Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2014-07-22 Tuesday, July 22, 2014 TOWN BOARD 4:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Board Room 4:00 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:05 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:15 p.m. Visitor Center Parking Structure Alternatives (Administrator Lancaster) 4:45 p.m. Vacation Home Regulations & Enforcement. (Attorney White and Clerk Williamson) 5:30 p.m. Break for Dinner 5:40 p.m. Fish Hatchery Property. (Administrator Lancaster) 6:20 p.m. Assistant Town Administrator Position (Administrator Lancaster) 6:30p.m. Meeting Adjourn. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 3:45 p.m.” AGENDA                   July 22, 2014 July 30, 2014  Pre Budget Meeting August 12, 2014  Commercially Zoned Properties Discussion August 26, 2014  Town Water Ownership / Issues Briefing September 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress October 3, 2014  Budget Study Session October 10, 2014  Budget Study Session October 14, 2014  Seasonal Tour Business - Follow Up Discussion October 17, 2014  Budget Study Session October 24, 2014 (If Needed)  Budget Study Session November 11, 2014  Review Citizen’s Survey Results December 9, 2014  2014 Objectives – Review of Progress Items to be Scheduled (Items are not in order of priority)  Logo Discussion  Consideration of Adoption of Dangerous Building Section to Building Code  Museum / Senior Center Master Plan  Review of the Accelerated Development and Design Process Used for Parking Structure  Discussion of the Charter and Charge to a Housing Study Committee  Review of Draft Policy on Public Forums Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Scott Zurn - Project Manager Date: July 22, 2014 RE: Parking Structure changes Objective: To discuss the required modifications to the Visitor's Center Parking Structure and get Board input on the modifications and next steps for staff. Present Situation: Prior to the flood the Town conducted a public process to develop a design for the Visitor's Center parking structure. Over several days a design was developed and then finalized by the design team over the next few months. The design met the functional needs defined for the structure as well as meeting the aesthetic concerns of the community and the Board. The original design also was achievable given the cost of construction at the time and the available budget. Since December, much because of construction demands due to flood recovery, construction costs have increased over 20%. The architects project estimate, based on these new construction costs, now exceeds the available funds by over $900,000. Staff asked the architect to review the design to reduce the cost within the available budget. Proposal: We would like some discussion with the Board about how to proceed with the project. Specific questions are: 1. Are the architectural changes acceptable? 2. If additional cost savings are necessary, what reductions would be appropriate and acceptable? 3. Is the project still viable in the eyes of the Board of Trustees? 4. What more information about the project would the Board like in order to make decisions concerning the future of this project? Advantages: n/a Disadvantages: n/a Action Recommended: Discussion only Budget: The budget for the project is fixed and allocated. No budget modifications are recommended Level of Public Interest Very high PARKING STRUCTURE 20% CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASE MANAGEMENT PLANPhasable? 1 year later Funding CommentPossible Deducts/Opportunities for other funding requests/grants: Imaged Alternates48K TOTAL FOR CAR CHARGING  yes Utility Dept/Grant?Car Charging costs                                (12,000   First 4 unit/8spaces Infrastructure only) yes 25% more                                (6,400     First 4 units/8 spaces Chargers) yes 5% more                               ( 58,000   Future 16 units/32 spaces Infrastructure only) yes 25% more                                20,000   Water proofing required for electrical room yes 25% more                                28,000   SOG from gravel floor for electrical room yes 25% more15K Delete LED (46K) substitute fluorescent – Loose Controls   (Grant?)yes 100% replace Grant? buying all new Alternate 159K Eliminate heavy timber elements around stair; provide basic metal stair yes 50% moreAlternate 2200K Eliminate CMU/Stone Base where not reqd for utility (only required in elec/mech room) yes 25% moreAlternate 3100K Eliminate Decorative Metals (Vinyl Frames and Perf Panels) and Heavy Timberyes 15% more Visit Estes Park?Alternate 450K Eliminate Timber Porch  yes 25% more200K Eliminate 30 feet of structure = 24 parking spacesyes 50% more??? Security Cameras – not yet in Budget/FundedDeducts already taken before 910,475 shortfall: 12,000 First 4 unit/8spaces Infrastructure only yes 25% more6,400 First 4 units/8 spaces Chargers) yes 5% more58,000 Future 16 units/32 spaces Infrastructure only 25% more Utility Dept/Grant?289,000 Restrooms yes 25% more40,000 Landscaping by Public Works less/equal? Public Works Dept NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation StudiesBASE CASE 0’4’8’16’ NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation Studies 0’4’8’16’ ALTERNATE 1 - HEAVY TIMBER STAIR NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation Studies 0’4’8’16’ ALTERNATE 2 - STONE BASE NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation Studies 0’4’8’16’ ALTERNATE 3 - PERFORATED METAL AND HEAVY TIMBER CLADDING NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation Studies 0’4’8’16’ ALTERNATE 4 - HEAVY TIMBER PORCH NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Estes Park Transit Center 07.08.2014 Elevation Studies 0’4’8’16’ ALTERNATE 5 - ALL OPTIONS / CURRENT DESIGN Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Greg White, Town Attorney Date: July 22, 2014 RE: Vacation Home Regulations & Enforcement Objective: To gain direction from the Board on how to enforce vacation home regulations outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 5 Use Regulations and possible revision/additions to the regulations. A copy of the regulations is attached for review and discussion. Present Situation: In 2004 the Town Board approved Ordinance 04-04 adopting vacation home regulations including applicable zoning districts, number of guests, number of cars, signage, commercial utility rates, etc. These regulations were removed from the Municipal Code in 2010 and placed in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 5 Use Regulations in order to enforce the regulations in the county. The regulations were intended to aid in preserving the residential character of the neighborhood in which a vacation home was operating. Staff would like to discuss the regulations with the Board to ensure they are still effective and enforceable in meeting this goal. The requirement for a vacation home to convert utilities to commercial rates was eliminated from both codes. Staff would like direction on whether or not this requirement should be maintained and if so, added to a utility policy to enforce the requirement in both the town and the county. The Municipal Code 5.20.110(3) Revocation of license outlines how a business license for a vacation home may be revoked if a violation of the provisions has been verified. The full text of the code is attached for your review. Currently the Town addresses code violations for vacation homes on a complaint basis through the Code Enforcement Officer. The Town does not actively seek out violations and monitor activities at vacation homes. Recently staff has addressed complaints such as number of guest at a location or number of cars. Staff’s initial approach is to discuss the violations with the homeowner to gain compliance with the codes rather than issue violations. The final enforcement of a violation is conducted through the Clerk Office in which the business license may be revoked. The Association of Responsible Development has been reviewing housing issues including vacation homes. They have recommended additional enforcement and regulations. Items for discussion may include:  strict enforcement of current regulations o Revocation of business license o Municipal Court  proof of commercial insurance,  more responsibility placed on property managers  New regulations to address noise, lights, trash, traffic, safety, hot tubs Action Recommended: Provide staff with direction on possible modifications to the regulations and enforcement. Attachments: EVDC Section 5 Vacation Home Regulations Municipal Code Chapter 5 Revocation the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) has contracted Virginia-based Eye Street Solutions, which has developed a software program that crawls the Internet in search of vacation rental advertisements. The software program cross-references the information gathered from the Internet with existing databases of short-term rental properties. Towns will pay for this service in one of two ways, explained CAST executive director Joyce Burford: One option is for a town to pay a fee of $1 per property per month to maintain the database, plus $25 for each new property identified. The second option is for a town to enter into a revenue-sharing agreement with Eye Street, paying 20 percent of any new revenue acquired through the program. The second option requires a two-year commitment and includes database management. Option one puts the burden on the front end, which may be better for towns like Winter Park or Breckenridge that have a larger pool of unidentified properties that need more data management, Burford said. Option two places the burden on the back end, which may be better for towns like Fraser that don't have as much money to shell out up front each month or towns like Grand Lake that already have a good handle on their vacation rental properties. The onus then falls to the town to enforce their laws, Burford said. Most towns will start by sending a letter and alerting the property owner of the town's requirements. Colorado's home rule towns have more leeway for enforcement than statutory towns, she added. "Home rule towns can place tax liens on properties if they so desire. Statutory towns have to try to get the state involved." If a town doesn't have an enforcement program in place, it can enlist Eye Street's partner Hot Spot Tax Services out of Evergreen, which specializes in working with short-term property rentals to help bring property owners into compliance. Ultimately, "It comes down to the honor system," Burford said. "Even if a property becomes compliant, towns have to rely on the owners to report accurate information. It's hard to know if they're being honest or not." CAST is helping get the program off the ground, providing feed money on behalf of all communities that want to participate. After two years, each town will be asked to enter individual contracts with Eye Street. Keeping on the Good Side of your Neighbors There is a growing movement in many areas to cut down on the growth in short term vacation rentals, by banning them altogether in some cases, and by introducing draconian licensing regulations in others. Before you get serious about renting your property check the local by-laws to see how they may impact on your plans. It would be a tough call to find out you are not able to rent after spending money setting the property up for rental. The issues that spark controversy and argument over short term rentals are ones that all responsible owners should be aware of and make efforts to control at the outset of a rental. Where your property is in a vacation area and many properties are given over to short term rentals, this may not be as much of an issue but guest education is still the way to achieve harmony. Here are the top complaints made by neighbors. Excessive noise People are on vacation and it’s understandable they will be excited, exuberant and often pretty noisy. It is important to make guests aware of any local nighttime noise restrictions and to request that outdoor music is kept to a minimum. Straying and barking dogs Dogs in unfamiliar surroundings will mark their territory as well as checking out the new terrain. Neighbors will lose patience quickly if visiting dogs leave their lasting mark that doesn’t get picked up, bark incessantly or go on digging expeditions. Renters ignoring property lines If guests don’t know where property lines are there’s potential they will use outdoor items that don’t belong to the property or park in ways that block neighbor access, among other activities that can irritate more permanent residents. Garbage disposal issues Where rental guests come from a city neighborhood with garbage collection services, they may be completely thrown by having to deal with their own refuse beyond putting it out on the curbside. Neighbors will not be happy at guests leaving bags out for raccoons and bears to enjoy. General disrespect for neighbors Permanent residents often want to keep to themselves and are not always open to overtures of friendship from their transient neighbors. Disrespect can take many forms and it could be as simple as children’s ball games getting out of hand, or a campfire being lit inappropriately. There are many thousands of families who rent for the first time each year as vacation rental grows in popularity, and the responsibility of educating rental groups on etiquette lies firmly with owners. Where families have only experienced resorts, hotels and shared amenities, they often don’t appreciate the differences offered in our type of accommodation. Educating them can be done simply by providing well written and concise pre-arrival instructions and a comprehensive property guide. Tell them about noise restrictions, how to dispose of garbage, and your pet policies. Make it friendly but firm so your guests are made aware of the importance of good neighbor relations. Careful selection and screening of renters also goes a long way to maintaining harmony with the local residents. Talk to your neighbors about your rental plans and reassure them you are taking a responsible approach. They will respect you for it. Trends in the Vacation Rental Industry: Q1 2014 By : Andrew McConnell On: 02/13/2014 13:41:27 In:Professionalism Comments : 78 The vacation rental industry is poised for success in 2014. Here's a look at the new opportunities- and challenges- VRMs will face this year. This is the first in what is intended to be a quarterly review of the top trends in the vacation rental industry. It is impossible to make a piece like this completely exhaustive, but hopefully it will still be useful to many of you. What do you believe are the top trends? What can vacation rental managers (VRMs) do to benefit from the positive ones, and to limit the detriment caused by the negative ones? Top Trends I discuss each trend in more detail below, but so far in 2014 the trends dominating the vacation rental industry appear to be: Continued (predicted) growth Regulation Increasing professionalism New entrants Below I will briefly touch on what each trend is, and its implications for VRMs as well as the industry as a whole. Growth It is probably too early to make any believable claims about the growth of the industry in 2014, but one thing is certain: the experts say it will be a great one. 2013 was the year that people really began to notice how travelers were starting to replace hotel stays with vacation rentals . Though this trend fueled growth for the vacation rental industry last year, there was no guarantee it would continue. Despite this, experts believe the trend will not only continue , but actually accelerate. This is great news for VRMs. A rising tide lifts all boats. More travelers looking to stay in vacation homes rather than hotels means higher occupancy and higher rates for you. But there is also a danger associated with this. As hotels start losing business to vacation rentals, hotel bosses are beginning to get scared. And as successful business people, they know the best defense is a good offense. This has led some of them to publicly call for more regulation , which brings us to our next trend. Regulation If 2013 was the year of Airbnb v. The City of New York, then 2014 is shaping up to be the year of Vacation Rentals v. The World. As the vacation rental industry continues to grow in size and visibility (see the trend above), it is also growing the size of the target on its back. Those with vested interests in the status quo, such as hotel chains, are not surprisingly starting to fight back. As they seek to stymie innovation and change, they are increasingly using their lobbying power to combat the growth and popularity of vacation rentals in the courts, as well as in state legislatures and city councils. Just a few months into 2014, and this fight has spread well beyond New York. Across the United States, from Palm Springs toSavannah, proposals for increasing regulation are cropping up. Even the state of Florida, once a reliable friend of the vacation rental industry, may soon turn foe . And this trend does not stop at the U.S. border. Even the French President has gotten involved, pushing to “slam the door on Parisian holiday rentals .” This is a worrying trend, not just for vacation rental managers, but also for those travelers who enjoy increased choice, as well as the unique experience that vacation rentals can provide. Fortunately not all regulatory changes are in the same direction. Breaking from the protectionist trend noticeable in so many other places, Amsterdam has now “legitimized Airbnb with new short-term rental rules .” As a vacation rental manager, this is a trend well worth staying abreast of. Though the battle may not yet be at your front door, there is no telling when this might happen. Fortunately groups such as VRMA and the Short Term Rental Advocacy Center are working to get ahead of this issue before it becomes a real problem. Professionalism Perhaps the best way to combat the trend of increasing regulation is to be vigilant in the fight to make the vacation rental industry more professional. This is obviously part of the mission statement of the Vacation Rental Managers Association , but that is not why I list it in this post. I list professionalism because it is a trend that has been picking up pace for a while now, getting coverage in such national outlets as the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune , and it has huge implications for those involved in the vacation rental industry. The beginnings of this trend could be noticed towards the end of 2013. During that time HomeAway made a number of announcements that made clear its intention of being on the forefront of this professionalization of the industry. From launching its curated Andrew Harper line of luxury properties, to instituting itspartnership program allowing homeowners to more easily work with professional managers, HomeAway began aligning itself more with professionally managed rentals than the RBO side of the market for which it is so well known. Add to this its push for instantly bookable properties, and the launch of a new pay-per- booking model (including an expansion of that model to VRBO in 2014), and the intent is even clearer. In addition, towards the end of the year HomeAway announced a number of partnerships, including ones with Interhome and Expedia, even further aligning itself with the largest professional players in the travel space. As can be expected from the largest company in the industry, where HomeAway goes, others soon follow. Airbnb has long claimed that its most common user is someone who has a little extra space, and chooses to rent it out to help make ends meet,not professionals renting out their property as a business . Despite this, and maybe due to concerns regarding the long-term prospects of such an unprofessional model , 2014 is beginning to see a shift in Airbnb’s stance. Not only has Airbnb’s Co-Founder publicly stated that the industry could actually benefit from more regulation , but Airbnb is finally embracing its hosts who are renting as a business, including supporting them by providing professional cleaning services. And it is this shift that leads us to our fourth trend. New Entrants In an industry as large and as dynamic as the vacation rental industry, there will always be new entrants, so at a high level this may not seem like an interesting trend. However, I mean a very specific type of entrant. For a long time many have believed that the large listing sites were the biggest “brands” in the vacation rental industry. But we are beginning to see this is a misunderstanding of what these companies actually are. With the huge variety in their offerings, from couches to luxury villas or even entire villages, it is hard to argue that any of the large companies in this space have true “brands” in the way the large hotel companies have brands. Rather, these companies are portals or even platforms; more akin what OTAs are to hotels rather than being the new Hilton or Marriott. And it is on these platforms that new and exciting entrants are working to build brands, and beginning to change the vacation rental industry. From onefinestay’s “unhotel”, to Beyond Stays’ “stress-free hosting”, to MyVRHost’s “seamless vacation rental management”, to TurnKey’s low cost management model , to the plethora of “Super-Hosts ” now active on Airbnb, the list of startups building on the backbone of companies like HomeAway and Airbnb grows almost daily. With so many new entrants, the increased competition may be concerning to some. Though there will no doubt be winners and losers from all of this, increased competition means increased innovation, and that benefits us all. On top of that, this industry is so large, and growing so quickly, that there is plenty of room for quite a few “winners.” Conclusion The vacation rental industry continues to grow apace, and with growth comes change. Some of the changes are exciting, while others are scary. The best any of us can do is take advantage of the industry’s growth, and adapt with the ever-changing environment as best we can. For more on how you can ensure you benefit as much as possible from many of these trends, please see an earlier post on this topic, or feel free to contact me directly atAndrew.McConnell@vacationfutures.com. I look forward to hearing from you, and to seeing what Q2 brings. When Homes Become Hotels Short Stays, Lengthy Fights Vacation Rentals Prompt Complaints and Bans, Spur Debate Over Property Rights When Homeowners Become Hoteliers, Some Neighbors Bristle at Noise, Nuisance Updated Nov. 23, 2012 8:24 p.m. ET Renting a private home while on vacation, rather than paying for a hotel room, has skyrocketed in popularity in recent years, leading to a backlash from neighbors and prompting places from New York state to tiny Columbia Falls, Mont., to ban or restrict the practice. Now there is a backlash to the backlash—and a deep philosophical divide between property rights and neighbors' rights. On one side are homeowners who embrace the trend, along with the growing number of listing services that cater to the short-term- rental industry. On the other are neighbors who are also homeowners. The number of Americans renting their homes to strangers has been driven in part by the weak economy, the housing bust and the Internet. In some cases, cash-strapped homeowners are renting their properties to supplement their incomes and to keep from falling into foreclosure. Home-rental listing sites, such as HomeAway and Airbnb, have aided the trend by providing a service that allows homeowners to advertise their properties, essentially turning their homes into pop-up motels. In Sedona, Ariz., a lawsuit that challenged the city's ban on short-term rental advertisements was recently returned to Superior Court after the state's Supreme Court declined to review the lower court's decision. Courts ruled earlier this year against a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., regulation that prohibited short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. In most places, a short-term rental is defined as lasting less than 30 days. Such efforts are about to get more ammunition: A group of short-term rental-listing sites, including HomeAway and FlipKey, are creating an industry group that aims to institutionalize the practice by pushing cities to tax and regulate short-term rentals. Carl Shepherd, chief strategy and development officer for Austin, Texas- based HomeAway, said the group—which is creating a website and is likely to be a Gary Clark says his Dana Point, Calif., neighborhood has become louder and busier because of short-term vacation renters. Sandy Huffaker for The Wall Street Journal AWAY -0.12% By CONOR DOUGHERTY Email Print 48 Comments Related Video nonprofit funded by the industry and short- term rental owners who join—will push cities to enact "light" regulations that steer clear of license and zoning changes but make it easier for municipalities to identify short-term rentals and collect occupancy taxes from them. It will also have more firepower to aid homeowners that are lobbying or litigating against such bans. "We want this industry to be a valid choice for travelers, and simply want the legitimacy that comes with appropriate and fair regulation," Mr. Shepherd said. In the past few years, real-estate investors have become an outsize chunk of homeowners, and many have found it more profitable to rent homes by the week instead of the month. In a 2011 survey by the National Association of Realtors, some 91% of vacation-home buyers said they planned to rent their property to either long- or short-term renters.Vacation-home rentals have claimed a small but growing share of travelers. PhoCusWright, a travel-research company, said 11% of U.S. travelers rented a vacation home in 2011, up from 9% in 2009. The real-estate bust is part of the reason Indio, Calif., decided to regulate—rather than ban or curb—its short-term market. The desert city 120 miles east of Los Angeles is home to a number of festivals, including the Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival, and residents can make tens of thousands of dollars in rental fees in just a few weekends, Mayor Glenn Miller said. In February, the city passed a law requiring people offering short-term rentals to get business licenses, register with the city and pay the same taxes as hotels. Mr. Miller said the city has collected $250,000 of tax revenue. "A lot of these people are upside-down on their homes, and this gives them an opportunity to rent it," he said. But the mayor added that if neighbors complain about noise or parking, "we can cite the owner and pull the license." Still, other places are pushing for bans because the growth of short-term home rentals has prompted complaints from neighbors about noise, parking problems and a revolving cast of characters on quiet streets where residents value stability. Dana Point, Calif., an Orange County beach town, is among the many where a move to curb short-term rentals has sparked a debate over the rights of those offering such lodging and the rights of their neighbors. For years, Dana Point has banned short-term home rentals. But the rule has long been ignored, in part because the practice wasn't widespread enough for the city to bother enforcing it, Mayor Lara Anderson said. But over the past year, council meetings have filled up with people like Gary Clark, a retired firefighter and 66-year-old surfer who said his neighborhood has become louder and busier because of short-termers. Mr. Clark lives three blocks from the beach on a street of single-family houses. He said two nearby homes routinely are rented by vacationers, and they attract a younger crowd who clog the parking and keep neighbors up with loud music and heavy drinking. "They're unregulated motels: We have no say on who is living next door to us for a Emily Chase Smith of Dana Point says she has no record of complaints. Sandy Huffaker for The Wall Street Journal Enlarge Image There's something to be said for a destination where you can relearn the art of doing nothing, ideally near a fireplace, in very soft slippers. Jackie Cooperman joins The News Hub with a list of the coziest hotels in America. Photo: Kodiak Greenwood. week," he Mr. Clark said. "At least with a hotel or motel, you have security. You've got regulations. These things have absolutely no supervision whatsoever." On the other side of the street—and the debate—is his neighbor, Emily Chase Smith, a lawyer who rents her home for $1,800 a week when she is away. Ms. Chase Smith, who stays in short-term rentals herself when vacationing, said she mostly rents her home to families and has no record of the police ever visiting for noise problems. She has a warning for Dana Point: "If they try to enforce the ban, the city is going to buy a lot of legal trouble. There are people for whom this is a big deal [financially]." Moreover, she added, "it's a normal use of property around the world. People aren't going down without a fight." Ms. Anderson, for her part, favors enforcing the ban. "Had we not had the law on the books and these things were operating legally, that would be one thing where you talk about a compromise," she said. "But we do have a law, and residents have an expectation. I don't think we have a choice." Fellow council members disagree, and their staffers are designing a program—to be presented this month— to regulate and tax short-term rentals. Write to Conor Dougherty at conor.dougherty@wsj.com Cities wade into vacation rental debate Jon Ostendorff and Mark Barrett, USA TODAY 1:05 a.m. EDT April 9, 2014 ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Cities across the USA are finding themselves in the middle of a fight between homeowners who want to make money with short- term rentals and neighbors who don't like tourists staying next door. Community leaders here recently jumped into the debate that has popped up in tourist destinations nationwide, as the growth of Internet-based businesses such as vrbo.com and airbnb.com make it increasingly easy to connect property owners with travelers. The rentals are technically illegal in residential areas of this North Carolina mountain town, but the rules aren't enforced unless someone complains, said Shannon Tuch, head of the city development services department. That's leading to a growth in rentals, city officials say. Property owners have asked city leaders to consider easing the rules, said Derek Allen, an attorney hired by proponents of the change. The business is "good for property owners, but it's also really good for the town," said Debbie Nordeen, who had to change the way she rents out a south Asheville apartment after the city said it violated the rules. "It also keeps up the tourism spirit of the town." Barber Melton, vice president of the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods, said short- term rentals erode the residential character of a neighborhood and bring problems like noise and traffic. "It's a liability for the neighborhood that it's in. It's not an amenity that any (resident) wants," she said. Other cities are struggling with the same concerns. Elsewhere: • In Florida, cities and counties are asking state lawmakers to give them more say in how the rentals are regulated. A 2011 law prohibited local government from banning the businesses, said Barbara Beatty, executive director of the Florida Vacation Rental Managers Association. • In New York City last year, a municipal board reversed a decision to fine a man $2,400 for renting out his apartment through the website airbnb.com. The city started cracking down on short-term rentals under a 2010 state law that made it illegal to rent apartments in residential buildings for fewer than 30 days. • In University Park, Texas, city leaders thought about regulating short-term rentals but decided against it after staff reported few offerings in the town, said Steve Mace, community information officer. The Florida Vacation Rental Managers Association is against changing the Florida (Photo: Erin Brethauer, Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times) 101 CONNECT 54 TWEET 6 LINKEDIN 5 COMMENT EMAIL MORE law to give cities more power. The group says that could hurt the industry. It found in a recent study that vacation rentals are worth $31 billion to the state's economy. "You'd be doing serious harm to the economy of Florida," said Beatty. HomeAway, the company that runs vrbo.com and other short-term rental websites, supports the regulation of the industry. The company is the world's leading online rental marketplace with 890,000 listings in 190 countries. It likes regulations that balance the needs of neighborhoods with the economy and ensure safety for travelers. "When these goals are met, we believe communities, travelers and the vacation rental industry benefit," said Carl Shepherd, co-founder and chief development officer at HomeAway. Ostendorff and Barrett also report for Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times. Contributing: Associated Press. 101 CONNECT 54 TWEET Posted: Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:04 2 1 WATCH! · BiS News Video Video updated throughout the day Updated: Sun, 06/15/2014 - 16:04 Residents air concerns on city's proposed short-term vacation rental regulations By Julia Ritchey 912-652-0362 julia.ritchey@savannahnow.com Residents concerned, confused and cantankerous about a proposed citywide ordinance for the regulation of short-term vacation rentals showed up in force at the first of two public meetings on the topic. About 80 people packed into the Metropolitan Planning Commission on Thursday morning to hear city staff give an update on what exactly is being presented to City Council at an upcoming workshop on June 26. The issue has been a hot-button one since the city began cracking down on those operating vacation rentals in neighborhoods not zoned for this use but acknowledged it also needed to create rules specific to what is a growing cottage industry. Bridget Lidy, Savannah’s tourism administrator, said some of the issues the city has with short-term vacation rentals have to do with zoning, life and safety concerns, fairness with taxes and quality of life within the neighborhood. “With those four different components, what we’re trying to come up with is a balance and fair approach to managing this particular issue,” Lidy said. To help with existing regulations, she said, the city wants to create a text amendment to give vacation rentals their own definition in the code — separate from inns and bed & breakfasts — subject to restrictions on number of guests and required parking spaces, among other minutiae. The second proposed idea is for a “short-term vacation rental certificate,” which would be required for all units being rented to visitors staying less than 30 days. To obtain this certificate, Lidy said, a person would need to provide proof of ownership, an owner’s compliance verification form, a copy of the owner-occupant agreement and, most importantly, a business tax certificate. This business tax certificate has been an especially contentious issue because some short-term rental owners have not been remitting the 6 percent hotel-motel tax that all hotels must pay. Lidy said the city wants to keep better track of rentals and make sure it is collecting all of the revenue it’s owed for those lodging transient guests. Some in attendance were property owners who felt the city’s concerns were overblown and unfairly targeting them. “You talk about this quality of life, what about the same problems that come from owners or full-time rentals, why is just the smallest tiniest segment like vacation rentals being blamed for all of the problems resulting in this ordinance — that is not exactly equitable,” said Tanya Smith, a short-term rental owner. Several others echoed Smith, saying the city should more closely scrutinize long-term rentals as well. “I’m a little bit worried about the safety requirements in the hands of people who don’t appreciate the historic beauty of historic houses,“ said Kenneth Zapp, who had recently purchased a property on Howard Street to use as 1Like Share a vacation rental. “When you talk about safety and access, what do you do for an 1869 rowhouse?” Lidy said the steps the city is taking are necessary after fielding complaints. Zoning administrator Geoff Goins said the city had issued 70 citations so far to illegal short-term rentals, 18 of which resulted from direct complaints from neighbors. To date, 40 of those have stopped operating, 12 are in recorder’s court, five people are seeking use approvals and 17 are pending summons. For those wishing to attend the next meeting, it will be Tuesday, June 17 at 4 p.m. at the Metropolitan Planning Commission at 112 E. State Street. To see the full text of the city’s proposed ordinance and regulations, go to savannahga.gov/tourism. Joel and Joy Johnson made a bit of history this month when their application for an interim-use permit was OK’d by the Duluth Planning Commission in Minnesota. The couple was adhering to new city rules for what are commonly known as vacation home rentals. They own a duplex on Park Point that they rent out for short-term rentals, and they were the first on a growing list of owners applying for the permit. It means $1,000 more in fees, but Joel Johnson said something needed to be done to regulate the growing use of private homes for tourism in the area. “There are some who don’t pay sales tax, don’t have inspections,” he said. “They think it’s an easy way to make money.” Vacation rentals differ from traditional lodging because renters take a key and are basically on their own. There are little to no in-stay services and managers are often off-site. The new city rules require owners to provide key information to renters so that they have a minimal impact on the residential areas where most vacation rentals are found. The permits also help the city define and identify how renters are operating their property, distinguishing between long-term rentals and the unique vacation types. “Some were following, some were not,” Keith Hamre, director of city planning, said of the old rental rules and how short-term renters used them. “Some didn’t know they needed to.” With the new rules, “you’re going to know who’s doing what,” said Bill Burns, who has a rental in front of his home on Park Point. State focus The new local rules reflect the consensus reached by a statewide task force formed in 2008 to study the burgeoning vacation rental market. The focus was to “ensure that vacation home rentals operating as businesses are a safe lodging alternative that are managed and regulated on a level playing field with other lodging options.” While some clamored for statewide blanket rules, the task force, under the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature and Explore Minnesota Tourism, recommended that state law be more definitive in including vacation rentals and that local rules be developed. “We ran across that report,” Hamre said of the permit-creation process that began last summer. Planners tried to find examples of rules across the country to follow as “best practices,” Hamre said. In Duluth, as in other places, vacation rentals had been regulated by the same rental rules used by landlords renting long-term. The task force recommended state and local laws with specific language on shorter-term vacation rentals, which pose unique problems of parking, noise and unfamiliarity with local rules — an example being vacationers on Park Point unaware of when the beach is closed. Duluth renters are now required to give vacationers a detailed accounting of local rules and to inform neighbors of their business. They also are required to be up to building code and to be current on tax Minnesota Plays Up Its Outdoors and Culture in Largest-EverTourism CampaignRead More payments. Significant complaints about behavior at properties will be tolerated only twice before a permit is revoked. Avoiding problems Johnson said he agrees that his business should be regulated like other lodgings and said he is careful to avoid the problems of noise and disruption. His rental, near his Lakehead Boat Basin business on the 1000 block of Minnesota Avenue, is set off from residential homes. He said he also doesn’t have decks where people might gather outdoors and draw the attention of neighbors. The new Duluth rules enforce a five-night minimum on rentals from June 15 to Sept. 15, the peak of tourism. The rest of the year, the minimum is two nights. Most of the owners who responded in public comments to the city since it began forming the new rules support making the stays longer in the peak outdoors time in the city. They said in comments to the Planning Commission that longer stays are usually a draw for families who tend to be more respectful to neighborhood concerns. “They respect the five nights,” Hamre said. “They don’t want to turn (the property) over as often.” In December, the City Council approved the ordinance covering the interim-use permits. Vacation rental operators have until April 30 to apply for permits. The Planning Commission recommended council approval for four businesses March 12, and it has four more on its agenda Tuesday. The new rules evolved as more vacation home renters have become involved. “I don’t think they asked enough of us,” Johnson said of the early process. He’s still wondering how the number of people allowed in a rental will be handled. A formula had been reached matching that number to bedrooms, but Johnson asked about those with lofts or what to do with people visiting guests at a rental. He said some renters have people over for holiday occasions and he wondered if that would be a violation of the occupying rules and vehicle restrictions. The Planning Commission has discretion to tack on special requirements with each permit it examines. In the first batch approved earlier this month, it wrote in on Park Point permits that renters needed to be directed to beach access points to deter trespassing. The trend In 2010, Arthur Frommer, of the well-known travel guide that bears his family’s name, called vacation homes the “most pronounced trend in travel.” Hotels and resorts still claim the majority of travelers — 43.6 percent, according to a study compiled in 2011 by HomeAway, a national company that lists vacation rentals. Nearly 20 percent of stays are with friends and family. Next are vacation rentals, with 12.2 percent of the market. While the use of bed and breakfast facilities is more widely known, they have only 2 percent of the market. HomeAway and other property-listers see a lot of room for growth. That’s because studies show that many people still don’t think of vacation rentals when they plan a stay. That is changing, and the growth in Duluth sparked the need for more regulation. HomeAway lists more than 60 Duluth rentals on its website and 357 in the region. Hamre said the city has identified up to 40 properties in the city proper that would fall under the new definition, which it calls “vacation dwelling units.” Doug Sabo, who also applied this month for a permit on a home on Park Point, is new to the process. He decided to rent his property out last year and just learned of the new rules while making preparations. He said he travels a lot and uses rentals when he goes. “It feels a lot more comfortable,” he said. “There’s more of a home feeling.” Like many people who rent, he and his partner, Lorri Hanna, wanted to increase their income by using their property for vacationers. He said he doesn’t mind the regulations. They’ll be a good way to avoid problems that have historically plagued Park Point as residents deal with long and short-term renters on the narrow sand spit between Lake Superior and the Duluth-Superior harbors. Joel Johnson said the Park Point Breeze, a community newsletter, once did an informal survey and found that half of the homes there were considered rentals of some type. Sabo said many of the worries about vacation rentals come from a historical enmity between permanent residents and renters. He said the new rules will help his type of renting from riling neighbors and are likely to weed out noncompliant landlords. When Sabo’s permit came before the Planning Commission earlier this month, two nearby residents spoke about Park Point being inundated with rentals and the accompanying noise and other factors ruining the quality of life there. They seemed reassured by the rules in the new permit process — especially the length of stay requirement — and buoyed by the fact that they can report disturbances and have a voice in how the businesses are run. “The structure is good,” Sabo said of the new rules. City takes it on City Planner Kyle Deming, in researching the trend across the country, wrote in a memorandum to the Planning Commission in October that the nature of vacation rentals — almost always located in residential areas — create special problems: noise, parking and unfamiliarity with local rules. Similar to the long-term rentals, the vacation homes will be subject to city code and violations will be dealt with, Hamre said. “They’ll be found noncompliant and go through the violation process,” he said. “It’s going to be tough,” Joel Johnson said of enforcing the use of permits. But the new rules will give the city a tool, he said, when complaints come about properties that may be operating without proper permission. Some Duluth owners of traditional lodgings, like bed and breakfasts, had urged city planners to better define and regulate vacation homes. Many chimed in on the ordinance the city was building and said they were satisfied with the end result. Mike Wilmes of Duluth, owner of a hospitality management and consulting company, was one of the people concerned that vacation homes were slipping under the radar compared to hotels. Wilmes, also a board member with the Minnesota Lodging Association , said there had been “growing concern with our members who strive to provide clean, comfortable and safe accommodations.” In the end, Wilmes praised the city for its work. Up the shore Deming’s research included a look at the only specific vacation rental ordinance in the region, in Lake County. The Lake County Board of Commissioners voted in a permit process in 2011 that defined what a rental property is and allowed them in areas along the North Shore where they previously weren’t allowed. People wanting to rent a home in those areas have to apply for an interim license, meaning it is subject to the county Planning Commission for review each year. While the county had been sorting out the rental ordinance, there had been a moratorium on all vacation rentals for two years. Operators needed to file for a conditional-use permit. The moratorium was said to be put in place to protect renters from homes and cabins that don’t meet specific codes. The county Health Department had been seeking more definition on what to look for when inspecting buildings intended for vacation rental. The Minnesota Vacation Rental Association backed the opened zoning, opposing “regulations on vacation rentals that unreasonably distinguish the short-term rental of private housing in a way that infringes on individual property rights.” LeRoger Lind of Castle Danger, north of Two Harbors, has been a staunch opponent of the Lake County measure, saying it will ruin the quality of residential living along the North Shore. “My opinion hasn’t changed,” he said. “It’s basically changing residential areas into commercial areas.” There have been similar complaints across the country when it comes to allowing vacation rentals in residential areas. Places like Duluth have lived with the reality of vacation rentals for years under the less-specific rental rules, and there isn’t much choice in keeping them out now, Hamre said. They’re part of the tourism culture developed in the city, he said. “They were already here, and we wanted them to operate in an appropriate fashion,” Hamre said. “They’re part of the ambassadors of our community.” ___ (c)2013 the Duluth News Tribune (Duluth, Minn.) Visit the Duluth News Tribune (Duluth, Minn.) at www.duluthnewstribune.com Distributed by MCT Information Service April 29, 2014 3:45 pm  •  JANELLE WETZSTEIN (4) Comments St. Helena council may tweak vacation rental rules ST. HELENA — The City Council is considering some minor changes to the 2-year-old rules that regulate short-term vacation rentals in residenti… Read more 3 9 Print Email Napa's vacation rental program may expand ORDINANCE HAS WORKED WELL, CITY SAYS After five years of operating with few complaints from the public, the city of Napa’s vacation rental program could be expanding. “I was a vocal critic of the program when it first started,” said Napa Councilman Peter Mott. “I was worried that these rental properties would be a burden on the surrounding neighborhoods and residents. But everything I’ve heard seems to be the opposite.” Napa’s vacation rental ordinance governs 42 properties. It was established in 2009, in part to weed out vacation rental homes that were operating illegally. The permits are non-transferable, limiting the number allowed in the city. Short-term rentals in vacation destinations are often criticized by residents for having absentee landlords who are not part of the community. Though this isn’t always the case, it has caused many places to ban such temporary rentals — including unincorporated Napa County. Prior to 2009, those who rented their homes for less than 30 days to visitors simply applied to the city for a conditional business license. But after several neighborhoods complained about noise and disturbances from vacationers, the City Council voted to regulate the local industry. Under the 2009 law, rental owners were required to pay the city $1,000 per year to operate. That fee has since decreased to around $200 per year. The city also collects hotel tax revenue from vacation rentals. According to city data, in 2013 these rentals accounted for about $317,000 of the city’s nearly $13.5 million in hotel tax revenue — about 2.35 percent of the total. The amount of tax revenue from vacation rentals has increased annually, even though the number of rentals has decreased. With an apparent growing demand, city officials are eyeing the program as a potential revenue booster. “If we were to increase the number of allowed vacation rentals by 15 or 20, it could be a great opportunity,” said Mott. “But it would need to be studied by city staff and highly regulated.” Mott, who in 2009 favored phasing phase out short-term rental properties, said new rentals should be confined to the downtown area. “They don’t belong in every neighborhood,” he said. “So we would need to think about that.” Councilman Alfredo Pedroza said he is also interested in expanding the program — but only if the regulations in the ordinance were extensive. “I am open to it, but only in the downtown core and only if they are very regulated,” he said Tuesday. “Our main concern has to be the surrounding neighborhoods.” 10Recommend City Planner Karlo Felix, who currently oversees the program, said it is going quite well from the city’s standpoint. “There haven’t been any major issues,” he said Monday. “From time to time we get the occasional noise complaint, but that’s about it.” Napa resident Sandy Austin-Stansberry owns one such vacation rental on Division Street. She converted three of her building’s units into vacation rentals and lives in the fourth. She said Tuesday that she is pleased with the city’s regulations. “It’s been really easy,” she said Tuesday. “The city has been helpful with everything we need to do, and they help us anytime we have questions. We get to meet a lot of people and we are usually pretty full.” While Austin-Stansberry thinks that adding more such vacation rentals to Napa would be good for the city’s tourism industry, others are not fully convinced. Councilwoman Juliana Inman owns a vacation rental property next door to her own downtown home. While she doesn’t vote or make decisions on the city’s vacation rental policy, she said that adding more properties to the program needs to be done in a thoughtful manner. In addition to the 42 vacation rental properties in Napa, St. Helena has 25, with 10 more properties on a waiting list. Officials in the Upvalley city reported in February that the program has worked extremely well — especially at regulating illegal vacation rentals. The rest of Napa County has banned all short-term rental properties. Even so, lodging websites like Airbnb.com and Homeaway.com had about 265 short-term vacation rentals listed in the Napa Valley on Tuesday morning. Many were single rooms, but a large portion were entire homes for rent that were not listed on St. Helena’s or Napa’s list of complying vacation rentals. “While I think our program works well for owners, it still hasn’t fully addressed the many illegally operating vacation rentals in Napa,” Inman said Tuesday. “There just isn’t enough money for enforcement on these illegal rentals.” “Now, if we added a few more vacation rentals, we would have more money to police it. But like I said, it would require studying and an effort to balance the rest of the community’s needs.” Felix said that if the City Council directs staff to research expanding the program, it would take some time to look at the ramifications. Mott said Monday that he would be bringing the matter before the council in the near future. 0 PRINT ARTICLE Stacy Head BY ANDREW VANACORE AVANACORE@THEADVOCATE.COM July 11, 2014 3 Comments New Orleans moves to tamp down illegal short-term rentals COUNCIL SHARPENS LANGUAGE IN CODE The New Orleans City Council took a first step toward cracking down on illegal short- term rentals Thursday, as local governments across the country mull how to respond to a growing cottage industry sparked by rental websites like Airbnb and VRBO. It was a relatively modest step: The council voted unanimously to sharpen the definition of “transient vacation rentals” in the city code. Among other small changes, the amended law makes clear that anyone renting out a dwelling for less than 30 days at a time — 60 days in the French Quarter — is breaking the law unless they run a licensed hotel, motel or bed-and-breakfast. The old ordinance said properties qualified as transient vacation rentals only if owners rented them out for shorter periods “over the course of one or more years,” a vague stipulation that made the law difficult to enforce. “There are a growing number of unregulated, illegal and sometimes very problematic short-term rentals,” council President Stacy Head said. “We’ve got to put together a comprehensive way to regulate and, at times, restrict and certainly harness tax dollars from them.” Discussion before the vote extended a debate that’s been going on for months, in New Orleans and elsewhere. A growing online industry is connecting tourists with homeowners who find they can make more money renting out their property one weekend at a time, rather than signing extended leases. During events like the Jazz and Heritage Festival, when the city’s hotel rooms become scarce, the potential windfall NEWS “Legalize them, regulate them and tax them. Late-night parties and noise are already violations.” JIM USCHOLD, Alliance for Neighborhood Prosperity for short-term renters can be huge. But the trend has irked bed-and-breakfast owners. Perhaps half a dozen showed up at the council Thursday complaining of unfair competition. They said they have to pay taxes and follow the rules, while illegal renters do not. “Small businesses that operate within the confines of the law are being penalized,” said Bonnie Rabe, head of the Professional Innkeepers Association of New Orleans. There also are concerns about what illegal rentals are doing to neighborhoods. Residents have complained about visitors — often bachelor parties — making excessive noise at all hours. Frances Swigart, who owns a home in the French Quarter, said one group of guests next door recently aimed a firework into her courtyard; another group of young men came by to ask her tenants where they could find the best strippers. “They are unaccountable to neighbors,” Swigart said. “They are unaccountable in terms of fire safety.” Meanwhile, some property owners and others who support the growth of short-term rentals have begun to organize themselves. Members of a group called the Alliance for Neighborhood Prosperity argued that the practice should simply be legalized and regulated. They pointed to the opportunity for locals to earn money and for visitors to get a more authentic look at the city, as well as a growing incentive for property owners to fix up blighted housing stock. “Legalize them, regulate them and tax them,” said Jim Uschold, a member of the alliance, suggesting the city has other means of cracking down on rowdy guests. “Late-night parties and noise are already violations.” Paul Brinkmann Florida has seen three years of record-setting tourism numbers. Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida Local governments want back some control over short-term vacation rentals, contending that a nearly 3-year-old state law has allowed little-regulated mini-hotels to grow amid residential communities. But supporters of the 2011 law say Florida has achieved three consecutive years of record-setting tourism numbers in part by allowing homeowners to seasonally rent their properties. A vacation rental is considered any property that is leased more than three times in a calendar year, each time for periods of fewer than 30 days. The Florida Association of Counties, the Florida League of Cities and Flagler County are among supporters of measures (HB 307 and SB 356) advancing through the Legislature that would lift a provision in the 2011 law that prohibits local governments from making new rules to ban, restrict or simply address issues involving vacation rentals. The law has resulted in businesses and investors buying and remodeling foreclosed and distressed residential properties strictly to attract vacationers seeking places to stay during the winter and spring seasons, said Casey Cook, a lobbyist for the Florida League of Cities. "Every city is different. Tallahassee is different than Jacksonville, which is different from Orlando, which is different from West Palm Beach," Cook said. "We need to give our cities the flexibility to come up with solutions that work for their community." The 2011 law also bars communities that had prohibited vacation rentals prior to June 1, 2011, from now allowing properties to be used in such a manner. The current legislation was spurred by a rental advertisement in Flagler County for a home, which is in the middle of a residential neighborhood and features 11 bedrooms and could accommodate 24 people at one time, Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, the sponsor of the Senate measure, said last month when his bill was before the Senate Regulated Industries Committee. "It's distracting to the people who live around there and caused them a lot of concern," Feb 18, 2014, 8:07am EST Legislation could limit growth of Florida vacation rentals Enlarge Photo Thrasher said at the time. Officials in Flagler County contend that an increase in homes being used as vacation rentals has raised concerns about negative effects the rentals have on neighborhoods. "The issue isn't about whether or not someone rents a home to vacationers," Flagler County Commission Vice Chairman Frank Meeker told The Daytona-Beach News Journal. "The issue is about buildings that are being constructed in residential neighborhoods with a dozen bedrooms and 10 baths with the intention of using them as mini-hotels." An Oct. 22 opinion from the Attorney General's office — requested by Flagler County Attorney Al Hadeed —concluded that since the county had a local zoning ordinance for single-family homes that didn't restrict vacation rentals when the 2011 law went into effect, the "zoning ordinances could not now be interpreted to restrict vacation rentals." The Florida Vacation Rental Managers Association opposes the proposed changes, which have already completed the Senate committee process. Association President Paul Hayes is lobbying lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott to reject "any legislation that would ban vacation rentals or violate the property rights of these business owners." Hayes, in a statement released Friday, contended the proposed changes "are risking these jobs and threatening the property rights of owners by allowing the ban of vacation rentals." The state Division of Hotels and Restaurants reported that in 2013, of the 37,155 public lodging establishments in Florida, 10,362 are licensed as vacation rental dwellings. The association's release was timed with an announcement Friday from the governor's office that Florida attracted an estimated 94.7 million tourists last year, about a 3.5 percent increase over 2012. The House measure, sponsored by Rep. Travis Hutson, R-Elkton, and Rep. Daphne Campbell, D-Miami, has already been backed in a 10-3 vote by the Business and Professional Regulation Subcommittee. Two additional hearings - before the Local & Federal Affairs and the Regulatory Affairs committees – have yet to be scheduled. The Senate companion advanced with little opposition in the Community Affairs and Regulated Industries committees. Thrasher and Hutson both represent Flagler County. Vacation rentals should not disrupt our neighborhoods Tom Stansbury and Ellen Lockert 9:22 p.m. PDT June 24, 2014 Many neighborhoods in Palm Springs are zoned residential. Long-term residents bought houses expecting to live in quiet residential communities where they knew their neighbors. Over the past six or seven years, there has been explosive growth of short-term vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. In January 2013 there were 1,310 vacation rentals in Palm Springs. One in seven houses in Deepwell was a short-term vacation rental. This resulted in a more transient population, loud parties and traffic. While some residents didn't mind this change, many found the constant noise kept them inside during weekends and unable to sleep at night. Some people sold their houses. Others chose not to buy. On some streets, the presence of four to six rentals totally changed the character of the neighborhood. In 2008, the city of Palm Springs promised to monitor and manage this influx of short- term rentals with a Vacation Rental Ordinance and Vacation Rental Hotline for neighbors to call with complaints. Over five years there were hundreds of calls a year. In 2013 alone, there were 437 complaints to the Vacation Rental Hotline. The city did not issue one citation to vacation rental firms or owners. As a result of renewed recommendations from the neighborhoods, the city created a new, slightly more restrictive Vacation Rental Ordinance in March. The ordinance was to take effect May 1. The City Council agreed to review results in six months. Given the complete lack of city enforcement of the first ordinance, Protect our Neighborhoods (formerly Protect Deepwell) has made a commitment to monitor implementation of the new Vacation Rental Ordinance through the use of public records review. At this point, we have some serious concerns. • Our public records request for items required by ordinance and April hotline records have not been filled within the legally required time. We believe administrative rules for the ordinance have not been completed. • Currently, property management firms are tasked with reporting accuracy of citizen complaints. This is a clear conflict of interest since negative reports result in fines to property management firms and owners. A designated code enforcement staffer should provide monitoring and fines for transgressions. • Law enforcement response to noise complaints — 65 decibels or above, per city code — is random and inconsistent. We suggest further training to ensure consistency. We have raised these concerns with the city and received no response. As taxpaying residents of Palm Springs, we expect the city to protect our right to the (Photo: Desert Sun file photo ) 169 CONNECT TWEET LINKEDIN 11 COMMENT EMAIL MORE quiet enjoyment of our homes. At the least, that means objective code enforcement monitoring of citizen complaints, transparent records for timely community review, consistent enforcement of the existing noise ordinance and, ideally, limiting commercial vacation rental density in residential neighborhoods. The character of our wonderful residential neighborhoods is at stake. The Palm Springs City Council has agreed to review results of the new ordinance six months from inception. If the city can't or won't comply with above and successfully end vacation rental noise and congestion, we encourage residents to ask the council to enact the Carmel model. This allows owners to rent homes for one month or more. Owners would still enjoy income from their homes, noisy weekenders are eliminated and existing hotels and inns benefit from the additional revenue on which the city still collects transient occupancy taxes. We all win. Tom Stansbury and Ellen Lockert are co-chairs of Protect Our Neighborhoods. Email them via ProtectOurNeighborhoods @gmail.com Topic 415 - Renting Residential and Vacation Property If you receive rental income from renting a dwelling unit, such as a house or an apartment, you may deduct certain expenses. These expenses, which may include mortgage interest, real estate taxes, casualty losses, maintenance, utilities, insurance, and depreciation, will reduce the amount of rental income that is taxed. You will generally report such income and expenses on Form 1040(PDF) and on Form 1040, Schedule E (PDF). If you are renting to make a profit and do not use the dwelling unit as a personal residence, then your deductible rental expenses may be more than your gross rental income. Your rental losses, however, generally will be limited by the "at-risk" rules and/or the passive activity loss rules. For information on these limits, refer to Publication 925 ,Passive Activities and At-Risk Rules. If you rent a dwelling unit to others that you also use as a personal residence, then your deductible rental expenses may be limited. You are considered to use a dwelling unit as a personal residence if you use it for personal purposes during the tax year for more than the greater of: 1. 14 days, or 2. 10% of the total days it is rented to others at a fair rental price. It is possible that you will use more than one dwelling unit as a personal residence during the year. For example, if you live in your main home for 11 months, your home is a dwelling unit used as a personal residence. If you live in your vacation home for the other 30 days of the year, your vacation home is also a dwelling unit used as a personal residence unless you rent your vacation home to others at a fair rental value for 300 or more days during the year. A day of personal use of a dwelling unit is any day that it is used by: You or any other person who has an interest in it, unless you rent your interest to another owner as his or her main home under a shared equity financing agreement A member of your family or of a family of any other person who has an interest in it, unless the family member uses it as his or her main home and pays a fair rental price Anyone under an agreement that lets you use some other dwelling unit Anyone at less than fair rental price If you use the dwelling unit for both rental and personal purposes, you generally must divide your total expenses between the rental use and the personal use based on the number of days used for each purpose. However, you will not be able to deduct your rental expense in excess of the gross rental income limitation (your gross rental income less the rental portion of mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and casualty losses, and rental expenses like realtors' fees and advertising costs). However, you may be able to carry forward some of these rental expenses to the next year, subject to the gross rental income limitation for that year. If you itemize your deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF), you may still be able to deduct your personal portion of mortgage interest, property taxes, and casualty losses on that schedule. There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as rental expenses. Another special rule applies if you rent part of your home to your employer and provide services for your employer in that rented space. In this case, report the rental income. You can deduct mortgage interest, qualified mortgage insurance premiums, real estate taxes, and personal casualty losses for the rented part, subject to any limitations, but do not deduct any business expenses. For information on these limits, refer to Publication 587 , Business Use of Your Home (Including Use by Daycare Providers). For more information on offering residential property for rent, refer to Publication 527 , Residential Rental Property (Including Rental of Vacation Homes). More Tax Topic Categories Page Last Reviewed or Updated: February 27, 2014 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: July 22, 2014 RE: Discussion of Town Owned Fish Hatchery Property Objective: To discuss the future utilization of the Town owned property on Fish Hatchery Road. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park owns approximately 70 acres of land in a parcel on the west end of Fish Hatchery Road. Currently the property has several buildings that are bing used by the town for storage and also a single family home that is leased to a Town employee. The property also includes the hydroplant museum, including a single family home on the museum site, picnic pavilion and an abandoned water treatment plant. A portion of this property, specifically the museum and picnic pavilion, has a current valid public purpose and staff believes the Town should retain ownership. The remainder of the property could be used for other purposes or sold. There have been several ideas floated by the public and others over the years about the use of the property including:  Retain the property as open space under a conservation easement  Develop the property as a public park for recreation.  Sell the property for development for: o A resort facility o Workforce housing o Vacation rental housing o Commercial (non-lodging) development  Trade the property for other property.  Use the property in partnership with private development for workforce attainable housing with options of the Town retaining ownership or the Town granting the property in exchange for deed restrictions on the sale and ownership of the housing. Current assessed value of the property by the Larimer County assessor is $1,415,490 however I would not recommend using this as a valid value. Assessed values are sometimes not the same as the market value and in particular, the Assessor's office does not update values of tax-exempt properties. The mission of the Assessor is to assess property values for the purpose of property taxation and since this property is tax-exempt, the Assessor's office has no practical reason to maintain current values of the property. The Town has considered doing something with this property in the past but nothing has ever come to fruition.  Proposal: None - item for discussion only Advantages: n/a Disadvantages: n/a Action Recommended: Discussion only Budget: None at this time, however depending on what the Board's ultimate decision is on the future of this property, there may be budget implications. Level of Public Interest Very high