for Estes Park. Results
are presented in a range of impacts where the national model (with Estes Park inputs)
reflects a lower bound.
Figure III-2. Direct Impact of Estes Park STRs on Workforce Housing
Source: Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb.
Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47, AirDNA, U.S. Census, Google Trends, and Root Policy Research.
Every 100 STRs in Estes Park leads to a loss of 3-9 rental units and 4-9 ownership units that
would otherwise be occupied by local residents (total resident housing loss of 7-18 units).
In addition, every 100 STRs in Estes Park result in an $11 increase in monthly rent of
resident units and a $6,500 increase in home prices.
6 Measured as those that have an above median share of business establishments that belong to the accommodation
and food services industry in 2010.
National
Model (IV)
Colroado
Model (IV)
Colorado Tourist
Model (IV)
Units Lost from Rental stock per 100 STRs 3.0 units 6.2 units 9.0 units
Units Lost from Owner stock per 100 STRs 4.1 units 8.6 units n/a
Monthly Rent increase (among LTRs) per 100 STRs $11 n/a n/a
Home Price increase per 100 STRs $6,499 n/a n/a
16
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 11
SECTION IV.
Supportable Fee Calculation
This section calculates a potential STR fee according to the supply impact quantified in the
previous section. The fee is derived directly from the units lost (both rental and owner) and
relies on the “affordability gap” methodology to measure the cost of lost units. The
affordability gap is an industry standard methodology, commonly used in nexus studies
that calculate affordable housing linkage fees and impact fees. It is the same methodology
used in Colorado’s most recent Short Term Rental Impact Fee implemented in the Town of
Breckenridge (2021).
The affordability gap methodology fee is based on the difference in price between market-
rate units and units affordable to the workforce, weighted by the actual income distribution
of Estes Park permanent residents. The fee itself reflects the affordability gap applied to
the direct impact of STRs, and is calculated with the following components:
1. Causal supply impact of STRs: the number of housing units lost from Estes Park’s
workforce housing inventory as a direct result of STRs (see Figure III-2). The impacts
summarized in Figure III-2 are derived from Estes Park data applied to national, state,
and substate econometric models which effectively and reliably isolate the direct
impacts created by specifically by STRs. The fee calculation focuses on the results most
applicable to the Estes Park market: the Colorado and the Colorado Tourist models.
2. Affordability gap per household of both renter and owner housing in Estes Park
(shown in Figure IV-1, on the following page). This reflects the difference in market rate
housing and what is affordable to workforce, weighted by the income distribution of
existing residents. Incomes are shown as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) to
be consistent with standardized income limits for housing programs. Affordability gaps
are evaluated up to incomes of 175% of AMI, consistent with the Town of Estes Park’s
adopted definition of affordable workforce housing. Max rent and home prices assume
30% of gross income is spent on housing. Home price calculations assume a fixed rate
30-year mortgage with a 10% down payment and a 4.5% interest rate; mortgage costs
are assumed to account for 75% of total monthly household expenses (the remaining
25% is property tax, insurance, HOA fees, utilities, etc.). The ownership affordability gap
is annualized over a period of 30 years, the standard term of a home mortgage.
3. The supportable fee calculation multiplies the affordability gap per
household by the number of households lost from rental and ownership stock as a
direct result of STRs.
Figure IV-1, on the following page, shows the affordability gap calculations for both renter
and owner households as well as the application of those gaps to the supply impacts
quantified in Section III. The resulting justifiable fee is $1,157-$1,390 per STR per year.
17
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 1
Figure IV-1. Potential Short Term Rental Fee Calculation
Note: The tourist owner impact defers to state model results as the owner tourist metric did not meet statistical reliability standards.
Source: Root Policy Research.
MARKET RATE HOUSING PRICES
2021 Average Sales Price, Estes Park:$677,316
2021 Average Rent, Estes Park:$1,845
Owner Households
by Income Range
% of
owners
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 6% $23,000 $93,623 $583,693 $19,456
30-60% AMI 11% $46,080 $187,572 $489,744 $16,325
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $249,933 $427,383 $14,246
80-100% AMI 12% $76,800 $312,620 $364,696 $12,157
100-120% AMI 10% $92,160 $375,144 $302,172 $10,072
120-175% AMI 23% $134,400 $547,085 $130,231 $4,341
175% AMI or more 29%n/a n/a n/a n/a
Weighted Annual Gap per Owner Household $7,696
Renter Households
by Income Range
% of
renters
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 23% $23,000 $575 $1,270 $15,240
30-60% AMI 47% $46,080 $1,152 $693 $8,316
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $1,535 $310 $3,720
80-100% AMI 5% $76,800 $1,920 $0 $0
100-120% AMI 2% $92,160 $2,304 $0 $0
120-175% AMI 5% $134,400 $3,360 $0 $0
175% AMI or more 8%n/a n/a n/a n/a
Weighted Annual Gap per Renter Household $7,744
AFFORDABILITY GAP APPLIED TO STR IMPACTS
STR Impacts (see Section III for details)CO Model CO Tourist Model
Units Lost from Rental stock per 100 STRs 6 9
Units Lost from Owner stock per 100 STRs 9 9
Fee Application
Annual Rental Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 46,461$ 69,692$
Annual Owner Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 69,261$ 69,261$
Agregate Annual Affordability Gap per 100 STRs 115,722$ 138,953$
Supportable Annual Fee per STR 1,157$ 1,390$
Monthly
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION:
DIFFERENCE IN AFFORDABLE TO WORKFORCE AND MARKET RATE
Max
Affordable
Home Price
Max
Affordable
Rent
Affordability
Gap
18
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 2
As illustrated in the previous figure, this vacation home (STR) impact study supports
a fee of up to $1,390 per unit per year to mitigate the quantifiable impact of STRs on
local workforce housing. It is important to note that the methodology described above
reflects a conservative approach to fee calculation as the fee only captures the marginal
difference between market-rate home costs and workforce affordable home costs (as
opposed to capturing the full cost to construct “replacement” units) and because it
assumes displaced households have the same income representation as current residents.
Figure IV-2 shows the supportable fee in the context of average STR characteristics—both
as an annual per unit fee and a nightly fee (based on average number of booked nights).
Figure IV-2.
Supportable Fee in
Context
Note:
Nightly rate calculation based on
average number of rented nights per
year; typical Estes Park STR
characteristics discussed in detail in
Section II of this report.
Source:
Root Policy.
As discussed in the introduction, the purpose of this report was to quantify the relationship
between the operation of homes in the Town as short-term rentals (STRs) and the cost and
availability of workforce housing in a manner that could be compatible with appropriate
fee implementation. As the Town considers the policy implications of the impact findings,
the consultant offers the following considerations related to potential fee implementation:
Should a fee be imposed, revenues from fee generation should be allocated to
workforce housing investments for qualifying households up to 175% of AMI, in line
with the fee calculation shown in Figure IV-1 and the Town’s definition of affordable
workforce housing. Should the Town adjust its workforce housing definition to include
households up to 200% of AMI, the affordability gap calculated in Figure IV-1 would
increase, resulting in a supportable annual per unit fee $15 higher than is currently
shown in Figure IV-1.
The STR impacts calculated in this report capture the collective impact of all STRs in
Estes Park, regardless of zone district. If the Town does choose to impose a fee, the fee
could reasonably be applied to both residentially- and non-residentially-zoned STRs.
Similar to impact and linkage fee standards, the Town could consider an annual
escalation schedule tied to the consumer price index (CPI) in order to allow for
administrative adjustments to keep pace with inflation. It is common practice to
update fee nexus studies, such as this one, every three to five years to ensure fee
amounts continue to reflect quantifiable impacts.
Colorado
Model
CO Tourist
Model
Supportable Annual Fee per STR $1,157 $1,390
As a % of average annual revenue for
typical Estes Park STR ($53,684)2.2% 2.6%
Supportable Nightly Fee
(based on average of 167 rented nights/yr)$6.93 $8.32
% increase to average daily rate for
typical Estes Park STR ($328)2.1% 2.5%
19
Effective Period: Until superseded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: December 8, 2020
References: EPDC Chapter 11 § 11 .4, Finance Policy 671
1.PURPOSE
ADMINISTRATION
227
Workforce Housing Guidelines
This policy defines workforce housing for the Town's purposes, articulates the Town's
workforce housing goals, articulates the Town's role related to workforce housing, and
establishes a funding mechanism to advance the Town's workforce housing goals.
2.POLICY
The shortage of workforce housing in the Estes Valley creates significant challenges for
local businesses and other employers, including the Town of Estes Park, when it comes
to attracting and retaining employees for both year-round and seasonal occupations.
Town leadership has long acknowledged this issue and the need for development of a
range of housing options that will be available and attainable for all members of the
community. The Estes Park Development Code provides incentives in the form of density
bonuses for developers that "provide a variety of attainable and workforce housing
options for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley." The Town's 2020 Strategic
Plan includes an objective to establish Workforce Housing Guidelines.
3.PROCEDURE
a.Definition of Workforce Housing
For the Town's purposes, Workforce Housing is defined as housing within the Estes
Park R-3 School District for people who work within the boundaries of the school
district that is attainable for someone earning less than 175% Area Median Income.
Thus, workforce housing opportunities created or facilitated by the Town shall be
located within the school district and pricing should accommodate individuals and
families making less than 175% AMI.
i.Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area
Median Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County
published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
ii.Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units: Consistent with Estes Park
Development Code Chapter 11, Section 11.4, "attainable housing units" and
"workforce housing units" for renters shall mean the following:
Document Title
Revisions: 0
a)Housing units that are attainable to households earning 175% of the Larimer
County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size.
Policy 227 -Workforce Housing Guidelines
Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator's Office
12/8/2020
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 2
20
b)To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility expenses)
must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed
household size based on 175% of the Larimer County Area Median Income.
The imputed household size is equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the
number of bedrooms in the unit. For example, rent on a two-bedroom unit
would be equal to 30% of the monthly income limit cit a three-person family;
for a three-bedroom unit the rent should not exceed 30% of the monthly
income of a four-and-one-half-person family-the midpoint of the range of a
four-and five-person family.
c)If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance,
computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be subtracted from the
housing cost to determine the maximum rent.
iii.Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units: Consistent with Estes Park
Development Code Chapter 11, Section 11.4, "attainable housing units" and
"workforce housing units" for unit owners shall mean the following:
a)Housing units that are attainable to households earning 175% of the Larimer
County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size.
b)To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed 40% of the
175% Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household size.
b.Workforce Housing Goals
The Town's goals associated with workforce housing, which should inform Town
decisions related to development, are as follows:
•Increase the availability of workforce housing within the boundaries of the school
district.
•Preserve or facilitate rehabilitation of existing workforce housing as opportunities
arise.
•Promote the construction of housing within the school district that is affordable to
households with incomes at or below 175% of the area-wide median.
•Promote greater housing choices (including levels of affordability, as well as
rental and ownership options) for households with incomes at or below 175% of
the area-wide median income within the school district, including those for year
round employees as well as seasonal employees.
•Negotiate with developers, as necessary, to ensure that developments with
housing units include workforce housing with a range of affordability for
individuals or households earning between 30% and 175% of AMI.
•Assist local employers in reducing critical labor shortages of skilled and semi
skilled workers by providing housing that will be accessible to the worker's places
of business.
•Work with Larimer County to further the Town's workforce housing goals within
the school district in areas that fall outside of Town limits.
Document Title
Revisions: 0
Policy 227 -Workforce Housing Guidelines
Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator's Office
12/8/2020
Page 2 of 4 21
c.The Town's Role
The Town's formal role with respect to workforce housing is to:
•Support the Estes Park Housing Authority both financially and as an active
partner and participant in its housing development and strategic planning efforts.
•Advocate for development that includes workforce housing with a range of
affordability for households with incomes at or below 175% of the area-wide
median income, with a preference for housing that is affordable for those earning
between 60-80% AMI.
•Partner with private entities/developers to create workforce housing on Town
owned property (although the preferred approach is to work through the EPHA in
these efforts).
•Provide financial support for the development of workforce housing.
•Periodically review the Development Code and make revisions as appropriate
and feasible to encourage development of workforce housing.
•Work with Larimer County to further the Town's workforce housing goals within
the school district in areas that fall outside of Town limits.
d.Workforce Housing Reserve
i.Establishment: The Town will create a new reserve within the General Fund
dedicated to advancing the workforce housing goals outlined above.
ii.Appropriations to the Workforce Housing Reserve: On an annual basis as
part of the budget development process, Town staff will identify the dollar amount
of sales tax revenue expected to be received in excess of 105% of the budgeted
revenues (if applicable). The Board will consider appropriating all or a portion of
these excess revenues to the Workforce Housing Reserve within the General
Fund. The Town Board may appropriate funds to the Workforce Housing
Reserve whenever and in whatever amount it deems appropriate.
a)Other Revenues: In addition to the appropriations outlined above, other
revenue sources for the Workforce Housing Reserve may include donations,
clean and lien repayments, loan repayments, vacant property registration fees
or proper ty tax surcharges, proceeds from the sale or lease of public property,
and grants related to workforce housing related activities.
iii.Workforce Housing Reserve Expenditures:
Document Title
Revisions: O
a)The Workforce Housing Reserve will be the primary place where funds used
to further Workforce Housing goals are allocated and reserved for
expenditure. Expenditures from the Workforce Housing Reserve Fund will
include, but are not limited to:
•Acquisition of real property to be used for workforce housing
•Construction of new housing
Policy 227 -Workforce Housing Guidelines
Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator's Office
12/8/2020
Page 3 of 4 22
•Redevelopment, rehabilitation, or repair of existing property to be used
for workforce housing
•Down payment assistance programs for Town staff or others
•Subsidies for developments that offer workforce housing, including tap
fee subsidies
•Pre-development activities for developments that offer workforce housing
b)Base Funding for the Estes Park Housing Authority, if approved by the Board
during the annual budget development process, will remain in the Outside
Entity Funding budget. The Housing Authority will remain eligible for funds
consistent with Finance Policy 671: Town Funding of Outside Entities.
12-?-2o2C)
Date
Document Title
Revisions: O
Policy 227 -Workforce Housing Guidelines
Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator's Office
12/8/2020
Page 4 of 4 23
Short Term Rental Fee Study
Becky Robbins <beckyrobbins50@outlook.com> Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:25 PM
Dear Mayor Keonig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink and Estes Park Town Board of Trustees:
This is a fairly long letter, so I have covered the points here that I make in the letter.
•The impact of legalized marijuana on housing prices in Colorado.
•The impact of COVID 19 on housing prices.
•Other factors that have an impact on the workforce housing shortage and rents in Estes Park.
•Questions I have regarding the study and
•Solutions?
Please ask why these items are not in the study.
From the study session last week, I also found some of the language confusing like:
“Instrumental variables measure causal impacts of growth in STRs.” What does that mean? Most (if not all) of the
values she presented were not from Estes Park.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Becky Robbins
Dear Madam Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Town Council:
Now that the holidays are over and the decorations are taken down, I have the time to do a little
research and address the Short-Term Rental fee study again.
I am a licensed Realtor in Colorado. My husband and I have been real estate investors in Estes
Valley since 2003. We have rented to some of the Estes Valley workforce since 2014 (still do) and
have been operating a short-term rental here since 2017.
I reviewed the Special Study session from December 1st in which Mollie, from Root Policy Research,
made her presentation about the study.
She said that the objective of the study is to quantify the relationship between Short-Term Rentals
and the cost and availability of workforce housing.
The study kicked off in the beginning of December to examine workforce housing here in Estes Park
and is expected to be completed in early 2022.
What I came away with from watching this session is that the fee study seems to propose linking
Short-Term Rentals to housing prices in Estes Park not the shortage of workforce housing. What
wasn’t mentioned in the presentation is the fact that housing prices in Colorado (and almost
everywhere else) have been going up based on factors other that Short Term Housing rental
increases. Two major factors weren’t mentioned – legalized marijuana and COVID.
I found the following regarding the impact of legalized recreational marijuana in Colorado:
“Denver has 180 dispensaries[5], the most of any Colorado city, and its housing market has seen
unprecedented growth since recreational legalization in 2012.”
“In fact, between April 2017 and April 2021, Colorado home values increased by an average of
$89,377. Of course, not all of that is due to marijuana legalization, but a 2021 study found that,
Public Comment Received by 2022-02-23
24
between April 2017 and April 2021, home property values increased by $17,113 more in states where
recreational marijuana is legal, compared to states where marijuana is illegal or limited to medicinal
use.”
I also found this regarding the impact of COVID-19 on housing prices:
“The housing mania happened, not in spite of the pandemic, but because of it. The fear and
uncertainty of living through a modern-day plague inspired us to re-evaluate what we really wanted,
not just in our homes, but also in our lifestyles. For some, that was having a bigger living space. For
others, it was moving to the country or the mountains. For plenty of people from outside Colorado’s
borders, it was a new home in the Centennial State. For the first time in history, the ubiquity of remote
work made those desires suddenly achievable. Bottom-scraping mortgage interest rates didn’t hurt
either.
We’re still sorting through all the ways the pandemic has changed what it means to live in Colorado,
and whether these trends will stick remains an open question. It’s clear, however, that COVID-19
provided fuel for an already-blazing demand for real estate here—and, for many, turned the
straightforward act of buying a new place into a chaotic, frustrating, elbows-out struggle.”
While everyone knows that these factors have had an impact on rising real estate prices, they were
not mentioned in Mollie’s presentation. If Root Policy research is looking to find a “nexus” between
STRs and the increase in real estate home and rental prices, they must factor in the impact legalized
marijuana and COVID has had on the market.
What she said in her presentation is that for every 1% increase in Air BnB rentals there is a .01%
increase in rents, which translates to about $9 per month and .026% increase in housing prices which
translates to about $1800 increase in housing prices.
I believe these costs would increase anyway regardless of Short-Term Rentals.
While these things may be happening simultaneously, they are not co-constitutive. In other words,
one doesn’t cause the other. In fact, it could also be said that this is a coincidence, since rents and
prices have been rising for quite some time. It can’t be that just Air BnB increases are the only impact
on rising prices and rents. There was a lot missing in the information she provided above.
I also question why the study is exclusively for Short-Term Rentals. Many of us who own STRs don’t
employ people from the workforce. I believe there should be a study that researches the businesses
that employ these workers and the feasibility of a fee for these business owners to contribute to their
employees’ housing.
That being said, there are three other factors.
1) Short-term rental operators in Telluride were able to show the town council that many of the
vacation rentals were used at least part of the time by their owners as vacation homes,
indicating that the homes would likely never be converted into long-term housing for the
workforce. Among homes managed by Exceptional Stays in Telluride, 100% of the owners
stay at least part of the year in their properties.
“So, we know for a fact that these homes are not homes that can go into a workforce rental
pool because they are being used as the vacation homes that they are,” the article quotes
someone from Exceptional stays.
I assert this is the case in Estes Park. 25
2) The properties that are being used for Short-Term Rentals would a) never be affordable to the
workforce and b) the owners would not want to rent them to the workforce for the reasons I
pointed out in a previous letter to the Town Council.
3) Short-term rentals in Estes Park are very seasonal. In other mountain resort towns, the owners
are able to rent their properties year-round due to ski resorts open in the spring and winter
and, like Estes Park, hiking, fishing, biking, etc. in the late spring, summer and fall. This limits
the opportunity for the owners of Short-Term rentals here to make an income from the rents.
While watching the youtube video of the study session, there are a couple of things I want to point
out.
At 23:30 minutes into the session, Mollie said “… we are not trying to reach a certain outcome.” She
later goes on to say that the study needs to produce a fee. See two paragraphs below.
At 27:21 minutes into the session, Trustee Webermeier asked, “Is there an implication that we are
approaching this fee study in order that we end up with a fee outcome? Does this suggest that the
answer (to the study) is we have a fee?”
Mollie: “Yes, it does. So, knowing that this (study) needs to produce a fee, we will present results that
are based on a methodology that identifies the relationship that is legally defensible.”
This is not an objective study. They will be proving that we should have fees. In fact, they are working
on a legal defense for imposing fees.
She goes on to say, “We will show the impacts to the housing market and how it translates
specifically to an STR fee.” Again, here she has the objective on proving there should be a fee
structure.
At 28:36 minutes into the session Webermeier: “You have never done one of these STR studies that
did not ultimately assess some type of fee?”
She said, “Yes, that’s right.”
100% of the studies Root Policy has done resulted in recommending a fee.
She went on to say, “Not that 100% resulted in a fee being implemented, but certainly the study will
result in a fee that you may consider.”
Webermeier: “So the desired outcome of the study is to come up with some numbers that is an
appropriate fee?”
Mollie (the consultant): “It’s possible to find that STRs are not impacting your housing market or the
availability of housing. Then there may be no fee.”
Not likely, I assert, since 100% of their other studies resulted in a fee recommendation.
Mayor Pro-tem Martchink said, “Thank you for the clarification. If we were just looking to justify a fee, I
would leave the room. That would be a terrible way to do a study.”
26
Mayor Koenig: “We, as a group, have not voted to implement a fee. That isn’t what why we are doing
this. We have not said we will be implementing a fee.”
However, everything up to this point seemed to suggest endorsing having a fee. There was no other
purpose, as far as I could tell, for the study. I didn’t hear anything else said regarding the purpose
except to prove a “nexus’ between STRs and housing shortage.
Trustee Cenac asked, basically “Where will the money go?”
This question wasn’t answered.
Also, Mollie said that this study will not address the relationship between STSs and job creation. That
would be another study and more money.
There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions regarding:
a) Why are we doing this study?
b) What outcomes do we expect, besides a fee? There are no clear outcomes stated.
c) Where would the money go?
d) How will the study really, if at all, impact affordable housing?
e) Will owners even consider renting to the workforce?
f) What fees are being levied in other mountain towns or other locations with short term rentals?
Breckenridge, for example, is charging $40 per bedroom per year. Do we know what other
communities are doing?
g) How will imposing these fees impact the available vacation rental market here?
I believe there may be other solutions that aren’t being discussed, e.g. –
Vacation rentals may be appraised on a different basis than non-STR residential properties. That
being said, residential real estate prices in Estes Park are less than in other resort communities like
Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge, etc.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that property values are going up, as they are almost everywhere else. If
they are suppressed, that will attract even more people here. It will be very difficult, if not impossible
to suppress pricing.
The businesses or organizations in town who hire the workforce could provide housing – like tiny
houses that can accommodate the workforce.
Since legalized marijuana has had a huge impact on housing prices, perhaps there can be a tax on
marijuana sales that would help to provide affordable housing for the workforce.
Breckenridge is offering incentives to short term rental owners to rent to the workforce. This is
working to some extent. In the last 2 weeks of November there were 30 conversions. 27
Perhaps transportation can be provided for the workforce to travel up to EP to work from communities
down the mountain where they can find more housing.
I think maybe the new provision for ADUs may help, but it isn’t immediate and not everyone who
qualifies will want to spend the money to build those units and then rent to the workforce. Also, there
aren’t that many who qualify.
Thank you for your interest and time in reading this.
Respectfully,
Becky Robbins
281-989-5587
28
Economic Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes Park and Short Term Rental
Fee Study
Jane Livingston <janelivingston@yahoo.com> Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:30 AM
Dear Mayor Keonig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink and Estes Park Town Board of Trustees:
Thank you for your service and contributions to Estes Park.
Attached is an analysis of Economic Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes Park. The numbers are not exact but
based on readily available data to most accurately represent the Economic Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes
Park. Also attached is a graphical depiction of the Estes Park Vacation Homes Sales Tax Contribution to the Estes
Park Town Budget Sales Tax for 2022.
In addition to the attached documents, I have several concerns/questions regarding the Short Term Rental Fee Study
being conducted by Root Policy Research.
1.What is included in Commercial Listings that Root are counting as active STR's? Does it included individual
managed units in Commercial Zoning? Are they individually managed units in Accommodation Zoning? Does it
include units such as Bear Paw, Riverstone and Solitude?
2.The Town engaged Host Compliance (iCompass) in 2016 which identified 750 Vacation Homes in the Estes Park
Valley as of July 2016. As of February 2022, there are 799 Vacation Homes in the Estes Park Valley. Figure 11-1 of
the Root Policy Research Update dated February 1, 2022 does not tell the complete story. The graph does not paint
a complete picture . . . the graph only paints a picture of the increase in registered Vacation Rental Homes, not of
actual Vacation Rental Homes which is a significantly less number. In July 2016, even though there were 750
Vacation Homes in the Estes Park Valley, only 66 percent or 492 of the 750 homes were licensed/permitted. The
growth depicted in the graph has been for licenses/permits for Vacation Rental Homes not an increase in the actual
number of Vacation Rental Homes. The actual growth in the number of Vacation Rental Homes has been much less
than depicted by that graph. One of the goals of the 2016 Vacation Home Rental initiative was to get 100 percent of
Vacation Rental Homes in Estes Park licensed/permitted (up from 66 percent) which has been successful based on
the increase of Vacation Rental Homes with licenses/permits.
Please feel free to contact me via email or on my cell at 612-991-4000 with any questions.
Thank you,
Jane Livingston, PhD
Public Comment Received by 2022-03-01 12pm
29
Economic Contribution of Vacation Rental Homes to Estes Park Annually
Total Estes Park Vacation Rental Home State Tax Contribution = $3,191,850
Total Estes Park Vacation Rental Home County Tax Contribution = $880,509
Total Estes Park Vacation Rental Home Local Marketing District Tax Contribution = $856,272
Total Estes Park Vacation Rental Home Estes Park Town Tax Contribution = $4,656,564
Total Estes Park Vacation Rental Home Tax Contribution = $9,585,195
Approximately 799 Vacation Rental Homes in Estes Valley - 483 in Town, 316 in County
Estes Valley Vacation rental homes are rented out for 167 nights average per year*** x 799 Homes = 133,433 vacation rental home nights a year
6 people per home average night x 133,433 vacation rental home nights a year = 800,598 person nights per year
Vacation Rental Homes Guest Economic Contribution to Estes Park excluding Lodging
$84 Per person spent per day excluding lodging* x 800,598 Person nights per year =
$67,250,232 spent yearly at businesses in Estes Park by People staying in Vacation Rental Homes (excludes lodging $ spent)
$67,250,232 spent by People staying in Vacation Rental Homes Generates State SalesTax (2.9%) of $1,950,256
$67,250,232 spent by People staying in Vacation Rental Homes Generates County Sales Tax (.8%) of $538,001
$67,250,232 spent by People staying in Vacation Rental Homes Generates Estes Park Town Sales Tax (5%) of $3,362,511
Vacation Rental Homes Contributions to Estes Park Employment
Homes average $100 cleaning 33 times a year=$3,300 cleaning/home/yearly x 799 homes =
$2,636,700 spent yearly by Vacation Rental Owners employing House Cleaners in Estes Park
$1400/year spent per home snowplowing, lawn care, repair, painting, electrician, plumbing etc. $1400 x 799 = $1,118,600
$1,118,600 spent yearly by Vacation Rental Owners employing Maintenance People in Estes Park
Note: Not quantified is the contribution by Vacation Rental Owners employing Property Management Companies
Vacation Rental Lodging Revenue per year 799 homes
799 homes x $53,584** annual rental revenue per home = $42,813,616 Annual Lodging Revenue from Vacation Rental Homes
Vacation Rental Home Annual Lodging Generates State Tax (2.9%) of $1,241,594
Vacation Rental Home Annual Lodging Generates County Tax of (.8%) $342,508
Vacation Rental Home Annual Lodging Generates Estes Park Town Tax (5.0%) of $1,294,053 (483 Vacation Rental Homes in Town)
Vacation Rental Home Annual Lodging Generates Local Marketing District Tax (2%) of $856,272
* RRC Associates - Visit Estes Park - Summer 2018 Estes Park Visitor Survey Results - inflation adjusted
**Typical Average annual revenue for Estes Park STR per Roots Policy Vacation Home Fee Study
*** Roots Policy Vacation Home Fee Study
30
Estes Park Budget Sales Tax $16,268,259.00 #100%
Vacation Home Contribution $4,656,564.00 #29%
Estes Park Valley Vacation Home Yearly Revenue Contribution to Estes Park Sales Tax Budget
71%
29%
31
THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS
In the early 2000’s, Bob Joseph as Director of Community Development implemented a
significant down-zoning of many real estate parcels in the Estes Valley Planning Area. This re-
zoning eliminated housing and accommodation density throughout the Estes Valley.
Subsequent development code changes further reduced the density potential of the remaining
multi-unit housing and accommodation properties by increasing lot line setbacks and
implementing an arbitrary lot slope calculation for determining an allowable number of units
on a parcel. These changes dramatically and adversely effected the economics of real estate
development throughout the Estes Valley.
Additionally, substantial increases over the last two decades of infrastructure charges, tap fees
and development plan expenses inflated development costs over and above increasing labor
and material costs.
As a result of these public policy decisions, larger accommodation zoned parcels became
upscale condominium developments where the developer could recoup the increased costs and
obtain an acceptable rate of return. Smaller multi-family and accommodation zoned parcels
became single family home sites, small subdivisions or remained undeveloped.
As the visitation to Estes Park increased without an accompanying increase in short term
lodging, it should be no surprise that strong demand for vacation homes occurred.
With the economics pushing the market toward upscale, higher value development, it should
also be no surprise that affordable and attainable housing construction languished. Outside of
the Estes Housing Authority with its favorable financing and infrastructure cost waivers, there
has been very little increase in the inventory of affordable and attainable housing.
Modifying the adverse public policy decisions reference above would have a positive long term
impact on affordable, attainable, lodging and employee housing in the Estes Community.
Focusing on further taxing vacation homes with a pretend “impact fee” will not address the
critical housing needs of our community now or in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Lindsay Lamson
32
Peter & Dana Maxwell
Estes Park, CO
Disclosure: We operate three short term rental units in the building at 552 W Elkhorn, zoned
Commercial Outlying.
1) The study is CLEAR that specifically short-term rentals impact housing availability and cost.
Incredibly, figures are pre-2020, so I can only imagine how the figures would increase if more
recent housing costs were included. I agree whole-heartedly that the figures are conservative,
as mentioned in the study results.
2) Fees assessed by zone. There are Short Term Rentals in zones that do NOT allow for family or
long or short-term residential use. One example is Commercial Outlying (CO). This zone type
does allow for STR use but does not allow for long term or short-term residential use of any kind.
It’s impossible, then, that STRs in CO zoning areas are impacting available long-term housing or
the cost of residential housing. Given that, we would ask that any impact fees levied should
apply to STRs operating in zones that allow for long-term family or residential housing.
Three years ago, we were approached and asked if we would be interested in purchasing the
building then operated by Antonio's Pizza. The lot is zone Commercial Outlying. As ANYONE
who ever experienced it can attest, the building was too small for the crowd it drew, and the
parking available was insufficient. It created a lot of problems. We bought the building. The
issue was the business had created income that inflated the value beyond what the square
footage would bring under any other traditional use with such a small parking lot. For example,
you couldn't rent it as office space and ever have it pay for itself. (Sound familiar, inflated home
values!?!?) Already being in the hospitality business, we spoke with our condo neighbors to the
South of the building and discussed our plans to turn the previously overrun pizza place into
three, single bedroom, two occupants max, overnight stay units. The feedback was unanimous
– it was a welcome change. We’ve continued to have a great relationship with them and
appreciate them as neighbors.
The bottom line is that in this instance, these three units were 1) not disruptive to the
community, lessening the impact of the lot on the surrounding community and 2) utilized as
STRs without impacting the availability or cost of long-term housing in the Estes Valley.
We would therefor urge the board to not levee impact fees on STRs operating in zones where
long-term or family housing use is not permissible in any way – including Commercial Outlying.
Because they operate in a zone where long-term residential use is prohibited, STRs in these
zones simply cannot contribute to the lack of availability or increasing cost of residential housing
which has been otherwise brought on by STR operation in residential zones.
33
Fwd: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:57 AM
February 28, 2022
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
We are writing to address the board’s consideration of a workforce housing impact fee on short-term vacation
rentals. We have owned a vacation rental in Estes Park for many years and have always tried to work with the town
and its residents to find reasonable solutions that balance the interests of all stakeholders.
We understand that housing prices are rising in Estes Park. This issue is certainly not unique to our
area. There are clearly other national impacts and trends - outside of vacation rentals -that are driving up housing
prices. Indeed, the pandemic has only accelerated certain trends, such as remote work, that are causing people to
leave higher-density markets to relocate in smaller communities in search of a higher a quality of life. These are real
issues that need to be considered, but this does not mean that imposing an arbitrary fee on a single segment of our
community is the correct solution. We have reviewed the study commissioned by the town, and after such review,
question whether a fee on short-term rentals would be legal under the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The study
only addresses a theoretical financial impact based upon the approval of additional vacation rentals in the town, not
based upon the existing vacation rentals. Furthermore, under the existing cap, the number of vacation rentals will not
increase beyond the present numbers. Also, the town already charges a licensing fee and the implementation of an
additional fee, that cannot be reasonably connected to the cost of regulating short-term vacation rentals, would, in
essence, constitute a tax requiring voter approval. In short, the implementation of a fee solely against vacation rental
in an attempt to address increased property values relies upon an attenuated connection at best and appears to go
far beyond what any other locality in Colorado has done. We respectful request the board consider more broad-
based and equitable solutions.
Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Scott and Julie Reichle
34
Vacation Home Rental
(Short Term Rental - STR)
Fee Study
Town Board of Trustees
March 1, 2022
Outline
1.Introduction and History
2.Presentation of the Draft Fee Study
3.Prepare an Ordinance?
4.Aspects of a Draft Ordinance
a.Model Choice and Fee Amount
b.Annual, Nightly, or Combination
c.Applicability to Zoning Districts
d.Index to Inflation?
5.Next Steps
35
Introduction
History of Board Direction to Staff
“Vacation Home” definition
Purpose of Fee Study: Quantify the impacts
of vacation home rentals on workforce
housing, and provide the scientific basis for
a fee should the Board establish one.
A fee would be one element of a multi-
prong strategy to address workforce housing
in Estes Park.
VACATION HOME RENTAL
(STR) FEE STUDY
Town of Estes Park
Denver, Colorado 80220
970.880.1415)
mollie@rootpolicy.com
PRESENTED BY
Mollie Fitzpatrick, Root Policy Managing Director
36
5
PROJECT
OBJECTIVE:
Approach
Ɣ Descriptive Statistics –overview of housing
and labor market trends and current STR
landscape
Ɣ Impact Model -Econometric model based on
The Effect of Home-Sharing on House Prices
and Rents: Evidence from Airbnb to identify
housing market impacts directly caused by
STR activity.
Ɣ Fee Option –Converts supply impact into a
per unit annual fee that could be assessed if
the Town desires to mitigate impacts
identified in the study.
Quantify the
relationship between
the operation of homes
in Town as short-term
rentals and the cost
and availability of
workforce housing.
IMPACT REVIEW
37
Data Source: Town of Estes Park
ESTES PARK MARKET TRENDS SUMMARY
Ɣ Increase in vacation home stock, declining permanent resident occupancy
Ɣ Rising rents and home prices, and
Ɣ Increase in STR registration and activity.
TTypica ll EPP STR ::
2 BR / 2 bath; ADR of
$328, rents 167 days
per year, and
generates $53,684
annually.
8
WHAT MARKET IMPACTS ARE ACTUALLY CAUSED
BY VACATION RENTAL (STR) ACTIVITY?
The impact analysis uses an econometric model to isolate and quantify the
causal relationship between STRs and market trends. The model:
Ɣ Controls for local demographic trends including changes in population,
income, employment and education—over time and across geographies.
Ɣ Uses a fixed effects specification that controls for shocks to housing market
conditions that are common across geographies, as well as controlling for the
average differences across geographies in any unobservable amenities; and
Ɣ Uses an instrumental variable (IV) approach that measures causal impacts of
growth in STR’s on different measures of housing supply.
NN ationa ll model ,, state-leve ll model ,, an dd sub-stat ee mode ll focusedd onn above-
averagee tourismm communities..
38
DIRECT IMPACT OF ESTES PARK STRS ON
WORKFORCE HOUSING SUPPLY
Data Source: Root Policy Research
Ɣ Estes Park market data applied to model coefficients
Ɣ Impact measured as % rental and owner stock lost due to % change in STRs
Ɣ % impact applied to actual housing and STR stock to calculate units lost per
100 STRs (below).
Colorado
Model (IV)
Colorado Tourist
Model (IV)
Units Lost from Rental
stock per 100 STRs 6.2 units 9.0 units
Units Lost from Owner
stock per 100 STRs 8.6 units n/a
FEE CALCULATION:
1. CASUAL IMPACT OF STRS
2. AFFORDABILITY GAP PER HH
3. SUPPORTABLE FEE CALCULATION
39
11
SUPPORTABLE FEE CALCULATION
The “affordability gap” methodology for fee calculation:
Ɣ Is the standard method for fee calculation in affordable housing linkage fee
studies. The same principle applies here though the impact was derived from a
supply-impact methodology as opposed to a demand-impact methodology.
Ɣ Measures the difference in market-rate housing and housing affordable to
existing permanent residents by area median income (AMI).
Ɣ That differential is applied to the supply impacts outlined the previous slide and
then annualized to quantify a potential annual fee per short-term rental unit.
This analysis supports a fee of up to $1,390 per unit per
year to mitigate the quantifiable impact of STRs on local
workforce housing.
12
Affordability
Gap:
Difference in market rate
housing and what is
affordable to workforce,
weighted by the income
distribution of existing
residents.
Avg Sale Price: $677,316
Avg Rent: $1,845
Owner Households
by Income Range
% of
owners
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 6% $23,000 $93,623 $583,693 $19,456
30-60% AMI 11% $46,080 $187,572 $489,744 $16,325
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $249,933 $427,383 $14,246
80-100% AMI 12% $76,800 $312,620 $364,696 $12,157
100-120% AMI 10% $92,160 $375,144 $302,172 $10,072
120-175% AMI 23% $134,400 $547,085 $130,231 $4,341
175% AMI or more 29%n/a n/a n/a n/a
WWeighted Annual Gap per Owner Household $7,696
Renter Households
by Income Range
% of
renters
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 23% $23,000 $575 $1,270 $15,240
30-60% AMI 47% $46,080 $1,152 $693 $8,316
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $1,535 $310 $3,720
80-100% AMI 5% $76,800 $1,920 $0 $0
100-120% AMI 2% $92,160 $2,304 $0 $0
120-175% AMI 5% $134,400 $3,360 $0 $0
175% AMI or more 8%n/a n/a n/a n/a
Weighted Annual Gap per Renter Household $7,744
Monthly
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION:
DIFFERENCE IN AFFORDABLE TO WORKFORCE AND MARKET RATE
Max
Affordable
Home Price
Max
Affordable
Rent
Affordability
Gap
40
13
Supportable
STR Fee
Calculation
Weighted Annual Gap per Owner Household $7,696
Weighted Annual Gap per Renter Household $7,744
AFFORDABILITY GAP APPLIED TO STR IMPACTS
STR Impacts (see Section III for details)CO Model CO Tourist Model
Units Lost from Rental stock per 100 STRs 6 9
Units Lost from Owner stock per 100 STRs 9 9
Fee Application
Annual Rental Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 46,461$ 69,692$
Annual Owner Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 69,261$ 69,261$
Agregate Annual Affordability Gap per 100 STRs 115,722$ 138,953$
Supportable Annual Fee per STR 1,157$ 1,390$
AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION:
DIFFERENCE IN AFFORDABLE TO WORKFORCE AND MARKET RATE
It is important to note that the methodology described above reflects a conservative
approach to fee calculation as the fee only captures the marginal difference between
market-rate home costs and workforce affordable home costs (as opposed to capturing
the full cost to construct “replacement” units) and because it assumes displaced
households have the same income representation as current residents.
14
Colorado
Model
CO Tourist
Model
Supportable Annual Fee per STR $1,157 $1,390
As a % of average annual revenue for
typical Estes Park STR ($53,684)2.2% 2.6%
Supportable Nightly Fee
(based on average of 167 rented nights/yr)$6.93 $8.32
% increase to average daily rate for
typical Estes Park STR ($328)2.1% 2.5%
SUPPORTABLE FEES IN CONTEXT
TTypical EP STR:
2 BR / 2 bath; ADR
of $328, rents 167
days per year, and
generates $53,684
annually.
41
15
Colorado
Model
CO Tourist
Model
Supportable Annual Fee per STR $1,157 $1,390
As a % of average annual revenue for
typical Estes Park STR ($53,684)2.2% 2.6%
Supportable Nightly Fee
(based on average of 167 rented nights/yr)$6.93 $8.32
% increase to average daily rate for
typical Estes Park STR ($328)2.1% 2.5%
Annual Revenue potential
(493 registered STRs)$570,509 $685,036
SUPPORTABLE FEES IN CONTEXT
TTypica ll EPP STR ::
2 BR / 2 bath; ADR
of $328, rents 167
days per year, and
generates $53,684
annually.
QUESTIONS?
42
Prepare an Ordinance?
Should the Town Attorney and Staff
prepare an ordinance for Board
consideration?
Policy decision.
Aspects of a Draft Ordinance.
a.Model Choice and Fee Amount
b.Annual, Nightly, or Combination
c.Applicability to Zoning Districts
d.Index to Inflation?
Model Choice and Fee Amount
Colorado
Model
CO Tourist
Model
Supportable Annual Fee per STR $1,157 $1,390
As a % of average annual revenue for
typical Estes Park STR ($53,684)2.2% 2.6%
Supportable Nightly Fee
(based on average of 167 rented nights/yr)$6.93 $8.32
% increase to average daily rate for
typical Estes Park STR ($328)2.1% 2.5%
Recommendation: Most specific model.
Fee amount is a policy decision.
43
Annual, Nightly, or Combination?
Annual:
¾Simple to pay and administer.
¾Would disincentivize holding a license idly.
Nightly:
¾More administrative work.
¾Potential agreements with AirBNB, VRBO and otherlarge booking sites to collect the fee.
¾Rentals used more often would pay more.
Two-part: Would split the difference but be the
most complicated.
Recommendation: Annual – Ease of administration.
Zoning Districts
Apply the fee to all zoning districts or just residential?
¾322 residential vacation homes
¾171 non-residential vacation homes andclimbing
Recommendation: All zoning districts.
¾The model does not distinguish among zones.
¾By definition, all these homes could be used as
household living.
¾Household living is a use by right even inaccommodations zones.44
Index to Inflation?
Should the fee adjust each year in
response to inflation, by indexing to the
applicable consumer price index?
Five year average – 2.5%
Recommendation: Yes, to prevent the need
to return to the Board for amendments.
Next Steps
Fee revenues would go into a
segregated fund to be used solely to
support workforce housing affordable at
incomes below 175% of the area median
income, as described by current policy.
Ordinance would be prepared for Board
consideration at March 22 regular
session.
45
Questions & Discussion
46
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: March 1, 2022
RE: Revisions to Childcare Funding Guidelines and Workforce Housing
Guidelines
Purpose of Study Session Item:
The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the Town Board with an opportunity to
discuss possible revisions to Administration Policy 225: Childcare Funding Guidelines
and Administration Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests direction from the Town Board regarding possible revisions to Policy 225:
Childcare Funding Guidelines and Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines, which will
be updated as directed and brought back for consideration as an action item at a future
Town Board meeting.
Present Situation:
Policy 225: Childcare Funding Guidelines
The Town Board’s 2020 Strategic Plan included a Board Objective to “develop a
childcare funding policy.” This objective was informed by the June 2019 Final Report of
the Workforce Housing and Childcare Task Force, which states that “the lack of
availability of infant and toddler care in the Estes Valley is at a crisis level and has been
getting worse for several years.” Another related Board Objective was to “establish a
capital grant pool to incentivize new infant/toddler childcare capacity.”
The Town Board approved Policy 225: Childcare Funding Guidelines in October 2020.
The policy defines qualification and evaluation criteria to be used when reviewing
requests for Town funds for childcare related purposes. It also states that:
On an annual basis, the Town Board may appropriate funds in order to provide financial
support for endeavors aimed at increasing the capacity for childcare. Such
appropriations may be in the form of contributions to a reserve fund earmarked for
capital or other expenditures related to childcare, funds budgeted annually in a Capital
Grant Pool to assist with capital needs for new facilities or improvements to existing
facilities that would enable growth in capacity, and/or funds budgeted annually in the
General Fund that are dedicated to increasing childcare capacity.
47
However, the existing policy does not go as far as establishing the reserve it references.
It also does not clarify the Town’s role with respect to childcare, which will be helpful in
determining what expenditures would be eligible for funding from the Town whether
through a reserve fund or a budget line in the General Fund.
Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines
Administration Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines establishes a reserve fund
dedicated to advancing the Town’s workforce housing goals. Per the policy,
appropriations to the reserve are made as follows:
On an annual basis as part of the budget development process, Town staff will identify
the dollar amount of sales tax revenue expected to be received in excess of 105% of
sales tax revenue originally budgeted for the fiscal year (if applicable). The Board will
consider appropriating all or a portion of these excess revenues to the Workforce
Housing Reserve within the General Fund. The Town Board may appropriate funds to
the Workforce Housing Reserve whenever and in whatever amount it deems
appropriate.
At a Study Session held on February 8, 2022, while discussing possible revisions to the
Childcare Funding Guidelines policy, the Town Board asked for staff to provide other
options for how appropriations to reserve funds could be made, including to the
Workforce Housing Reserve. This is the reason staff is seeking guidance on both
policies.
Proposal:
That the Town Board discuss their interests and desired revisions with respect to Policy
225: Childcare Funding Guidelines and Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines.
Advantages:
• Policy revisions will provide clarity regarding the Town’s role with respect to
childcare, how Town funds can be used to support childcare providers, and how
appropriations are made for budget lines associated with childcare and workforce
housing.
Disadvantages:
N/A
Financial/Resource Impact:
To be determined.
Level of Public Interest:
Medium.
Attachment(s):
1. Staff Presentation (provided at study session)
48
3/2/2022
CHILDCARE FUNDING GUIDELINES
(AND RESERVE FUND PHILOSOPHY)
Town Board Study Session
March 1, 2022
THE TOWN’S ROLE WITH
RESPECT TO CHILDCARE?
Generally Agreed Upon:
Providing funding that childcare providers can
utilize for capital needs through:
o Direct contributions from the Town’s budget.
o Serving as the applicant for grants or other
financial assistance from other levels of
government or agencies where the grantee must
be a governmental entity.
Providing property that childcare providers can
utilize for capital needs that facilitate the creation
of additional capacity for childcare.
Making policy and/or zoning changes that facilitate
the creation of additional capacity for childcare.
Providing financial support through the Town’s
Outside Entity Funding program to local nonprofits
that exist to support children and families.
Representing the Town of Estes Park in
collaborative efforts to address childcare capacity
issues.
49
3/2/2022
THE TOWN’S ROLE WITH
RESPECT TO CHILDCARE?
Non-Capital Subsidies?
Providing direct financial support to childcare
providers to assist with workforce challenges?
o Sign-on bonus to new childcare staff?
o Annual payment/bonus to childcare staff after
each year of service?
o Funds to childcare provider to master lease
housing units?
Providing funding for scholarships used to
attend childcare (through an entity that has an
established scholarship program)?
Other?
Directly providing childcare services by
operating and/or staffing a facility?
ELIGIBLE CHILDCARE
EXPENDITURES?
•Finance the design, construction, expansion,
renovation or other improvements to facilities at
which childcare services are provided or will be
provided in order to increase capacity or if such
improvements are required to retain existing
capacity.
•Subsidize tap fees for new construction or
expansion of existing childcare facilities.
o For facilities that qualify as a Day Care Center as
defined in the Estes Park Development Code?
o In-home providers?
o Both?
•Purchase property to be used for a childcare
facility.
•Others – such as the non-capital subsidies listed
in previous slide?
50
3/2/2022
SHIFTING GEARS FOR A MOMENT:
FUNDING MECHANISM FOR
WORKFORCE HOUSING RESERVE
Options:
•Currently:
o On an annual basis as part of the budget development
process, Town staff will identify the dollar amount of
sales tax revenue expected to be received in excess of
105% of sales tax revenue originally budgeted for the
prior fiscal year (if applicable). The Board will consider
appropriating all or a portion of these excess revenues to
the Workforce Housing and Childcare Reserves within
the General Fund. The Town Board may appropriate
funds to the Workforce Housing Reserve whenever and
in whatever amount it deems appropriate.
•Other Options:
o Annual allocation based on staff recommendation?
o Standard $$ amount annually?
o Annual allocation based on sales tax revenue of prior
year?
o Based on excess sales tax revenue (for example, in
excess of 105% originally budget for prior year)?
o Percentage based? (1%?)
o Something else?
FUNDING MECHANISM FOR
CHILDCARE?
Options:
•Reserve?
•If no reserve:
o Annual allocation in the General Fund based on staff
recommendation?
o Standard $$ amount annually?
o Percentage based? (1%?)
•If reserve:
o Annual allocation based on staff recommendation?
o Standard $$ amount annually?
o Annual allocation based on sales tax revenue of prior
year?
o Based on excess sales tax revenue (for example,
in excess of 105% originally budget for prior
year)?
o Percentage based? (1%?)
51
3/2/2022
STIPULATIONS?
(THERE WILL BE RISK!)
Awardees must agree to?:
•Spend awarded funds within 12 months of
receipt? (Extensions can be granted if
appropriate)
•After project completion, must provide childcare
for a minimum of 24 months?
•Submit a report to the Town upon completion of
the project that details how funds were spent
and provides supporting documentation to
confirm expenditure of funds.
•Town can require additional stipulations on a
case-by-case basis (such as more frequent
reports during course of project).
•Other stipulations?
•Different stipulations for center based vs. in-
home providers?
52