HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2016-01-12
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
TOWN BOARD 4:45 p.m. – 6:40 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203
4:45 p.m. Vacation Home Fees, Code Enforcement & Building Code
Updates. (Planner Kleisler)
5:30 p.m. Dinner Served
5:45 p.m. Fish Hatchery Property Status Update.
(Administrator Lancaster)
6:15 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
Mayor Right to Vote – Add to January 26, 2016 Agenda.
6:25 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:40 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
“Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.”
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer
Date: January 12, 2015
RE: Vacation Home Fees, Code Enforcement & Building Code
Objective:
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Board about staff’s ongoing efforts to
evaluate vacation home license fees, code enforcement efforts and options for
regulating larger vacation homes through the International Building or Residential Code.
Present Situation:
The Town began a project in mid-2015 to reevaluate local ordinances and processes
relating to vacation homes in the Estes Valley. Since this time the Town and County
have hosted three public forums, numerous small group meetings and regular updates
to the Planning Commission, Town Board and County Commissioners. More recently,
the Board of County Commissioners directed Larimer County staff to coordinate two (2)
public hearings in Estes Park to gain additional public input (particularly from county
residents). The first meeting hosted by Larimer County was on Saturday, December 12,
and attracted roughly 100 people. The second meeting is scheduled for January 25 in
the Town Board Room and will generally consist of public comments directed to the
County Commissioners (with a limited staff role).
Following the January 25 hearing staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners, Town Board and Planning Commission hold a final joint meeting to
provide staff direction on the proposed changes.
Proposal:
Vacation Home License Fee Structure
Town staff recommends increasing the licensing fees for Vacation Homes to cover all
costs related to administrative overhead and proactive code enforcement. The Board of
County Commissioners directed staff to delay bringing any changes to licensing fees
until the final ordinance is being considered (likely in April/May). Given the need for
additional code enforcement, staff requests that the Town Board consider an ordinance
on January 26 to increase Business License fees for vacation homes within the Town of
Estes Park.
Staff has concluded a fee structure analysis and is recommending a tiered fee structure.
The analysis included a review of the CAST Report, benchmarking with Steamboat
Springs and Breckenridge, and code enforcement modeling. The fee would be
structured as follows:
Table 1: Current and proposed annual Business License fee for vacation homes.
Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Collections
(Town Only)
Proposed Fee Collections
(Town only)
$150
$150 Base Fee
$50 for each bedroom,
not to exceed $500
$27,300 (approx.) $52,350 (estimate)
Town staff analyzed the proposed fee structure to ensure that adequate funding is
projected to cover code enforcement costs. As with other new business processes,
procedure steps were outlined for administrative overhead and code enforcement to
limit redundancy and estimate operating costs.
Staff anticipates that a seasonal, full time code enforcement officer will close
approximately 200 cases. The enforcement cost for 200 cases is estimated to be
$23,000 (including limited Town Attorney fees). Combined with administrative overhead
costs ($14,000), the above fee structure will adequately cover all proactive enforcement
in the town, with additional funding reserved for outreach and education. Staff will
provide a brief presentation about this analysis and recommends that the Board
schedule this fee structure amendment for January 26, 2016. This new fee structure
would then apply to all Town licenses for 2016.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement has surfaced as a primary concern throughout our public
engagement process. As an example, staff released a survey prior to the second public
forum requesting input on the topics to be discussed. Respondents of this survey listed
code enforcement as their top choice (Figure 1).
Per the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County, Town staff is responsible for vacation home enforcement throughout the Estes
Valley. Current code enforcement efforts are a mix of proactive and reactive (i.e.
complaint-based) enforcement. The general enforcement process includes the
following steps:
1. Case Initiation: staff identifies or receives a complaint about an alleged violation.
2. Notification: generally staff notifies the property owner and/or property manager
of the complaint and if necessary, visits the site to collect evidence. The Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires that the Town to allow 15 days for
the violation to the remedied.
3. Public Hearings: violations not remedied within that 15-day window are either
referred to Municipal Court (for town properties) or for a public hearing with the
Board of County Commissioners (for properties within the unincorporated valley).
Staff has recently identified upwards of 400 properties operating as a vacation home in
the Estes Valley; this required roughly 70 hours of investigation time. We can n ow
report the following characteristics about these 394 listings in the Estes Valley:
Properties are evenly divided between the town and county (205 in town, 189 in
unincorporated valley);
The valley-wide license compliance rate of 77% is higher than expected;
License compliance is greater in the town than in the county. 82% of vacation
homes in the town are licensed and 71% in the County are permitted; and
Violations to our occupancy limit are still an issue. 12% of listings are advertising
that they can accommodate more than 8 occupants, of which 9% are Town
properties and 15% are in the County.
On a broader level, the Town adopted a Code Compliance Policy on 2014 that details
our processes and prioritization for all cases. This project has prompted staff to
reevaluate these processes to determine if changes need to be made to more
effectively enforce our development regulations. Staff has identified a number of
improvements relating to enforcement:
Figure 1: Recent survey conducted in preparation for a public forum on vacation homes.
The Police dispatch often receives complaints relating to noise or other
disturbances in the evening or weekends. Community Development and Police
staff are working together to track these complaints to determine if a vacation
rental is involved. An analysis of six months of data from 2015 found that
vacation homes accounted for about 5% of the 123 calls to dispatch about
“noise”. The Code Compliance Officer position funded through increased license
fees may work some evening and weekend hours in an effort to be available
when such violations occur.
Any proposed regulations should include a clear provision giving the Town the
ability to cite renters, the property owner or both.
The current enforcement procedure in the EVDC (15 -day notice) does not work
well with some violations, as the violation has often stopped occurring by the end
of the 15-day window. As such, staff is exploring the possibility of a Penalty
Assessment Ticket for certain violations; this would give staff the ability to cite
vacation home renters for certain zoning violations (such as too many vehicles).
Building Code Issues
A major component of the vacation home project is the concept of permitting vacation
homes to parties greater than eight (8), which is the current limit. At your study session
on November 9, 2015 the Board showed interest in potentially regulating these larger
rentals as a commercial operation as it relates to building standards. Staff has since
discussed options with the Town and County Chief Building Officials.
There are two primary interpretations of the international codes regarding the use of
single-family dwellings as vacation rentals. One interpretation is to regulate single-
family dwellings by how they are designed regardless of how they are used. This
interpretation regulates said buildings by the International Residential Code (IRC).
Conversely, the second interpretation is to regulate single-family dwellings by how they
are used regardless of how they are designed. This interpretation regulates said
buildings by the International Building Code (IBC). In other words, single family homes
built in Estes Park have always been built to IRC standards, whereas traditional hotels
have been built to IBC standards. The IBC requirements generally require modifications
such as a sprinkler system and accessibility standards.
The interpretation of the Town’s Chief Building Official is to regulate single-family
dwellings by how they are designed, using the IRC. A draft local amendment to the
2009 IRC, R101.2 clarifies this interpretation, which the staff believes is the intent of the
code. If the Board chooses to regulate vacation homes as commercial properties, said
properties will be regulated by how they are used, using the I BC. This will be different
than the current interpretation.
Staff has identified three regulatory options for the Board to consider with this
discussion. These options would generally be applied to vacation homes with an
occupancy allowance higher than the current limit of eight:
1. No Change (i.e. regulate to IRC): Staff would continue to license vacation homes,
regardless of size or occupancy, with no inspections or additional safety
requirements.
2. Regulate to the IBC: This would trigger, at a minimum, sprinkler and accessibility
requirements. This option provides the greatest amount of protection to renters
and nearby properties, but will likely impose a sizable cost to the vacation home
owner.
3. Adopt a Compromised Approach (recommended): This approach allows the
Board to tailor requirements to address the most critical needs of the community.
This could include aspects such as life safety inspections with the business
license review, addressing any unpermitted work in the house, verifying proper
egress, checking CO and smoke alarms, and inspecting existing gas appliances.
Discussions with numerous building officials, including those in mountain communities
such as Aspen and Vail, suggests that communities choose any one of these options
dependent on local considerations. Therefore, staff views this as a policy decision
needing consideration by the Board.
Task Force
During a work session on December 21 on an unrelated topic, a Larimer County
Commissioner show interest in forming a citizen task force to provide a
recommendation about the vacation home code amendment. Per the Commissioner’s
request, staff is forwarding this comment to the Board for consideration.
Advantages:
N/A
Disadvantages:
N/A
Action Recommended:
Staff will provide a short presentation on these topics at the study session and be
available for any questions.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High. Public meetings have attracted many more people than anticipated. Staff is also
receiving consistent written public comments on the topic.
Public Comment - Workforce Housing Fund Letter 010216 frm 010216
January 2, 2016
To:
Estes Park Board of Trustees
Larimer County Board of Commissioners
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Subject: Vacation Rental Licensing Fees
For the public record
It would seem obvious that any approach taken to mitigate a shortage of available and
affordable workforce housing in the Estes Valley would require funding. Most often the
Town government is looked upon as the responsible entity for providing such funding or
at a minimum providing incentives to developers in the form of free Town-owned
property and/or concessions in land use regulations, building height restrictions, density,
etc. in order to build more but less expensive accommodations.
As an alternative approach to funding for housing and to the idea that building new
dwelling units is the only possible solution to the workforce housing issue, consider a
sustainable annual workforce housing fund and what such a fund might do.
For example consider an annual revenue of $500,000:
$100,000 could pay for a full time Town/County vacation rental position and
associated expenses to administer, license, track and perform code compliance
duties each year.
$400,000 could be an annual contribution to a Workforce Housing fund.
What can be accomplished with the remaining $400,000?
A $400,000 one-time contribution is approximately what the Town gave to the Housing
Authority in the form of waived utility fees for it’s Falcon Ridge multi-million dollar
construction project in 2015. Falcon Ridge is to provide 40+ units of income qualified
housing not specifically or necessarily workforce housing.
$400,000 annually (as an alternative to building new units) could:
provide a $10,000 per year in a housing allotment to 40 hospital employees, or
teachers, or police officers who want to work, live, and purchase a home in Estes
Park. $10,000 a year equates to a monthly house payment of $833 at 5% interest.
Over a thirty year period the total would equal $155,000 toward the purchase of
market value, non-deed restricted housing. Annual cost ~ $400K
OR
$400,000 annually (as an alternative to building new units) could:
Public Comment - Workforce Housing Fund Letter 010216 frm 010216
provide $5,000 per year in a housing allotment to 40 workers wishing to purchase
a home in Estes (approximately $415 monthly in house payment or $80,000 over
the life of a 30 year mortgage loan).
Annual cost ~ $200K
and provide $250 a month in rent assistance for 40 workers wishing to work and
live in Estes.
Annual cost ~ $120K
and provide $80,000 annually to matching funds provided from the private sector
employers and business organizations for housing of seasonal workers.
Annual cost ~ $80K
Imagine all the possible methods approaching the problem when sustainable funding is
available and the building is not seen as the only practical solution.
How can a $500,000+ annual revenue stream be generated?
Assume 500 vacation rentals exist in the Estes Valley – a conservative number
considering just one internet site, VRBO lists 446 on 09/10/15. Consider these options
for an annual vacation rental licensing fee:
$1,000 license fee would generate $500,000 annually
$1,200 license fee would generate $600,000 annually
$1,500 license fee would generate $750, 000 annually
Would this be an excessive burden on vacation rental industry?
An EDC workforce housing committee member collected and analyzed data for 443
Estes vacation rentals earlier this year. An average daily rate of $300 was calculated and
an occupancy rate estimated. Using these numbers, the revenue for the vacation rental
industry in the Estes Valley would be between $16.5M and $22M annually.
Ed Peterson, founder of the Estes Park Vacation Rental Owners Association, reported to
the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their September 15, 2015 meeting that the
vacation rental industry in the valley provided 40% of the areas lodging and generates:
$30M of revenue for local businesses annually
$30M of revenue for the owners annually
$6M of tax annually
Considering only the $36M going directly to the owner’s each year and not considering
the additional $30M generated for the property managers and other associated businesses,
the following licensing fees would represent a minimal “cost of doing business” for the
local vacation rental industry as shown below:
$1,000 license fee would represent a 1.4% annual cost of doing business
$1,200 license fee would represent a 1.7% annual cost of doing business
$1,500 license fee would represent a 2.0% annual cost of doing business
In closing, if the local vacation rental industry represents 40% of the areas lodging and is
generating $66M in revenue for owners and ancillary businesses such as restaurants,
retail, and other tourist activities in the Estes Valley how much of that revenue is (or
should be) re-invested in the community’s infrastructure that the industry requires?
Public Comment - Workforce Housing Fund Letter 010216 frm 010216
Infrastructure such as housing or housing subsidies for housekeepers, maintenance and
front desk personnel, restaurant workers, Town/County code compliance and
administrative costs, additional police calls, etc.
It is suggested that an annual licensing fee of $1,500 would be the “Affordable Housing
Impact Fee for development” that Phil Kliesler recommended the Trustees discuss, as a
specific way to more fully address the lack of workforce housing, in his report to the
Town Board of August 25, 2015.
Respectfully,
Fred R. Mares
Estes Park, CO
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Scott Thompson <scott@estesparkrealestate.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:16 PM
Subject: Second Request for Response first sent October 13, 2015
To: bpinkham@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, jericson@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org
, rnorris@estes.org, jphipps@estes.org
Cc: pkleisler@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Town Trustees,
As a local Realtor I have an interest in any changes in regulations for the Town of Estes
concerning short term vacation rentals. It was with great interest just read the white paper
prepared by Phil Kleisler titled Estes Park, CO 2015 Short-Term Vacation Rentals that I am sure
you all have read. It was a very informative and well put together report. Section 5.1 of the
National Association of Realtors White Paper really made me contemplate if Estes Park does
have a real problem or if it is just a perceived problem based on input from the vocal
minority. This section encouraged Realtors to make inquiries of the local government officials
and is the reason for this email. I have not kept up on all the information that you have and these
questions may be answered, but I would appreciate it if you could answer them for me.
What number of complaints logged by the local code enforcement and police departments in the
last 5 years were generated by short-term rentals? Does the data evidence an increase in the
number of complaints attributable to short-term rentals?
How do the complaints concerning short-term rentals relate to the number of individuals
occupying the short-term rental that is the subject of the complaint?
Does a specific type of complaint (e.g., noise disturbance, litter or trash, parking violations, or
late night parties) constitute a large percentage of the total number of complaints recorded in the
last five years? If so, does a provision of the local zoning or general ordinance already regulate
the offending behavior? If it is possible to address the majority of the problems by enforcing
existing nuisance regulations?
Does a disproportionate number of complaints arise from a small number of rental properties? If
yes, then a more appropriate response might be to adopt narrowly tailored regulations. An
example of this approach would be a regulation that would apply only after one or more
violations are found on a property, rather than imposing the cost and disruption of new
regulations on all owners of short-term rental property.
Thank you for your consideration and I appreciate your response.
Office 970-586-4425
Cell 970-590-9941
p.s. – The next time you are in a conversation with a friend or family member who needs help
with real estate in Estes Park, don’t keep me a secret!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:16 PM
Subject: VRBO issues
To: jphipps@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, bpinkham@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, jericson@estes.org, bh
olcomb@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a town board issue or if there is a committee we should address our concerns to but we
did want to let you know about VRBO issues we are experiencing. Last year we bought a lot in a residential
area and built a new home. We are just outside the town limits but within the VRBO boundaries. We have two
large homes behind us that are both used as VRBO rentals. They cater to family reunions and wedding
parties.
We have had several different issues and they all stem from the renters/and or property managers not adhering
to the current guidelines. These range from more renters than allowed, more vehicles than allowed, setting off
fireworks on New Years Eve - or I guess it was really New Years Day at 12:30 am and we have had loud
groups outside after 10 pm. While we appreciate that each group is here on vacation, we still have to get up
early to work.
Linda Hardin at the town has been very supportive and responsive. We have also contacted the property
manager each time, which doesn't appear to be helping.
We are very concerned that the town is looking at increasing the capacity of some rentals above the current
number of tenants allowed since the current rules are already being ignored. We feel they are running
commercial lodging in a residential area. We also feel the number of VRBO's in town are changing the fabric of
our town but that's probably a whole different discussion.
We appreciate your taking the time to read our concerns!
Sincerely,
Gene and Theresa Oja
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Vacation Home Rental Ordinance
Agenda
I.Project Scope and Timeline
II.License Fees
III.Enforcement
IV.Building/Residential Code
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Project Scope and Timeline
Examine current processes and
ordinances to ensure there is a
balance between private property
rights and the protection of
neighborhood character.
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Project Scope and Timeline
April - June
Project Engagement and
Scope
•Initial meetings with Boards
•Public Forum #1
•Town Board
•County Commissioner
•Planning Commission
June – Present
Refining the Regulations and
Processes
•Refined Options Presented to
Boards
•Public Forum #2 (9/11)
•Planning Commission Discussion
•Joint Board meeting
•Public Forum #3 (12/12)
•Public Forum #4 (1/25)
2016
Adopt and Implement
Changes
•Joint Town/County Meeting
•Planning Commission
•Final Ordinance Adoption
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Project Scope and Timeline
January
•25th: County Public Forum
February
•TBD: Joint Work Session. Summary of public comments and
direction needed from boards.
•16th: Planning Commission reviews for compliance with
Comprehensive Plan
March/April
•TBD: Joint work session to review draft ordinance.
•Town Board and County Commission meetings for final
ordinance adoption (or joint adoption meeting).
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
License Fees
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Town County
206
346
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
License Fees
Are annual operating permits required for a
vacation home?
What is the current fee?
•$150 in the Town
•$0 in the County
What is the proposed fee?
•$150 base fee
•$50 per bedroom, not to exceed $500
Staff recommends adoption on January 26th.
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
License Fees
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
License Fees
200 Cases
$23,000
Enforcement
$14,000
Overhead
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Enforcement
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Enforcement
Issues
•Licensing and Permitting
•Occupancy limit
•Parking and number of vehicles
•Noise and other disturbances
Challenges
•Timing
•Transient renters not contemplated in zoning
regulations
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Enforcement
Notice of
Request
(15 days)
Notice of
Violation
(15 days)
Summons
Typical Compliance
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Enforcement
License compliance rate 77%
Licensed in town 82%
Licensed in county 71%
Occupancy violations 12%
In town 9%
In county 15%
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Enforcement
Potential Solutions
•Seasonal code compliance position
•Increased interdepartmental coordination
•Amend zoning regulations to cite renters and allow
issuance of a Penalty Assessment Ticket.
•Greater neighbor communication
Vacation Home Ordinance; Estes Park Board of Trustees, January 12, 2015
Residential & Building Codes
•Regulates by design, regardless of
use (local amendment
•Example: Single Family Homes
•Less restrictive life safety
requirements.
Residential Code Building Code
•Regulates by use, regardless
of design
•Example: Hotel/Motel
•More restrictive life safety
requirements (accessibility, fire
sprinkler systems, change of
use COs, inspections)
Which code to use is determined by the CFO’s interpretation or by political decision
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: January 12th, 2016
RE: Update on Fish Hatchery Property
Objective: Update the Trustees concerning ongoing discussions on the future of the
Town owned property on Fish Hatchery Road.
Present Situation: Currently the Town owns approximately 75 acres of land adjacent
to RMNP at the west end of Fish Hatchery Road. A portion of the property is
undeveloped, a portion is used by the historic hydroplant museum and the O’Conner
Pavilion, and a portion is employee housing and storage. The Town Board directed
staff to look at options for alternative uses for the property that may further the goals
and objectives of the Town of Estes Park.
.
Proposal: Staff has had discussions with the Estes Valley Land Trust and the Estes
Housing Authority about use of the property for a workforce housing development and
preserving portions for low impact recreation and open space. The purpose of the study
session is to brief the Trustees on the ideas generated from these discussions before
pursuing any options any further. Representatives from the Land Trust and Housing
Authority will be present for the Study Session.
Advantages:
n/a – discussion only
Disadvantages:
n/a – discussion only
Action Recommended:
n/a – discussion only
Level of Public Interest
moderate
January 26, 2016
Fund Balance Policy
Revised Purchasing Policy
Updated Long Range Pavement
Improvement Program
February 9, 2016
Discussion of Noise Ordinance
Update on 2015 Icode Adoption and
Local Amendments, Including Property
Maintenance Code
February 23, 2016
Policy on Naming of Town Facilities
Update on Consideration of Transit
Going Year Round in Order to Qualify
for Federal Funding
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
(Items are not in order of priority)
Update on Upcoming Construction
Schedules for Major Projects Through
2020
Discussion of Impact Fees and Other
Funding Options to Support Housing
Goals
Fish Hatchery Property Discussion
Town’s Role in Economic
Development as Related to Other
Organizations (Possibly a Work
Session with the EDC & VEP)
Briefing on Storm Drainage and Flood
Management Issues and Management
Options. Discussion of Storm Water
Utility.
Update on Environmental Assessment
NEPA Process Draft Concerning the
Loop
How the Board Handles Off Cycle
Requests for Funding From Outside
Organizations
Follow Up on Broadband Issues
Study Session Items for Board
Consideration:
Discussion of Utility Metering
Infrastructure (Proposed March 8,
2016)
Discussion of Sister Cities Program
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
January 12, 2016