HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2022-03-22The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, March 22, 2022
In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific
agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, March 22, 2022. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the
agenda item and added to the final packet.
REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
Remote participation in the meeting will be available by call-in (telephone) or online via Zoom Webinar
which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at
www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”.
Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not
via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040
ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040.
AGENDA
6:00 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any
member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board;
or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular
employees – Town Administrator Annual Evaluation.
REGULAR BUSINESS
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
MOMENT OF REMEMBERANCE - RECOGNIZING THE TWO-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF
THE DECLARATION OF COVID-19 AS A PANDEMIC (03/11/2020).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Prepared 03-11-2022
*Revised 03-21-2022
Page 1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT - POLICIES 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5,
3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11.
Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for the Town Administrator to
provide information on policy compliance to the Board. The above policies are
reported on each March.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated March 8, 2022, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated
March 8, 2022 and Town Board Special Study Session Minutes dated March 1, 2022.
3. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated February 10, 2022
(acknowledgment only).
4. Reappointment to the Estes Park Board of Adjustment of Francis Holtzman to a term
expiring March 31, 2025 and Guy Newsom for a term expiring March 31, 2024.
5. Reappointment of Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson to the Estes Park Planning
Commission for terms expiring March 31, 2028.
6. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE 02-22 AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING VACATION HOME BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND ESTABLISHING
A RELATED ENTERPRISE. Town Clerk Williamson and Town Attorney Kramer.
2. RESOLUTION 27-22 SUPPORTING THE TABOR BALLOT ISSUE #3A. Town
Administrator Machalek.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. UTILITY LOCKBOX GO LIVE NOTIFICATION. Director Hudson.
To provide an overview of the utility payment lockbox process scheduled to go live,
with utility bills mailed around March 20, 2022 and due April 5th.
ADJOURN.
*
*
*
Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S
OFFICE
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Machalek
Date: March 22, 2022
RE: Policy Governance Monitoring Report – Policy 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.9, 3.10, 3.11
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: Policy
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for the Town Administrator
to provide information on policy compliance to the Board.
Each March, I report on the following staff limitations:
Policy 3.1 Customer Service
Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff
Policy 3.4 Financial Conditions and Activities
Policy 3.5 Asset Protection
Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board
Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming
Policy 3.11 Quality of Life
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonable interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
Travis Machalek
Town Administrator
Page 3
Policy 3.1: The quality of life in the Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership
between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the scope of
his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high standards requiring
the treatment of our citizens:
3.1.1: The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic
attitudes in employees:
3.1.1.1 – The Citizens of the Town of Estes Park deserve the best
possible services and facilities given available resources.
3.1.1.2 – Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues.
3.1.1.2.1 – “Prompt Action” shall be interpreted as:
• Citizens receive initial responses at a minimum
acknowledging the receipt of the contact, within
two business days
• The appropriate process required to resolve the
problem is initiated within three business days,
whenever possible.
3.1.1.3 – Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that
demonstrates a high level of professionalism.
3.1.1.4 – Each employee represents excellence in public service.
3.1.1.5 – Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the importance of customer service is
reinforced in training and in performance evaluations of all staff, and that all staff
are held accountable for providing a high level of customer service. This does not
mean that the customer always gets everything that they might request, but rather
that Staff is polite, professional, responsive, and fair with all members of the
public. Given the relatedness of all the subsections of 3.1.1, it is my interpretation
that I may report on these limitations as a group.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. Customer issues are handled in a prompt, polite, and fair manner.
2. Complaints and/or concerns that the Town Board and Town Administrator
receive about customer service regarding Town employees are minimal.
Evidence:
Page 4
1. Customer Service is included in the performance evaluations of all
employees.
2. The Town Board and Town Administrator receive minimal customer
service complaints from members of the public. Customer service
complaints that are received are addressed in a prompt manner.
3. The Town Board, Town Administrator, and Executive Leadership Team
receive compliments and letters of appreciation from customers.
4. Town employees complete mandated Service Elevated customer service
training.
5. 88% of respondents to the Town’s 2021 Community Survey rated our
Overall Customer Service positively (e.g. excellent/good).
Report: I report compliance.
3.1.2: The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the partnership
between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Accordingly,
regarding the treatment of citizens and customers, the Town Administrator
shall not:
3.1.2.1 – Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to
due process.
3.1.2.2 – Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make
material decisions affecting the community in the absence of relevant
community input.
3.1.2.3 – Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an
untimely basis) about relevant decision making processes and
decisions.
3.1.2.4 – Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with
the community.
3.1.2.5 – Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to
address them in a timely manner.
3.1.2.6 – Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment
from Town employees.
3.1.2.7 – Unduly breach or disclose confidential information.
Status: Compliance
Page 5
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that residents are informed well in
advance of any Town action; that Staff takes active steps to solicit and encourage
public comment on matters of public policy and significant projects; that Staff
treats all customers of the Town in a respectful and courteous manner; and that,
within the restrictions of the law, Staff does not disclose confidential information.
Due to the related nature of the sub-sections of 2.1.2, it is my interpretation that I
may report on all of these limitations as a group, rather than individually.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. All public policy and significant project discussions include public
outreach and involvement.
2. Issues raised by customers are dealt with promptly at a staff level, if
possible, or are brought to the Town Board for consideration and
discussion if necessary.
3. The biennial community survey is completed.
4. Staff does not disclose confidential information other than such
disclosures required by law.
Evidence:
1. Public meetings, community meetings, and outreach meetings held above-
and-beyond regularly scheduled Town Board meetings.
2. Newspaper articles and press releases associated with public projects and
policies.
3. Results from the biennial community survey.
4. Lack of legal actions against the Town due to failure to provide due
process.
5. Lack of any legal action against the Town for improper disclosure of
confidential information.
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.2: With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town
Administrator may not cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or undignified.
Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority, the
administrator shall not:
3.2.1: Operate without written personnel policies that clarify personnel rules for
employees.
Page 6
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town has formal written
personnel policies that are up-to-date with regard to current legal decisions, and
that these policies are readily available to all employees. These personnel policies
are not static and may be changed as needed in accordance with applicable law.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town has formal written personnel policies that cover the normal scope of
employment issues.
Evidence:
1. Town personnel policies are available to all employees on iTown and in
the Human Resources office.
2. All personnel policies have been reviewed and approved by the Town
Attorney (and CIRSA, if necessary).
Report: I report compliance.
3.2.2: Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy upon employment.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that all new employees are informed of
Town personnel policies.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Every new employee is informed of the Town’s personnel policies.
Evidence:
1. Town personnel policies are available to all employees on iTown and in
the Human Resources office.
2. New employees are informed of the personnel policies as part of their on-
boarding policies, including where to locate these policies.
Report: I report compliance.
3.2.3: Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal Employment Opportunity
and Fair Labor Standards Act.
Status: Compliance
Page 7
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town follows the strict
interpretation of the EEO and FLSA.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town has no cases of legal non-compliance.
Evidence:
There have been no successful legal actions against the Town in the past year
regarding any EEO or FLSA violations as an employer.
Report: I report compliance.
3.2.4: Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working environment for
employees, volunteers and citizens utilizing Town services.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that Town facilities are generally clear of
safety hazards and are properly maintained. It is not possible to completely
eliminate all hazards, but reasonable and prudent precautions are taken and plans
are made to prevent and repair hazards. When a hazard is identified, prompt
action will be taken to mitigate the hazard in an appropriate manner.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no known, unaddressed safety hazards in Town facilities and new
hazards are addressed promptly.
Evidence:
1. Successful loss control audit and property inspection from CIRSA.
2. Precautions are taken to prevent and correct hazards when a hazard is
identified.
Report: I report compliance.
3.2.5: Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the responsibilities of
volunteers and of the Town for all volunteers.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town must have and use a written
volunteer policy guiding the use of volunteers in the organization.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town has a written volunteer policy that is used to manage the Town’s
volunteer program.
Page 8
Evidence:
1. Policy 207 (Volunteer Program) guides the use of volunteers in the
organization.
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.4: With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s
financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of fiscal
jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives. Accordingly,
the Town Administrator may not:
3.4.1: Expend more funds than are available.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that there have been no expenditures in
excess of those approved in the adopted budget.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no expenditures in excess of those approved in the adopted budget, as
amended by the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. Town financial reports.
2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Report: I report compliance.
3.4.2: Allow the general fund and other fund balances to decline to a level below
that established by the Board of Town Trustees by adopted policy, unless
otherwise authorized by the Board.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the General Fund balance at the end
of the fiscal year is at least 25%. This figure is based on the calculation of fund
balance after all carry-over funds are included. Encumbered but not expended
funds are excluded at the end of the year.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR shows a General-Fund fund balance of 25% or greater,
unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
Page 9
2. The adopted budget anticipates an end-of-year fund balance in the General
Fund of 25% or greater, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
Evidence:
1. The 2020 CAFR shows a 70.4% General-Fund fund balance at the end of
2020.
2. The 2021 budget, as amended, anticipates a 60.6% General-Fund fund
balance at the end of 2021.
3. The adopted 2022 budget anticipates a 34.7% General-Fund fund balance
at the end of 2022.
Report: I report compliance.
3.4.3: Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle payroll and debts in a
timely manner.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that all Town funds have adequate cash
available to settle all debts within the period for which they are due.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All payments are made on time from cash on hand.
Evidence:
1. Town financial reports.
2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Report: I report compliance.
3.4.4: Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately filed.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that all payments or filings have been
made on time and accurately.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All payments are made on time and accurately.
Evidence:
1. Town financial reports.
Page 10
2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Report: I report compliance.
3.4.5: Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent protection has not been
given against conflict of interest and may not engage in purchasing practices
in violation of state law or Town purchasing procedures.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town has comprehensive
purchasing policies to guide the expenditure of Town funds and that those policies
are complied with.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town has adopted purchasing policies and all purchases are made in
compliance with these policies.
Evidence:
1. The Town’s adopted purchasing policies are available on iTown.
2. Annual Audit
3. Single Audit for federal funds
Report: I report compliance.
3.4.6: Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund was established,
unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that any use of funds from a specific fund
must be for the stated purpose of that fund, unless otherwise authorized by the
Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All expenditures are made from the appropriate fund.
Evidence:
1. Town financial reports
2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. Annual Audit
Page 11
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.5: Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town
Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected, inadequately
maintained or unnecessarily risked. Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.5.1: Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which insures against
property losses and against liability losses to Board members, staff and the
Town of Estes Park to the amount legally obligates to pay, or allow the
organization to be uninsured:
3.5.1.1 – Against theft and casualty losses,
3.5.1.2 – Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the town
itself in an amount equal to or greater than the average for
comparable organizations.
3.5.1.3 – Against employee theft and dishonesty.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town has adequate insurance
coverage to protect the organization, the Board, and staff from loss. Due to the
related nature of the sub-sections of 3.5.1, it is my interpretation that I may report
on all of these limitations as a group, rather than individually.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town maintains adequate insurance levels and suffers no unreasonable
uninsured losses.
Evidence:
1. Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) Certificate of
Participation
2. The Town has not paid out for any unreasonable uninsured losses in the
last year.
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.2: Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear and tear or
insufficient maintenance (except normal deterioration and financial
conditions beyond Town Administrator control).
Status: Compliance
Page 12
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that Town facilities and equipment are
properly maintained, subject to normal deterioration and financial conditions
beyond Town Administrator control. I interpret this policy to include all physical
buildings and utility infrastructure, but not transportation infrastructure or real
property.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
We have preventative maintenance programs for Town buildings, major building
systems, utility infrastructure, and rolling stock.
Evidence:
1. Ongoing capital improvement projects completed in the past year, as
reported to the Board.
2. Preventative maintenance schedules for rolling stock.
3. Facilities maintenance projects completed in the past year, as reported to
the Board.
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.3: Receive, process or disburse funds under controls insufficient to meet the
Board-appointed auditor’s standards.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that there are no comments in the annual
audit that raise the question of insufficient controls.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
We have an audit with no relevant qualifying comments.
Evidence:
1. Annual Audit comments
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.4: Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff
to claims of liability.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that neither I nor Town staff take any
action that results in unnecessary liability exposure.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Page 13
There are no significant (greater than $25,000) legal or other settlements paid out
as the result of any unnecessary liability exposure.
Evidence:
There were no significant settlements paid out as the result of any unnecessary
liability in the last year.
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.5: Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files from loss or
significant damage.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that all Town information is protected
adequately through firewalls, cyber security measures, and adequate backups.
Non-electronic data is secured and protected at a level appropriate for
information.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. We have no losses of data or information.
2. We have protocols in place to protect from cyber losses.
Evidence:
1. We have had no significant losses or damage to information or files over
the last year.
2. CIRSA loss control audit.
3. Cyber security training conducted for all employees on a regular basis.
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.6: Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property except as expressly
permitted in Town policy.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I do not take any action to acquire,
encumber, dispose of, or contract for real property without the express permission
of the Town Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no real property transactions that are not approved by the Town Board.
Page 14
Evidence:
1. There were no property transactions in the last year that were not
expressly approved by the Town Board.
Report: I report compliance.
3.5.7: Allow internal control standards to be less than necessary to satisfy generally
accepted accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the cost of internal
control should not exceed the benefits expected to be derived.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that our internal controls are reasonable as
interpreted by the Town’s annual audit.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The annual audit has no significant comments regarding internal controls that
required a modified audit opinion.
Evidence:
The Town’s internal controls are in compliance with this requirement as
evidenced by the clean audit opinions received in past years. There is nothing to
indicate a deterioration in this condition for the year ended December 31, 2021.
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.6: In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services,
the Town Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the Town
management team familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town Administrator issues
and processes.
3.6.1: The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity of Town
administrator in his/her absence. In the Absence of the Town Administrator
and Assistant Town Administrator a Town Department Head previously
designated by the Town Administrator will act in the capacity of Town
Administrator.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I must officially designate two staff
members to serve in my stead, should I not be able to perform the duties of my
job. This designation is to be expressly designated in an internal operating
procedure.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There is an adopted policy that specifies backups for the Town Administrator.
Page 15
Evidence:
1. Policy 203 – Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
Report: I report compliance.
3.6.2: The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training needed to
enable successful emergency replacement.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I must keep the backup Town
Administrators well informed and well trained so that any of them could replace
me in the event that I am not able to perform my official duties.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The three identified backup Town Administrators possess the requisite skills and
knowledge to perform the duties of Acting Town Administrator in my absence.
Evidence:
1. Policy 203 – Town Administrator Backup and Replacement
2. All of the identified backup Town Administrators are generally up-to-date
on Town issues and understand the role of the Town Administrator in
relation to the Town Board and the operation of the Town organization.
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.9: The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be
uninformed or unsupported in its work. Accordingly, he or she may not:
3.9.1: Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant trends, anticipated
adverse media coverage, material external and internal changes, and
particularly changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has
been previously established.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town Board is appropriately
informed of developments related to Town issues directly from myself or from the
appropriate staff member. I also interpret this requirement to be limited to issues,
events, media coverage, and other matters of which staff or I are aware of.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Town Board members are not surprised by any issue that staff or I was previously
aware of.
Page 16
Evidence:
1. Weekly updates to the Board
2. Town Talk email to staff
3. Specific-subject emails to the Town Board when required to address an
emerging issue.
4. Economic Dashboard
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.2: Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see policy on
Monitoring Town Administrator Performance in Board/Staff Linkage) in a
timely, accurate and understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions
of Board policies being monitored.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I report monitoring data to the Town
Board as outlined in the review schedule adopted in Policy Governance Policy 2.3
and that the format of the reports is acceptable to the majority of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Compliance reports are received by the Town Board in accordance Governing
Policy 2.3.
Evidence:
1. All compliance reports over the last year were supplied to the Town Board
within the required timeframe.
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.3: Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town Trustees as many
staff and external points of view, issues and options as needed for informed
Board choices on major policy issues.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that information presented to the Town
Board must accurately reflect differing options and opinions involved in major
policy decisions. Staff may make recommendations and may present
recommended options to the Town Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Page 17
Standard presentations and memos are structured to ensure that pros and cons are
included and that there is a discussion of options available to the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. Board observation and opinion
2. Use of standard memo format for all presentations
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.4: Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy form.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that information presented to the Town
Board has enough detail, and is presented clearly enough, for each member of the
Board to be adequately informed when making a policy decision. I also interpret
this requirement to mean that information should be focused on the information
required for broad policy issues, not peripheral details. Each member of the Board
may have a different preference for level of detail and how information is
provided. I must strive to present information that meets the needs of all Board
members, but may not maximize the needs or style of any one trustee at the
expense of the other.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All members of the Board feel that they have received enough information to
make policy decisions on any particular issue.
Evidence:
1. Board observation and opinion
2. Use of standard memo format for all presentations
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.5: Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees activities or
communications.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that official Board activities and actions
are clearly communicated to the public and there is a culture of transparency
within Town Government. I am responsible not just for my own actions, but the
culture throughout the organization. I am also responsible for the support
provided to the Town Board through other staff, such as the Public Information
Officer and the Town Clerk.
Page 18
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There is a culture of transparency among Town staff and it is demonstrated in our
day-to-day actions.
Evidence:
1. Board observation and opinion
2. Activities of the Public Information Officer through news media, social
media, and other tools.
3. Public comments regarding the Town’s transparency of information.
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.6: Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole except when
fulfilling individual requests for information.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I do not play favorites with any
members of the Board and that I treat each member of the Board fairly and
respectfully at all times. I also interpret this to mean that I can have confidential
conversations with any member of the Board, and that I respect that
confidentiality. In order to be effective in my job in assisting the Town Board as a
whole, Board members must have a level of trust that each can communicate with
me openly without reservation.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Directions from the Town Board to the Town Administrator only come from the
Board acting as a whole and each member of the Board feels that they are treated
fairly and respectfully at all times. Board members feel that they can be open and
honest with me in all communications.
Evidence:
1. Board observation and opinion
2. Lack of instances where failure to comply with this requirement has
resulted in issues with the Board, staff, or the public.
Report: I report compliance.
3.9.7: Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated noncompliance
with any policy of the Board of Town Trustees.
Status: Compliance
Page 19
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I notify the Board at the earliest
possible opportunity when I am in noncompliance with any item described in the
Staff Limitations section of the adopted Policy Governance policies, regardless of
whether that noncompliance is intentional or unintentional. I interpret “earliest
possible opportunity” to be relative to the materiality of the noncompliance.
Major noncompliance issues that may have significant financial, legal, or political
impacts on the Town should be reported as soon as possible. Minor, non-material
items (such as “Partial Compliance” items in my monitoring reports) may be
reported in a regularly scheduled report to the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
I make the Board aware of all actual or anticipated instances of non-compliance in
a timely manner.
Evidence:
1. Board observation
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.10: With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and
improvements programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either operational
or fiscal integrity of the organization. Accordingly, he or she may not allow the
development of a capital program which:
3.10.1: Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’ stated priorities.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that staff does not pursue any capital
projects or equipment that materially deviate from the key outcomes, goals, and
objectives adopted by the Town Board within the Strategic Plan.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All capital improvements and purchases of capital equipment can be directly tied
to the Town Board’s Strategic Plan and no expenditures are made or planned for
the annual budget that are not supportable under the current Town financial
resources.
Evidence:
1. Adopted Budget for capital projects and equipment
2. Adopted Capital Improvement Plan
3. Vehicle Replacement Plan, which budgets and plans for multi-year
funding of capital vehicle purchases.
Page 20
Report: I report compliance.
3.10.2: Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds than are
conservatively projected to be available during that period.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that we are conservative with our
budgeting and that we do not overstate revenue or understate expenditures.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
We do not exceed our budgeted expenditures.
Evidence:
1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
2. Adopted Annual Budget
Report: I report compliance.
3.10.3: Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of capital and
operational start-up items, cash flow requirements and subsequent audit
trail.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town’s adopted budget and
subsequent accounting separates out capital expenses, operating expenses, and
other expenses.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The annual budget and financial reports provide adequate information to see the
separation of capital expenses, operating expenses, and other expenses.
Evidence:
1. Annual Audit
2. Published Adopted Annual Budget
3. Financial Reports
Report: I report compliance.
3.10.4: Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and
replacement/perpetuation expenses.
Page 21
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that the Town has an annual budget and
an annual Capital Improvement Plan that are both active and maintained.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
We have a robust and repeatable budget and capital improvement planning
process that result in an adopted budget document and an adopted capital
improvement plan.
Evidence:
1. Adopted Capital Improvement Plan
2. Adopted Annual Budget
Report: I report compliance.
3.10.5: Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the budget and on the
progress of each active project, including data such as changes and the
financial status of each project, including expenditures to date.
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that staff should regularly report back to
the Town Board on the progress of major projects that are currently planned or
underway. This requirement does not apply to day-to-day operational activities.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Board feels adequately informed about ongoing projects.
Evidence:
1. Reports to the Board at regular Town Board meetings
2. Weekly Board updates from the Town Administrator
3. Specific emails regarding emerging issues that the Board needs to be
aware of.
4. Study Sessions with the Board, when needed.
Report: I report compliance.
Policy 3.11: With respect to Town government’s quality of life for the community, the
Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding
economic health, environmental responsibility, and community interests.
Page 22
Status: Compliance
Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I provide for the implementation of
the Town Board’s Strategic Plan.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The Town Board’s Strategic Plan is substantially implemented, allowing for
modifications based upon circumstances or resource levels that are outside of the
Town Administrator’s control.
Evidence:
1. Observation and opinion of the Town Board
Report: I report compliance.
Page 23
Page 24
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 8, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually
in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of March, 2022.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Barbara MacAlpine
Scott Webermeier
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Trustee Cindy Younglund
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION – ESTES PARK WOMAN’S CLUB.
Mayor Koenig presented Judy Cunningham with a Proclamation honoring the 110 years
of service and support the Women’s Club has proved to the Estes Park area including
the Town of Estes Park, the Estes Valley Library, Estes Park Schools and Rocky
Mountain National Park.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Cenac) to approve the Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee comments have been summarized: reviewed the recent CompPAC meeting
topics such as housing, natural and built environment, infrastructure, and transportation,
recognized International Women’s Day and the women serving on the Town Board,
Utilities Director Bergsten elected chair of Platter River Power Authority (PRPA),
construction ongoing of the new Larimer County Behavioral Health Crisis Services
Facility off of Trilby Road, Visit Estes Park (VEP) and the Estes Park Chamber to hold a
new event “Estes Inspire” to recognize those working in the hospitality industry, and
VEP staff began a new initiative to address diversity, equity, inclusion and sustainability
in an effort to become a community first organization, and lodging tax revenues were
consistently higher each month in 2021 over the previous three years.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Machalek recognized Christy Crosser/Grant Specialist on her
retirement and Jon Landkamer/Facilities Manager leaving the Town to take a job at the
Fire Protection District.
He provided the Board with an update on the Colorado Association of Ski Town (CAST)
position statement on housing which has generated one House Bill 1117 to expand a
local marketing district’s ability to invest in workforce housing and childcare through the
use of lodging tax revenues. The legislation was inclusive of counties but did not extend
the use to statutory municipalities. The Town would continue to address the issue at
the next legislative session with the support of CML.
DR
A
F
T
Page 25
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2022 – Page 2
Staff has reviewed options for the development of an Arts Master Plan and determined
the development would require significant funding, staff commitment, and robust
community engagement. Some communities have been able to use college students to
develop a plan at a cost of $18,000 or use consultants at a cost of $40,000 - $60,000.
Once a plan has been developed there would be additional cost to implement the plan
as well as staff time. He noted the staff would not have the ability to address a plan at
this time, therefore, staff recommended tabling the item and address the item during the
annual strategic planning process.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated February 22, 2022 and Study Session Minutes dated
February 22, 2022.
3. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated January 18, 2022
(acknowledgment only).
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 20, 2022 (acknowledgment only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 19, 2022
(acknowledgment only).
6. 2022 Annual Review of Art in Public Places Guidelines.
7. 2022 Art in Public Places (AIPP) Yarn Bombing Application.
8. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Bronze Hondius Sculpture Donation.
9. Purchase Order for a Sauber Three-Phase Reel Trailer, $102,944 - Budgeted.
10. Resolution 22-22 Amendment #1 to the CDOT Grant Agreement for Design of
Two Large Vehicle Bays to Store Two Electric Battery Trolley Buses (CDOT PO
#491002610).
11. Resolution 23-22 Agreement for the Use of the Northern Colorado Law
Enforcement Training Center by a Governmental Entity.
12. Resolution 24-22 An Intergovernmental Agreement for Technical Support
Services with Platte River Power Authority.
It was moved and seconded (MacAlpine/Webermeier) to approve the Consent
Agenda Items 1-11 and move Item 12 to the first Action Item, and it passed
unanimously.
LIQUOR ITEMS (Convene the Liquor License Authority):
1. RESOLUTION 25-22 NEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE
APPLICATION FOR BIRD’S NEST LLC DBA BIRD’S NEST, 1221 HIGH DRIVE,
ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Mayor Koenig convened the Liquor Licensing
Authority and opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented an
application for a new hotel and restaurant liquor license held by Bird’s Nest LLC dba
Bird’s Nest. All required paperwork and fees were submitted. The applicant has
filed for a concurrent review. TIPS training has been completed for Bird and Jim’s
which the applicants also own. Melissa Strong/Applicant stated the staff at the Bird’s
Nest would be TIPS trained prior to the opening of the business. Mayor Koenig
closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Bangs) to
approve Resolution 25-22 for a new Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License to
Bird’s Nest LLC dba Bird’s Nest, and it passed unanimously.
DR
A
F
T
Page 26
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2022 – Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL, RESOLUTION 19–22 AND RESOLUTION
20-22, CAMPBELL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT,
TBD SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, MARK AND MARY CAMPBELL,
OWNER, CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, C/O FRANK THEIS,
APPLICANT. The property owner requested withdrawal of the Campbell
Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat applications. It was moved and
seconded (Martchink/Cenac) to withdrawal the applicaitons, and it passed
unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. CONSENT ITEM #12 - RESOLUTION 24-22 AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES WITH PLATTE RIVER
POWER AUTHORITY. The proposed IGA would provide the Town with
technical expertise relevant to utility operations from PRPA. No specific projects
have been identified; however, the agreement allows the Town to identify
projects over time that require additional technical support to improve the
distribution of electricity throughout the valley. The agreement would be for one
year and would automatically renew until such time either party provides the
proper notice. Trustee MacAlpine stated the agreement as presented does not
contain projects or outlined costs. She questioned if the spending authority for
Utilities Director Bergsten would be limited to those outlined in Policy 601. Town
Administrator Machalek stated an IGA does not impact spending authority or the
approval of the Town Board through the budget. She expressed concern with a
greater dependency on PRPA and if we would have the staff to address any
emergency or natural disasters. Director Bergsten stated the IGA would provide
additional resources to the current Town staff during those situations. It was
moved and seconded (Webermeier/Cenac) to approve Resolution 24-22, and
it passed with Trustee MacAlpine voting “No”.
2. RESOLUTION 26-22 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN. Manager Landkamer
presented the Board with the final Facilities Master Plan which provides a
roadmap for the future planning and financing of major capital repairs and
replacement of Town buildings. The Plan concluded Town Hall has served
beyond its useful life and should be replaced, with the Police Services being
removed from the downtown core to improve the safe delivery of Police Services.
Additional actions would include the consideration of a new budget supplement
to begin the design for a new Police Services facility, pursue the “right of first
refusal” on opportunity sites, and develop an on-going funding strategy for capital
investments in facilities that take into account future capital needs. It was moved
and seconded (Martchink/Webermeier) to approve Resolution 26-22, and it
passed unanimously.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/MacAlpine) to approve to enter executive
session to discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real,
personal, or other property interest - Section 24-6-402(4)(a) C.R.S., for a
conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving legal
advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S., and for the
purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators
- Section 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. regarding a potential development agreement for
the Fish Hatchery property, and it passed unanimously.
DR
A
F
T
Page 27
Board of Trustees – March 8, 2022 – Page 4
Mayor Koenig recessed the meeting at 8:13 p.m. The Board entered executive session
at 8:25 p.m. and concluded the executive session at 10:20 p.m.
Mayor Koenig reconvened the regular meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
DR
A
F
T
Page 28
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 8, 2022
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of
March, 2022.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund
Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, and Webermeier
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer, and Recording
Secretary Disney
Absent: Trustee Younglund.
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2022 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW.
Engineer Barr provided an update on the 2022 Street Improvement and Trail Expansion
Program. He highlighted 1A sales tax funding, 2022 grant opportunities and planned
projects for 2022. Street projects would include Visitor Center parking lot
reconfiguration, Third Street rehabilitation, and Cleave Street improvements; and trail
projects would include the Fall River Trail and Graves Avenue improvements, which
would add approximately 0.8 miles of surfaced trails. The Board discussed the history of
street improvements since 2015, how other municipalities fund road maintenance, how
often side streets would be rated, and complaints received about side street damage.
TOWN SHUTTLE SERVICE TO THE YMCA CAMPUS.
Manager Solesbee presented a request for reinstatement of Town Shuttle services to
the YMCA Campus. She highlighted discontinuation of the service in 2018, increased
visitation, transit impacts such as paid parking and regional transportation, funding and
operational options, and stakeholder meetings. YMCA Representative, Jim Boyd spoke
in favor of the reinstatement of the service.
The Board discussed if identified funding options would cover all operational costs,
increased service options to other areas, potential YMCA financial contributions,
accessibility and safety, if seasonal paid parking and excess tabor revenue could be
funding options, long term investments from the YMCA, and previous service routes and
stops. Next steps would consist of continued stakeholder meetings to identify options for
reinstatement of the service for the 2022 summer season.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Machalek requested and it was determined to schedule the
Sidewalk Maintenance Ordinance and Larimer County Regional Transportation
Planning for May 24, 2022.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:09 p.m.
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
DR
A
F
T
Page 29
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 1, 2022
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Park on the 1st day of March, 2022.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, MacAlpine,
Martchink, Webermeier and Younglund
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town
Administrator Damweber, Attorney Kramer, Director/Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
VACATION HOME RENTAL (SHORT-TERM RENTAL) FEE STUDY
Town Clerk Williamson began the meeting by clarifying the term “vacation home”,
stating the term has been used in both the Development Code and Municipal Code to
refer to short-term rentals of less than 30 days, and in this context does not include
second homes owned and used by property owners for vacationing or long-term rentals.
A brief review of the origin of the study was provided which began on June 8, 2021 with
Mayor Pro Tem Martchink inquiring on the possibility of instituting a use tax or fee on
vacation home rentals. This led to the approval of a fee study at the Board meeting on
August 24, 2021. The Town engaged the services of Root Policy Research to conduct
a fee study to quantify the relationship between the operation of vacation home rentals
and the cost and availability of workforce housing. It was noted a fee would be one
element of a multi-prong strategy to address workforce housing.
Mollie Fitzpatrick/Roots Policy Research presented the final draft of the fee study. She
reviewed the methodology used, the market trends, the impact analysis, direct impact of
Estes Park STRs on workforce housing supply, and a fee calculation using an
“affordability gap” methodology. She noted, the study does not presume that every
short-term rental equates to a lost opportunity for workforce housing, rather determines
the degree to which short-term rentals have an impact on housing. The study found
that for every 100 short-term rentals in Estes Park the community sustains a loss of 3-9
rental units and 9 ownership units that would otherwise be occupied by local residents
(total resident housing loss of 7-18 units), an $11 increase in monthly rent of resident
units, and a $6,500 increase in home prices. The study found that the amount of the
fee justified by the data to mitigate the impact on the availability of workforce housing
units in Estes Park would be an annual fee of up to $1,390 per unit or a nightly rental
fee of up to $8.32 per unit, based on the average rental days per year of 167. On
average, this would equate to as much as 2.5% or 2.6% of gross receipts from the
rental of these units.
Discussion was heard and summarized: questioned how a fee would be utilized and
stated the Town should have a plan for how the funds would be used; what fund would
the fees reside; could the funds be placed in the workforce housing fund established in
2021; questioned the validity of the fee as it relates to TABOR; questioned if the funds
could be provided to the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) to leverage other
resources at their disposal; the report demonstrates short-term rentals have an impact
on workforce housing and those causing the impact should be assessed the fee; the fee
would be most likely a pass through to the rentals of the properties; the Town has been
planning for workforce housing through the creation of the workforce housing policy;
stated the current AMI in the housing policy should be reconsidered and focused on the
lower 80 – 100 AMI rather than the current level of up to 175 AMI; the fee would impact
DR
A
F
T
Page 30
Town Board Study Session – March 1, 2022– Page 2
the available workforce housing; commented the Town currently has a housing fund that
does not have a clear identified plan or projects, and this fee would be an additional
source for addressing workforce housing; could the funds be used to purchase land; the
different funding sources and multi-prong approach, can be used to leverage public-
private partnerships and other approaches to addressing workforce housing; and it was
suggested the proposed fee for short-term rentals would be considerably less than the
commercial property tax the property owners may pay if legislation was passed to
require the higher commercial tax based on the use.
Attorney Kramer stated a fee collected for workforce housing must be directed to
addressing workforce housing issues. The study aligns with the Town’s Workforce
Housing Policy to address housing for those at or below 175% AMI. The Town could
contract with EPHA to facilitate a project; however, it could not provide the funds directly
to the Authority. The funds could be used to purchase land for future development of
workforce housing.
The Board consensus was to move forward with a draft ordinance to be considered at
the March 22, 2022 meeting to include utilizing the Colorado Tourist Model with the fee
of $1,390 collected annually, applied to all zoning districts, and to adjust the fee
annually based on Commercial Price Index (CPI).
Mayor Koenig called a 10 minutes break.
REVISED POLICY 225 CHILDCARE FUNDING GUIDELINES.
Assistance Town Administrator Damweber outlined the options for the Town’s role with
respect to childcare, including providing direct financial support to childcare providers to
assist with workforce challenges, such as sign-on bonus, annual payment/bonus to
childcare staff or funds to childcare provider to master lease housing units, providing
funding for scholarships used to attend childcare, or directly provide childcare services
by operating and/or staffing a facility. Board discussion has been summarized: stated
concern with some of the options presented as all sectors of the community are having
difficulties hiring and maintaining staff; Estes Valley Investment in early Childcare
Success (EVICS) currently provides scholarship funding; in general the Board stated
there was no interest in running a daycare; the EVICS scholarship funds are emergency
funds for CCAP eligible individuals and the additional funding can be used for other
scholarships; suggested the Town could provide funds to EVICS to provide subsidies
for rents, salaries, etc.; and general support was heard for non-capital subsidies such as
rent or utilities and for scholarships.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber stated the current drafted policy to fund
childcare expenditures would reserve funds in excess of 105% of sales tax revenues
originally budgeted for the prior fiscal year. Other funding options could include an
annual allocation based on staff recommendation, standard funding amount annually,
annual allocation based on sales tax revenues of prior year based on excess sales tax
revenue, or a percentage based. Board discussion has been summarized: an annual
allocation to ensure the Town can address other needs; stated the Town should
consider one fund to address both workforce housing and childcare; the funding should
be discussed by the current board during the strategic planning process; concern with a
standard amount that future boards may not adjust overtime; and would prefer the
flexibility of considering funding over 105% of budget annually.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber stated establishing a funding mechanism for
childcare would provide a reserve that can build over time. The Board consensus was
to develop a reserve fund and annual staff recommendations.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber commented there are inherent risks
associated with providing funds to childcare providers. Staff would suggest stipulations
be included in a policy to ensure those awarded funds would agree to spend awarded
funds within 12 months of receipt, after project completion, must provide childcare for a
minimum of 24 months, submit a report to the Town upon completion of the project that
details how funds were spent and provide supporting documentation to confirm
DR
A
F
T
Page 31
Town Board Study Session – March 1, 2022– Page 3
expenditure of funds, and the Town can require additional stipulations on a case-by-
case basis. Board discussion was heard and summarized: questioned if a deed
restriction could be placed on a property to ensure childcare continues; the stipulations
should be on a case-by-case basis; suggested a six-month report for completed
projects rather than 12 months; and overall Board consensus with the addition of
stipulations.
Staff would prepared a policy for the Board’s consideration at an upcoming meeting
based on the feedback received.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
DR
A
F
T
Page 32
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 10, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held via ZOOM in said Town of Estes Park on February 10, 2022.
Committee: Chair Matthew Heiser, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Members
David Bangs, Charles Cooper, Eric Blackhurst, Kirby Nelson-
Hazelton, John Schnipkoweit, Frank Theis, Karen Thompson,
Rose Truman, David Wolf, David Shirk, Matt Comstock
Also Attending: Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Larimer
County Community Development Director Lesli Ellis, Trustee
Barbara MacAlpine, Larimer County Commissioner
Shadduck-McNally, Planning Technician LauraJane Baur,
Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,
Absent: Cooper, Comstock
Chair Heiser called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA:
Approval of Minutes from January 13, 2022. Chair Heiser requested that the additional
notes from the January 13 meeting be added to the official minutes.
The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote.
DISCUSSION: (for full comments, view the meeting recording)
Director Garner spoke on the two CompPlan updates that took place earlier in the week.
One at the Town Board Study Session and one at the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners. Notes and meeting links will be distributed to the Committee.
Director Garner reviewed the Draft Vision and Guiding Principles statements prepared by
Logan Simpson. Questions about the words responsible and iconic were commented on.
It was noted that the Guiding Principles are how we get to the Vision.
Recommendations from the Environmental Sustainability Taskforce were discussed.
Strong collaboration, resources and partnerships will be needed in order to implement
these ideas. Prioritizing these recommendations is essential.
With the help of Restorative Justice, Community Conversations are something being
considered in regard to CompPlan subjects. These can help with differing opinions and
tensions existing within the citizens of the Town and County to come to a consensus.
OTHER
Virtual meetings will continue through March, but in-person meetings can be discussed.
The meeting on February 24 will include the Estes Valley Planning Advisory Committee
and be facilitated by Logan Simpson.
The Spanish-speaking community engagement event will be on February 24 at the
Community Center, 6:00 p.m.
Regular CompPac meetings will continue on the second and fourth Thursdays of the
month.
Page 33
CompPAC – Feb. 10 – Page 2
There being no further business, Chair Heiser adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 34
TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 22, 2022
RE: Reappointment to the Estes Park Board of Adjustment of Francis
Holtzman for a term expiring March 31, 2025 and Guy Newsom for a term
expiring March 31, 2024
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To consider the reappointment of Francis ‘Joe’ Holtzman and Guy ‘Wayne’ Newsom to
the Estes Park Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The terms of Joe Holtzman and Wayne Newsom expire March 31, 2022. The Clerk’s
Office advertised for the positions and applications were received from both Joe
Holtzman and Wayne Newsom for reappointment.
Proposal:
Town Board liaison, Trustee MacAlpine, recommended forgoing interviews and
applications are being submitted to the Board for consideration of the reappointment of
Joe Holtzman to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2025 and to clarify the term of
Wayne Newsom to a term expiring March 31, 2024. Both Joe and Wayne have served
on the current Board since 2020 and served on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
prior to its termination in 2020.
Advantages:
Provides continuity on the Estes Park Board of Adjustment and would complete the
three-member Board.
Disadvantages:
If the reappointments are not made, the positions would remain vacant until the
positions could be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Page 35
Action Recommended:
Reappoint Joe Holtzman to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2025 and clarify the
term of Wayne Newsom to a term expiring March 31, 2024.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to the approve/deny the reappointment of Joe Holtzman to a term expiring
March 31, 2025 and clarify the term of Wayne Newsom to a term expiring March 31,
2024.
Attachments:
None.
Page 36
TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: March 22, 2022
RE: Reappointment of Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson to the Estes
Park Planning Commission for terms expiring March 31, 2028
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To consider the reappointments of Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson to the Estes
Park Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The terms of Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson expire March 31, 2022. The
Clerk’s Office advertised for the positions on the Commission and three applications
were received. Prior to conducting interviews one of the applicants withdrew their
application.
Proposal:
Town Board liaison, Trustee MacAlpine, recommended forgoing interviews and
applications are being submitted to the Board for consideration of the reappointment of
Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson for six-year terms expiring March 31, 2028.
Janene has served on the Commission since 2021 and Howard has served since 2020.
Advantages:
Provides continuity on the Estes Park Planning Commission and would complete the
six-member Commission.
Disadvantages:
If the reappointments are not made, the positions would remain vacant until the
positions could be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Reappoint Janene Centurione and Howard Hanson to the Estes Park Planning
Commission for six-year terms expiring March 31, 2028.
Page 37
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to the approve/deny the reappointment of Janene Centurione and Howard
Hanson to the Estes Park Planning Commission for six-year terms expiring March 31,
2028.
Attachments:
None.
Page 38
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1.MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 1.
Ordinance 02-22 Amending Title 5 of the Estes Park Municipal Code
Regarding Vacation Home Business License Fees and Establishing a
Related Enterprise..
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the item.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2.STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3.PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the item which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
7.SUGGESTED MOTION.
Page 39
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
*NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required
to do so by State Statute.
Page 40
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Date: March 22, 2022
RE: Ordinance 02-22 Amending Title 5 of the Estes Park Municipal Code
Regarding Vacation Home Business License Fees and Establishing a
Related Enterprise
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To consider an ordinance to establish a vacation home workforce housing regulatory
linkage fee and the associated enterprise fund to collect revenues and expend funds to
support the Town’s workforce housing programs and policies.
Present Situation:
As has been stated in previous Town Board study session memos, staff reviewed
options with the Board on instituting a use tax or fee for vacation home rentals (short-
term rental of less than 30 days) after hearing a suggestion from Mayor Pro Tem
Martchink at the June 8, 2021 study session. Through these discussions, the Board
directed staff to pursue a fee study related to the nexus of vacation home rentals and
workforce housing during the August 24, 2021 meeting. At the following meeting the
Board approved funding for the study and commented the study would provide the
Board with information on the impact of said rentals on the availability of workforce
housing, provide fee options to be considered by the Board through a public process,
and further recognized a need for multiple approaches to address the workforce
housing.
The Town engaged the services of Root Policy Research to conduct a fee study to
quantify the relationship between the operation of vacation home rentals and the cost
and availability of workforce housing. A special study session was held on December 1,
2021 to review the scope of the study, methodology to include descriptive statistics and
demand analysis, and if the study finds an impact exists, the Board could approve and
collect a fee to offset the impact. The Board reviewed drafts of the fee study at their
February 8 and March 1, 2022 study sessions.
Page 41
Proposal:
At the March 1 study session meeting the Board provided staff direction to draft an
ordinance to consider the implementation of a regulatory linkage fee. The Board
directed staff to draft an ordinance utilizing the Colorado Tourism model, setting the fee
justified by the study, collecting the fee annually with the vacation home renewal in
January of each year, applying the fee to both residential and non-residential zoning
districts, and adjusting the fee annually to keep pace with inflation.
The proposed ordinance includes the direction provided by the Board with a minor
exemption for certain properties zoned CO – Outlying Commercial. The vacation home
database contains approximately 15 properties licensed under this zoning district. This
zoning district does not permit household living for single-family, two-family and multi-
family dwelling units; however, the district does allow vacation homes. The exemption
is being proposed to allow a property owner to petition the Town for exclusion from the
fee if they can establish the property has not and cannot be used as a long-term rental.
The proposed ordinance establishes an enterprise fund to collect and expend fee
revenues, to be used exclusively to address workforce housing through methods such
as the acquisition of housing units, construction of new units, purchase of deed
restrictions on existing units, mortgage buydowns, rental assistance programs, and to
defray the costs associated with the administration of such items. An enterprise fund is
an appropriate and stringent way to segregate these revenues and ensure they are
carefully tracked and used only for their intended purposes.
Advantages:
• Establishes a regulatory linkage fee to address the impact of vacation homes on
workforce housing.
• Provides one revenue source to further address the workforce housing issue in
Estes Park to maintain the workforce.
• Establishes an Enterprise fund to collect fees and leverage financing options to
support the addition of workforce housing.
Disadvantages:
• A fee would most likely be passed on to the guest and increase the cost of a nightly
stay by approximately $8 per night based on the average number of nights a
vacation home is rented annually.
Action Recommended:
As this is a policy decision of the Board, staff has no recommendation.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The ordinance would establish a new enterprise fund to collect the vacation home
workforce housing regulatory linkage fee. The ordinance outlines the initial fee to be
collected in 2023 with the business license renewal. The Town currently has
approximately 500 registered vacation homes which would generate just under
$700,000 annually. These funds could only be used to address workforce housing
needs.
Page 42
Level of Public Interest:
Medium. Property owners, property managers and realtors have been engaged in the
topic and have questioned the fee study, the potential impact of the study and the cost.
Sample Motion
I move to approve/deny Ordinance 02 -22.
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 02 -22
2. Root Policy Final Fee Study
Page 43
ORDINANCE NO. 02-22
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING VACATION HOME BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND
ESTABLISHING A RELATED ENTERPRISE
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Ellipses in this ordinance indicate material not reproduced as the
Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads.
Section 2: Section 5.20.030 of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended,
by adding underlined material, to read as follows:
5.20.030 - Amount of license fee.
The business license fee is set forth as follows:
. . .
(6)Vacation home: two hundred dollars ($200.00) base fee per year; plus fifty
dollars ($50.00) for each bedroom as stated in the Larimer County Assessor
records; plus the vacation home workforce housing regulatory linkage fee as
described in section 5.20.120.
. . .
Section 3: The Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of
section 5.20.120, to read as follows:
5.20.120 –Vacation Home Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fee.
(a)Findings. The Board of Trustees finds as follows:
(1)The purpose of this section is to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the people of the Town by perfecting a comprehensive regulatory
program linking the operation of vacation homes with the need for and
provision of workforce housing.
(2)The Town has a program of applying Town funds to address workforce
housing needs within Town limits, as set forth in Town policy.
(3)The Vacation Home Rental (Short Term Rental) Fee Study (“Study”)
prepared by Root Policy Research and presented to the Board of Trustees
on March 22, 2022 demonstrates that the continued operation of vacation
homes has a detrimental impact on the availability of workforce housing
within the Town, and quantifies the impact, as well as the funds required to
address the impact, at thirteen hundred ninety dollars ($1390) per vacation
home per year. Accordingly, the continued operation of vacation homes will
cause the Town to incur costs of addressing workforce housing needs.
(4)Vacation home rental operations rely on a sustained local workforce, which
is essential not only to the vacation home rental operations directly but the
Attachment 1
Page 44
tourism-based portion of the Town’s economy as a whole, on which
vacation home rental operations depend.
(5) A fee on vacation homes is therefore appropriate both as a service to
vacation home licensees to sustain a local workforce to their benefit, and
also as part of a comprehensive regulatory program to defray the
reasonable direct costs of vacation homes on workforce housing and the
Town’s workforce housing program.
(6) The Town intends to establish such a vacation home workforce housing
regulatory linkage fee (“fee”) and apply the fee revenues to its workforce
housing program. As calculated based on the Study, the fee will bear a
reasonable relationship to the cost to the Town of permitting the continued
operation of the vacation homes.
(7) The fee will be collected as part of the fee for a vacation home business
license.
(8) The fee is not designed to, and will not, defray the general expenses of
Town government, but rather is a charge imposed for the purpose of
defraying a portion of the costs of the particular Town services and
programs. All the revenues of the fee will support only those services and
programs.
(9) Consistent with the determination of the Colorado Supreme Court in
Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation v. City of Aspen, 2018 CO 36,
that a charge is not a tax if the primary purpose of the charge is not to raise
revenue for general governmental purposes, but is instead to defray some
of the costs of regulating an activity under a comprehensive regulatory
scheme, the charges imposed by the Town and its enterprise as authorized
by this section are fees, not taxes, because each fee is collected from each
vacation home licensee for the primary purpose of defraying the costs of
mitigating the impact caused by the vacation home when engaging in an
activity that is subject to the fee in an amount reasonably related to the
impacts caused by the activity and the amount expended to mitigate that
impact; and, additionally, because the fee is collected and expended to the
benefit of the fee payer.
(10) The consumer price index is a reasonable approximation of the change
over time in nominal dollars of costs related to housing in Estes Park, and
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recommends the U.S. City Average
Consumer Price Index for use in escalator clauses.
(b) Vacation home workforce housing regulatory linkage fee.
(1) As part of the annual fee to secure an annual business license for a vacation
home as described in section 5.20.030, there shall be charged a vacation
home workforce housing regulatory linkage fee beginning with the 2023
license year. The initial amount of the fee upon passage of this section shall
be thirteen hundred ninety dollars ($1390) annually per vacation home
license for the 2023 license year.
(2) The amount of the fee shall be adjusted annually for inflation as calculated
by the Town Clerk, based on the All Items Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the U.S. City Average (“Index”), as published
by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or successor federal
agency. The Town Clerk shall use the Index for June 2022 as a baseline
and update the fee annually based on the index for each successive June.
The Town Clerk shall post notice of the new amount of the vacation home
workforce housing regulatory linkage fee each year on the Town’s website
prior to accepting payment of the license fee for vacation homes for the
Page 45
following license year, and in no case later than January 1 of the year for
which the license will apply.
(c) Exemption for certain vacation homes in the outlying commercial (CO) zoning
district. If an applicant for license or renewal of a vacation home business
license in the outlying commercial (CO) zoning district demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Town Clerk, in the form and manner and by the reasonable
time established by the Town Clerk, and in the Town Clerk’s reasonable
judgment, (1) that the property became or would become a vacation home at a
time when the Development Code permitted vacation homes in the CO zoning
district but prohibited household living there, (2) that the property was not used
for purposes of household living before becoming a vacation home, and (3) that
the property has not been used for purposes of household living since
becoming a vacation home, then the Town Clerk shall certify that the vacation
home business license is exempt from the vacation home workforce housing
regulatory linkage fee for the upcoming license year, and shall not charge this
fee as part of that year’s business license fee. Once the fee has been paid for
a vacation home, however, the Town Clerk shall not issue any refund of the fee
on the basis of this exemption.
(d) The vacation home licensee may pass the expected per-rental-night costs of
the fee to its customers on a nightly basis by inclusion of a surcharge on each
customer’s bill.
(e) All revenues from the fee shall be deposited in the workforce housing enterprise
fund as described in section 5.21.060. As described therein, the revenues from
the fee shall be expended only to defray the reasonable direct and indirect
costs of the following:
(1) the Town’s workforce housing programs and policies, which may include
but are not limited to acquisition of housing units, construction of new
units, purchase of deed restrictions on existing units, mortgage
buydowns, and rent assistance programs; and
(2) to defray the costs to the Town of the foregoing, including but not limited
to, costs of staff and personnel required for the administration and
enforcement of the regulatory program described in this section.
Section 4: The Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of
chapter 5.21, to read as follows:
Chapter 5.21 - Workforce Housing Enterprise
5.21.010 - Establishment of the Enterprise.
The Town hereby establishes the Workforce Housing Enterprise (“Enterprise”) as
an enterprise of the Town within the meaning of article X, section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution. It shall be the purpose of the Enterprise to pursue activities
to address the need for workforce housing in the Town, as defined and further
described in Town policy. The Enterprise is and operates as a government-owned
business of the Town to execute its business purpose of addressing the need for
workforce housing within the Town, and may receive revenues and incur expenses
accordingly. It undertakes the business of providing a service to fee payers of
generating housing opportunities to sustain a local workforce, to the direct and
indirect benefit of the fee payers. It provides remediation services and benefits to
fee payers when it remediates the impacts they cause, as described in this chapter
and section 5.20.120. It also undertakes the business as part of the Town’s
comprehensive regulatory program for vacation homes of ensuring the vacation
homes meet all Town requirements for the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants and the people of the Town, which allows licensure of the vacation
homes to operate within the Town, to the benefit of the fee payers.
Page 46
5.21.020 - Governing Body.
The members of the Board of Trustees shall serve as the governing body of the
Enterprise and shall be known collectively as the board of directors of the
Enterprise (the "Enterprise Board"). Acting as the Enterprise Board, the Board of
Trustees may exercise the Town’s legal authority relating to workforce housing.
The Board of Trustees acts on behalf of the Enterprise Board when it establishes
the fee described in section 5.20.120. The Enterprise Board hereby is directed to
take all actions necessary to cause the Enterprise to comply with all applicable
laws. The Board of Trustees shall conduct all official business of the Enterprise
Board at regularly scheduled or special meetings. The Board need not adjourn a
Board of Trustees meeting or specially convene an Enterprise Board meeting to
conduct business as the Enterprise Board. The Town Clerk shall record the
proceedings of the Enterprise Board in the minutes of the Board, and need not
record them separately. No additional oath of office, qualification or procedure shall
apply to such service as a member of the Enterprise Board. All otherwise
applicable requirements, privileges, immunities, protections, limitations, and other
provisions of law shall apply to and govern all business and actions of the
Enterprise Board.
5.21.030 - Powers of the Enterprise.
The Enterprise shall have the power to contract with any person or entity, and the
power to issue and reissue revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations through its
governing body in accordance with law. The powers provided in this section shall
not modify, limit or affect the powers conferred by any other law, including
ordinances, directly or indirectly. However, in no event shall the Enterprise have
authority to levy or collect taxes, whether sales taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, or
ad valorem taxes, nor to direct the Town or the Board of Trustees to exercise the
Town’s taxing power for the Enterprise.
5.21.040 – Relationship to Town.
In consideration of the Enterprise’s commitment to provide workforce housing
services for the benefit of the Town and, to that end, to collect and spend
revenues from fees and charges imposed by the Town or the Enterprise, or the
Town acting by and through the Enterprise, the Town hereby agrees to continue
to provide administrative services for the Enterprise and its activities, to allow the
Enterprise to receive the revenues of the fee described in section 5.20.120, and
to continue to hold title to and own all of the assets currently owned by the Town
and necessary to the operation of the Enterprise. Assets operated and
maintained by the Enterprise shall remain in the ownership of the Town. The
Board of Trustees hereby assigns the use and management of all such assets,
real and personal, to the Enterprise.
5.21.050 – Transactions in the Name of the Town.
Any and all transactions of the Enterprise may be done in the name of the Town
acting by and through the Enterprise and neither this chapter nor any transaction
entered into pursuant to it shall alter or abrogate the relationship of the Town and
the Enterprise as established in section 5.21.040 and as may be further clarified
by ordinance from time to time.
5.21.060 – Enterprise Fund.
The Board hereby establishes a separate enterprise fund to account for revenues
and expenditures of the Enterprise. The Enterprise shall receive less than ten
percent of its annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local
governments combined. The Town Administrator or designee shall prepare, for
the Enterprise, an annual budget, which may be part of the entire budget for the
Town. All budgets, reports, audits and financial operations of the Enterprise shall
conform to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental
Page 47
units and other requirements of law. The Finance Director shall maintain the
enterprise fund to exclude its revenue and its spending and other activities from
provisions of section 20 of article X of the Colorado Constitution as permitted by
law. The Finance Director shall track and account for revenues and expenditures
of the enterprise fund separately from all other revenues and expenditures of the
Town. Revenues from the fee described in section 5.20.120 shall be deposited
directly into the enterprise fund without passing through any other Town fund. The
moneys in the enterprise fund shall not be used for general municipal or
governmental purposes or spending, nor shall the fund ever be transferred to or
become part of the Town’s general fund. The moneys in the enterprise fund shall
be used only to defray the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the following:
(a) the Town’s workforce housing programs and policies, which may include
but are not limited to acquisition of housing units, construction of new
units, purchase of deed restrictions on existing units, mortgage
buydowns, and rent assistance programs; and
(b) to defray the costs to the Town of the foregoing, including but not limited
to, costs of staff and personnel required for the administration and
enforcement of the regulatory program described in section 5.20.120.
Section 5: Section 1.04.120 of the Estes Park Municipal Code regarding
severability shall apply to this ordinance and its various sections, provisions, and parts.
Section 6: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2022 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day
of , 2022, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel E. Kramer
Town Attorney
Page 48
Root Policy Research
6741 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80220
www.rootpolicy.com
970.880.1415
Town of Estes Park
Vacation Home Rental
(Short Term Rental)
Fee Study
PREPARED FOR: UPDATED
Town of Estes Park 2/22/2022
INTRODUCTION
The object of the Estes Park Vacation Home Fee Study is to quantify the relationship
between the operation of homes in the Town as short-term rentals (STRs) and the cost and
availability of workforce housing. The study is founded on a rigorous methodology such
that the Town could base a fee on the results if desired.
In this report, the term “Vacation Home” is used interchangeably with “Short Term
Rental” or “STR,” consistent with the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code which defines
a Vacation Home as “a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied for
accommodation purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days.”
The study begins with an overview of the historical housing market and economic trends in
Estes Park followed by an analysis of the Town’s STR market to provide context for the
impact analysis and concludes with a fee calculation based on the impact results.
Attachment 2
Page 49
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Demographic & Housing Market Context
This section offers an overview of socioeconomic trends and the housing market in Estes
Park to provide context for the impact analysis.
This would include shifts in housing stock, prices, and affordability; vacation/second home
trends; the number of short term rentals (along with market metrics for price, occupancy,
and characteristics of short term rentals), and socioeconomic trends (e.g., demographics,
resident incomes, industries, and wages). Key data sources for this analysis would include
US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Larimer County Assessor, Multiple List
Service; Multifamily Vacancy Survey; the Estes Valley Housing Authority subsidized housing
inventory; and MUNIRevs (STR database).
Demographic Profile
According to estimates from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the
permanent resident population of Estes Park peaked in 2016 at 6,777 and has declined
slightly over the past few years to 6,208 in 2019 (the most recent year of data available).
Figure I-1 shows population trends by age in Estes Park. Seniors account for over one-third
of the permanent resident population (37%, up from 29% in 2010). The proportion of
middle age residents and children has declined over the past decade (from 28% middle age
to 20% and 16% children to 8%).
Figure I-1.
Population and Age
Source: DOLA and ACS.
Page 50
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 2
Figure I-2 shows population trends alongside employment and commuting trends.
Although total Estes Park jobs has increased, the number of resident workers has
remained flat. In other words—worker growth is not keeping up with job growth,
particularly in the last few years. This means individual workers are taking on more jobs
and/or the number of jobs held by in-commuters increases. As shown in the table below
the figure the proportion of Estes Park jobs held by in-commuters has increased from 61%
in 2015 to 65% in 2019.
Figure I-2.
Jobs and Workers
Source: LEHD.
Housing Profile
Trends in the Estes Park housing market show rising rents and home prices, a rise in
homes used for seasonal/recreational use (which includes second homes and short term
rentals), and limited available inventory (for both rental and for-sale products).
Figure I-3 shows the total housing units in Estes Park and reveals trends in occupancy over
the past decade. As illustrated, the total number of units has increased only slightly and the
composition of those units has shifted in recent year toward more seasonal use and fewer
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total Estes Park Residents 5,865 6,015 6,219 6,276 6,412 6,658 6,777 6,490 6,412 6,208
All Estes Park Jobs 3,094 2,843 3,085 3,069 3,063 3,383 3,354 3,592 3,733 3,830
All Estes Park Resident Workers 2,291 2,204 2,321 2,276 2,374 2,721 2,673 2,711 2,761 2,668
Residents Living & Working in Estes 1,075 972 1,128 1,075 1,101 1,323 1,242 1,343 1,378 1,351
Jobs to workers Ratio 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4
% Estes Park jobs held by in-
commuters 65% 66% 63% 65% 64% 61% 63% 63% 63% 65%
% of Estes Park working residents that
are out-commuters 53% 56% 51% 53% 54% 51% 54% 50% 50% 49%
Page 51
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 3
resident occupied units. These trends may indicate a shortage of housing for workforce—
either due to price increases or competition from second home buyers and investors.
Figure I-3.
Housing Units and Occupancy
Source: DOLA and ACS.
Building permit activity has increased over the last couple years with notable activity in the
multifamily market. However, it isn’t clear from the permit data if these units will be
occupied by local workforce or if they are primarily marketed as second home condo
opportunities.
Average asking rent in Estes Park is about $1,845 per month (according to an analysis of
recent listings on apartment sites, including Craigslist). This reflects a 32% increase in
average rent since 2015, when the same analysis showed average rents at $1,395.
Figure I-4.
Building
Permits
Source:
Town of Estes Park.
Page 52
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 4
Figure I-5 shows the distribution of all rents (including those currently occupied and not on
the open market) in 2010, 2015, and 2019. As illustrated, rents have consistently shifted
upwards over the past decade.
Figure I-5.
Rental
Distribution
Note:
Average listed rent increased
32% between 2015 and 2021,
from $1,395 to $1,845.
Source:
Note from Craigslist data;
chart from ACS.
Figure I-6 shows trends in the for-sale price of homes and illustrates the drastic increase in
home prices over the past five years. The average sales price in Estes in 2021 was $677,000.
Figure I-6.
Average Sale Price
Source: Larimer County Assessor.
Page 53
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 5
SECTION II.
Short Term Rental Market
There are currently 480 registered short term rentals (STRs) in Estes Park: 322 in residential
zone districts and 158 in commercial districts. As shown in Figure II-1, STRs have increased
in both residential and commercial zone districts, particularly over the past six years.
Figure II-1.
Registered STRs by Zone, 2010-2021
Source: Town of Estes Park.
Data from AirDNA (an online aggregator of STR listings) shows similar increases in the
number of active STR listings in Estes Park over the past five years (regardless of
registration status), despite a slight dampening of activity during COVID (2020-2021).1
Figure II-2.
Active STR Listings
by Zone, 2017-2021
Note:
Active Commercial Listings
excludes listings in A
(Accommodation) Zone Districts
but includes A-1 zones.
Source:
AirDNA and Root Policy Research.
1 For the purposes of this analysis, “active” means a property listed on AirBNB, VRBO, or other HomeAway site at least
once per month in at least six months of a given year. The analysis focuses on “entire home” listings in order to exclude
residents who may rent out a room in their home on occasion.
Page 54
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 6
Figure II-3 show the geographic location of active STRs in Estes Park: yellow dots indicate
STRs in residential zone districts and red dots indicate commercially zoned STRs.
Figure II-3.
Active STRs, 2020-2021
Note: Includes all Commercially zoned STRs, even those in A (Accommodation zones).
Source: Town of Estes Park and Root Policy Research.
On average, Estes Park STRs have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms with a guest capacity of six
people. The average daily rate is $328 per night. STRs in residential zones tend to be larger
on average than those in commercial zones and, as such, command higher average daily
rates than STRs in commercial zones.
Figure II-4.
Estes Park STR
Characteristics
Source:
AirDNA and Root Policy
Research.
The typical STR in Estes Park is rented 167 days per year and generates $53,684 in revenue
annually.
Bedrooms Bathrooms
Guest
Capacity
Average
Daily Rate
All Active STRs 2.2 1.9 6.1 $328
in Residential zones 2.7 2.1 6.7 $366
in Accommodation zones 1.8 1.9 5.9 $314
in Other Commercial zones 2.0 1.9 5.7 $315
Page 55
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 7
SECTION III.
Impact Analysis
The housing profile and STR market anlaysis presented in prior sections highlight recent
trends that reveal an increase in vacation home stock, declining permanent resident
occupancy, rising rents and home prices, and an increase in STR registration and activity in
Estes Park. This section uses a regression analysis to determine whether there is a causal
relationship between these trends. Specifically, the impact analysis is designed to isolate
and quantify the effect of STRs in Estes Park on the availability (and price) of housing for
the local resident workforce.
The methodology used to quantify STR impacts in Estes Park builds on the work of a
national, peer reviewed study published in 2021: “The Effect of Home-Sharing on House
Prices and Rents: Evidence from Airbnb.”2
This national study uses a dataset of Airbnb listings at the zip code level from the entire
United States merged with U.S. Census data to assess the impact of home-sharing on
residential house prices and rents, and the reallocation of homes from the long term rental
(LTR) to the short term rental (STR) market. The findings indicate that Airbnb has an
upward impact on house prices and rents: a 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a
0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices. Formal statistical tests
show the Airbnb effect is driven by the reallocation of the housing supply and that the total
supply of housing is not affected by the entry of Airbnb, but that Airbnb listings decrease
the supply of long-term rental units. The econometric model built for the national study:
Controls for local demographic trends including changes in population, income,
employment and education—over time and across geographies.
Uses a fixed effects specification that controls for shocks to housing market conditions
that are common across geographies, as well as controlling for the average differences
across geographies in any unobservable amenities; and
Uses an instrumental variable (IV) approach that measures causal impacts of growth
in STR’s on different measures of housing supply.
In addition, the study reflects a national analysis, which is broadly applicable, and has the
credential of being published in a well-respected academic journal with extensive peer-
review vetting.
2 Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from
Airbnb. Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47.
Page 56
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 8
Root Policy Research adapted the methodology developed for the national study to the
Estes Park context in two ways:
1. Applied the coefficients of the national regression analysis to Estes Park input data on
housing stock and tenure; and
2. Built a Colorado-specific regression analysis following the methodology and
econometric specifications of the national study using updated local datasets and
expanding the time period covered.3
Root also tested variations of the Colorado model to focus on results specific to areas with
an above-average share of tourism-driven economic activity. Construction of a regression
using only Estes Park data was not feasible due to the relatively small geography of the
Town.4 However, applying coefficients from both the national model and state model to
Estes Park data allows us to extrapolate a robust estimate of the local impact. Model
results are discussed below; please see Technical Appendix for additional details.
Model results. Figure III-1 shows the results of applying the coefficients of the national
and state models to Estes Park’s input data. The estimates shown measure the impact of a
1% increase in STRs on the overall supply and acute availability of specified housing types.
The figure shows the results of the IV model for the national analysis (which isolates the
causal impact of STRS). Results of the state model show both the baseline model (without
instrumental variables) and the IV model (which uses the instrumental variable to pinpoint
the causal impact). It is common practice to review both baseline and IV models when
replicating an analysis as the baseline model helps to confirm the underlying approach and
the precision of the model structure; however, the IV model reflects a more clear
representation of magnitude of the impact created by the presence of STRs.5
Note that the national model does not estimate the impacts on the owner stock; however
the estimates of on the rental stock and vacant homes are similar to enough to our
Colorado model, implying the owner stock coefficients are probably similar to what would
be estimated at the national level.
Price impacts derived from the national model (with Estes Park inputs) are also included,
though Root was not able to replicate the price impact in the Colorado with the data
available (price impacts require a separate monthly regression analysis but Root’s analysis
focused on replication of the national annual model).
3 The national study covers the years 2011 to 2016; the Colorado model covers the years 2011-2019.
4 The model specification uses ZIP code level panel data and since the majority of the Town is covered by a single ZIP
code, there simply aren’t enough observations to yield results.
5 Coefficient bias is reduced by the IV specification, although the estimates have larger standard errors which result in
lower statistical significance—a common statistical outcome of IV models.
Page 57
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 9
Figure III-1. Model Results Applied to Estes Park: Supply Impacts of a 1%
Increase in Short Term Rentals in Estes Park
Note: * indicates statistically significant result. Coefficients applied to zip code 80517. National model covers years 2011 to 2016.
Colorado model restricts sample to Colorado only and extends the time period to 2019.
Source: Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb.
Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47, AirDNA, U.S. Census, Google Trends, and Root Policy Research.
Results presented in the Figure can be interpreted as follows:
According to the general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s decreases the
rental stock by approximately 1.4%; according to the estimates produced by the
Colorado model a doubling in the number of STR’s can decrease the rental stock by as
little as 1.9% and as much as 2.8%.
On the ownership market, according to the estimates produced by the Colorado
model doubling the number of STR’s decreases the ownership stock by as little as 1.1%
and as much as 2.2%. (The general model does not estimate the impacts on the owner
stock; however the estimates of on the rental stock and vacant homes are similar to
enough to our Colorado model, implying the owner stock coefficients are probably
similar to what would be estimated at the national level).
An increase in STR’s leads to a tighter rental market with lower vacancies. In the
general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s decreases the number of vacant
units for rent by 2.9% and in the Colorado model, a doubling of the number of STR’s
can decrease the number of vacant units for rent by 2.2% and up to 5.7%.
In the general model, a doubling in the number of STR’s increases the number of
vacant units for seasonal and recreational purposes by 7%, while in the Colorado
model the impact ranges from a 7% to a 15.7% increase in vacant units for seasonal
and recreational purposes.
Due to the significant reduction in the sample size from the national to the state level,
several of the coefficients in the state model are not statistically significant. However, the
fact that in general the magnitude and direction of the coefficients are in line with the
Supply Impacts
Rental Stock -0.0138%*-0.0195%*-0.0285%-0.0413%
Owners Stock n/a -0.0108%*-0.0223%
Vacancy Impacts
Vacant for Rent -0.0291%*-0.0225%-0.0570%-0.2240%
Vacant for Seasonal Use 0.0705% * 0.0750% * 0.1572% *
Price Impact
Rents 0.0290% *
Home Price 0.0470% *
high error
high error
not quantifiable with current data
not quantifiable with current data
National Colorado Model
General Model
(IV)
Baseline
Model
Baseline with Causal
Instrument (IV)
Above-Average
Tourism (IV)
Page 58
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 10
findings of the academic paper provide evidence that the model is well specified but lacks
statistical power due to the reduction in the number of observations. The Colorado
coefficients from the baseline models on the rental stock, ownership stock, and seasonal
vacancies, are statistically significant, as well as the IV estimate for seasonal vacancies.
The number of observations is further reduced when we restrict the sample to zip codes
with more tourism driven economies6 which makes the variables more prone to
measurement error and the estimates more imprecise. However, they also more closely
reflect the specific characteristics of Estes Park as such may more accurately represent true
impacts.
Summary of STR impacts. The model output above highlights the housing market
impacts caused directly by the home sharing economy. Home sharing can create a
reallocation of the rental stock from the long-term rental to the short term rental market.
This can increase rental rates and house prices, decrease vacancy rates in the long-term
market, and create a tighter market for long-term renters.
Figure III-2 summarizes the direct impact of STRs in Estes Park on the supply of workforce
housing (both rental and owner) by converting the percentage impacts identified in the
model into unit-level impacts based on current STR and market data for Estes Park. Results
are presented in a range of impacts where the national model (with Estes Park inputs)
reflects a lower bound.
Figure III-2. Direct Impact of Estes Park STRs on Workforce Housing
Source: Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb.
Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47, AirDNA, U.S. Census, Google Trends, and Root Policy Research.
Every 100 STRs in Estes Park leads to a loss of 3-9 rental units and 4-9 ownership units that
would otherwise be occupied by local residents (total resident housing loss of 7-18 units).
In addition, every 100 STRs in Estes Park result in an $11 increase in monthly rent of
resident units and a $6,500 increase in home prices.
6 Measured as those that have an above median share of business establishments that belong to the accommodation
and food services industry in 2010.
National
Model (IV)
Colroado
Model (IV)
Colorado Tourist
Model (IV)
Units Lost from Rental stock per 100 STRs 3.0 units 6.2 units 9.0 units
Units Lost from Owner stock per 100 STRs 4.1 units 8.6 units n/a
Monthly Rent increase (among LTRs) per 100 STRs $11 n/a n/a
Home Price increase per 100 STRs $6,499 n/a n/a
Page 59
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 11
SECTION IV.
Supportable Fee Calculation
This section calculates a potential STR fee according to the supply impact quantified in the
previous section. The fee is derived directly from the units lost (both rental and owner) and
relies on the “affordability gap” methodology to measure the cost of lost units. The
affordability gap is an industry standard methodology, commonly used in nexus studies
that calculate affordable housing linkage fees and impact fees. It is the same methodology
used in Colorado’s most recent Short Term Rental Impact Fee implemented in the Town of
Breckenridge (2021).
The affordability gap methodology fee is based on the difference in price between market-
rate units and units affordable to the workforce, weighted by the actual income distribution
of Estes Park permanent residents. The fee itself reflects the affordability gap applied to
the direct impact of STRs, and is calculated with the following components:
1. Causal supply impact of STRs: the number of housing units lost from Estes Park’s
workforce housing inventory as a direct result of STRs (see Figure III-2). The impacts
summarized in Figure III-2 are derived from Estes Park data applied to national, state,
and substate econometric models which effectively and reliably isolate the direct
impacts created by specifically by STRs. The fee calculation focuses on the results most
applicable to the Estes Park market: the Colorado and the Colorado Tourist models.
2. Affordability gap per household of both renter and owner housing in Estes Park
(shown in Figure IV-1, on the following page). This reflects the difference in market rate
housing and what is affordable to workforce, weighted by the income distribution of
existing residents. Incomes are shown as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) to
be consistent with standardized income limits for housing programs. Affordability gaps
are evaluated up to incomes of 175% of AMI, consistent with the Town of Estes Park’s
adopted definition of affordable workforce housing. Max rent and home prices assume
30% of gross income is spent on housing. Home price calculations assume a fixed rate
30-year mortgage with a 10% down payment and a 4.5% interest rate; mortgage costs
are assumed to account for 75% of total monthly household expenses (the remaining
25% is property tax, insurance, HOA fees, utilities, etc.). The ownership affordability gap
is annualized over a period of 30 years, the standard term of a home mortgage.
3. The supportable fee calculation multiplies the affordability gap per
household by the number of households lost from rental and ownership stock as a
direct result of STRs.
Figure IV-1, on the following page, shows the affordability gap calculations for both renter
and owner households as well as the application of those gaps to the supply impacts
quantified in Section III. The resulting justifiable fee is $1,157-$1,390 per STR per year.
Page 60
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 1
Figure IV-1. Potential Short Term Rental Fee Calculation
Note: The tourist owner impact defers to state model results as the owner tourist metric did not meet statistical reliability standards.
Source: Root Policy Research.
MARKET RATE HOUSING PRICES
2021 Average Sales Price, Estes Park:$677,316
2021 Average Rent, Estes Park:$1,845
Owner Households
by Income Range
% of
owners
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 6% $23,000 $93,623 $583,693 $19,456
30-60% AMI 11% $46,080 $187,572 $489,744 $16,325
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $249,933 $427,383 $14,246
80-100% AMI 12% $76,800 $312,620 $364,696 $12,157
100-120% AMI 10% $92,160 $375,144 $302,172 $10,072
120-175% AMI 23% $134,400 $547,085 $130,231 $4,341
175% AMI or more 29%n/a n/a n/a n/a
Weighted Annual Gap per Owner Household $7,696
Renter Households
by Income Range
% of
renters
2021
Income
Limit
0-30% AMI 23% $23,000 $575 $1,270 $15,240
30-60% AMI 47% $46,080 $1,152 $693 $8,316
60-80% AMI 10% $61,400 $1,535 $310 $3,720
80-100% AMI 5% $76,800 $1,920 $0 $0
100-120% AMI 2% $92,160 $2,304 $0 $0
120-175% AMI 5% $134,400 $3,360 $0 $0
175% AMI or more 8%n/a n/a n/a n/a
Weighted Annual Gap per Renter Household $7,744
AFFORDABILITY GAP APPLIED TO STR IMPACTS
STR Impacts (see Section III for details)CO Model CO Tourist Model
Units Lost from Rental stock per 100 STRs 6 9
Units Lost from Owner stock per 100 STRs 9 9
Fee Application
Annual Rental Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 46,461$ 69,692$
Annual Owner Affordability Gap created by 100 STRs 69,261$ 69,261$
Agregate Annual Affordability Gap per 100 STRs 115,722$ 138,953$
Supportable Annual Fee per STR 1,157$ 1,390$
Monthly
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
Annualized
Affordability
Gap
AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION:
DIFFERENCE IN AFFORDABLE TO WORKFORCE AND MARKET RATE
Max
Affordable
Home Price
Max
Affordable
Rent
Affordability
Gap
Page 61
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH PAGE 2
As illustrated in the previous figure, this vacation home (STR) impact study supports
a fee of up to $1,390 per unit per year to mitigate the quantifiable impact of STRs on
local workforce housing. It is important to note that the methodology described above
reflects a conservative approach to fee calculation as the fee only captures the marginal
difference between market-rate home costs and workforce affordable home costs (as
opposed to capturing the full cost to construct “replacement” units) and because it
assumes displaced households have the same income representation as current residents.
Figure IV-2 shows the supportable fee in the context of average STR characteristics—both
as an annual per unit fee and a nightly fee (based on average number of booked nights).
Figure IV-2.
Supportable Fee in
Context
Note:
Nightly rate calculation based on
average number of rented nights per
year; typical Estes Park STR
characteristics discussed in detail in
Section II of this report.
Source:
Root Policy.
As discussed in the introduction, the purpose of this report was to quantify the relationship
between the operation of homes in the Town as short-term rentals (STRs) and the cost and
availability of workforce housing in a manner that could be compatible with appropriate
fee implementation. As the Town considers the policy implications of the impact findings,
the consultant offers the following considerations related to potential fee implementation:
Should a fee be imposed, revenues from fee generation should be allocated to
workforce housing investments for qualifying households up to 175% of AMI, in line
with the fee calculation shown in Figure IV-1 and the Town’s definition of affordable
workforce housing. Should the Town adjust its workforce housing definition to include
households up to 200% of AMI, the affordability gap calculated in Figure IV-1 would
increase, resulting in a supportable annual per unit fee $15 higher than is currently
shown in Figure IV-1.
The STR impacts calculated in this report capture the collective impact of all STRs in
Estes Park, regardless of zone district. If the Town does choose to impose a fee, the fee
could reasonably be applied to both residentially- and non-residentially-zoned STRs.
Similar to impact and linkage fee standards, the Town could consider an annual
escalation schedule tied to the consumer price index (CPI) in order to allow for
administrative adjustments to keep pace with inflation. It is common practice to
update fee nexus studies, such as this one, every three to five years to ensure fee
amounts continue to reflect quantifiable impacts.
Colorado
Model
CO Tourist
Model
Supportable Annual Fee per STR $1,157 $1,390
As a % of average annual revenue for
typical Estes Park STR ($53,684)2.2% 2.6%
Supportable Nightly Fee
(based on average of 167 rented nights/yr)$6.93 $8.32
% increase to average daily rate for
typical Estes Park STR ($328)2.1% 2.5%
Page 62
TECHNICAL APPENDIX.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OF ECONOMETRIC
MODEL
Page 63
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH TECHNICAL APPENDIX, PAGE 1
Technical Appendix
This section provides the methodology used to derive the estimates of reallocation of
homes from the LTR to STR market. The methodology follows the analysis conducted in
“The Effect of Home-Sharing on House Prices and Rents: Evidence from Airbnb”1 and
applies the same model to Colorado and expands the time period covered from 2011 to
2019.
Methodology
The main econometric specification used is:
𝐿𝑛𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠௧
=𝛼+𝛽 𝐿𝑛𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑏𝑛𝑏௧ +𝛾 𝐿𝑛𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑏𝑛𝑏௧ × 𝑂𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒,ଶଵଷ + 𝑋௧ + 𝜇
+ 𝜃௧ + 𝜀௧
Where 𝐿𝑛 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠௧ is the natural log of different measures of housing supply in each
zip code area, including: the number of rental units (occupied plus vacant for rent), the
number of ownership units (occupied plus vacant for sale), the number of vacant units for
rent, the number of vacant units for seasonal and recreational purposes, and the total
number of housing units. 𝐿𝑛 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑏𝑛𝑏௧ is the natural log of the total number of cumulative
listings in each zip code and year. The total number of Airbnb listings is also interacted with
the share of total housing units that were owner occupied in 2010. 𝑋௧ is a vector of zip
level controls including: the natural log of population and median household income, and
the employment rate of the population over 16 and the share of population over 25 with a
college degree. Zip code level fixed effects 𝜇 are included to account for differences in
fixed amenities across zip codes, and time fixed effect 𝜃௧ to control for time varying factors
that impact all zip codes equally.
Given that there may still be unobserved factors in the error term that are correlated with
Airbnb activity, an instrumental variable is used. This variable needs to be uncorrelated
with local housing markets and be correlated with the number of Airbnb listings. The
instrument used follows Barron et al. (2019) and measures the volume of Google searches
which is then interacted with the number of tourism related establishments in each zip
code in 2010. This instrument is chosen because Google trends data represent a measure
of the extent to which awareness of Airbnb has diffused to the public and is not likely to be
reflective of growth in overall tourism demand therefore the predicted change in short
term housing is driven only by Airbnb penetration. The Google trends measure is
1 Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from
Airbnb. Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47.
Page 64
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH TECHNICAL APPENDIX, PAGE 2
interacted with a measure to tourism activity because it is assumed that that potential
hosts are be more likely to rent their property in the short-term market in response to
learning about Airbnb. This instrument therefore interacts an exogenous variable with an
endogenous exposure variable. Extensive evidence of the validity of the instrument used is
presented in the Barron et al. (2019) study.
Data
Data for Airbnb listings come from two sources, the Colorado data used in Barron et al.
(2019)2 merged with AirDNA, an analytics company that scrapes data from Airbnb. Data
used are the number of listings in each Zip code, and the number of listings used is
restricted to entire home listings, which are more likely to impact the housing supply
versus private and shared rooms. For calculating the number of Airbnb listings by year, this
study follows Barron et al. (2019) and assumes the listing enters the short term rental
supply the year the listing it is posted in Airbnb and assumes that listings never exit.
Although this is likely to overestimate listings, this would only cause biases if this is
correlated with the error term after controlling for several zip code characteristics.
Data on housing supply and local controls come from the American Community Survey
(ACS) annual estimates at the zip code level. ACS data at the zip code level are reported on
five-year running averages to smooth out annual fluctuations from sampling error of
smaller areas. To account for this serial correlation in the dependent variable, standard
errors are clustered at the zip-code level.
The instrumental variable is constructed using the Google trends index data from the state
of Colorado. Google Trends data are normalized so that the date with the highest search
volume is given the value of 100, data are available at the monthly level which is then
averaged to construct annual observations. The annual Google trends index is interacted
with the zip code level number of establishments in the food services and accommodations
industry (NAICS 72) in 2010 from the Census Bureau Business Patterns data.
Results
Figure A-1 shows results from the coefficients of interest— 𝛽 and 𝛾 —for the different
regression models. The coefficients are interpreted in the following fashion: In the
instrumental variable regression coefficients for 𝛽 and 𝛾 measure the impact on the rental
stock found in Barron et al. (2019) and are -0.036*** and 0.053***; meaning that using
Estes Park’s owner occupancy rate of 42%, a 1% increase in listings leads to a 0.0138%
(0.053 × 0.42 -0.036) decrease in the rental stock.
2 Data was gathered through web scrapping by authors of the study.
Page 65
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH TECHNICAL APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure A-1.
Regression Coefficient Results
Note: Significance levels: +=p<0.15=85% confidence, *=p<0.1=90% confidence, **=p<0.05=95% confidence, ***=p<0.01=99%
confidence.
Source: Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb.
Marketing Science, 40(1), 23-47, and Root Policy Research.
β Coefficient γ Coefficient Impact
Rental Stock
Barron et al. -0.036*** 0.053*** (0.053*0.42)-0.036= -0.0138
Colorado Baseline -0.059** 0.095** (0.095*0.42)-0.059= -0.0195
Colorado IV -0.041 0.031 (0.031*0.42)-0.041= -0.0285
Colorado Tourism IV -0.022 -0.047 (-0.047*0.42)-0.022= -0.0413
Vacant for Rent
Barron et al. -0.048* 0.045* (0.045*0.42)-0.048= -0.0291
Colorado Baseline -0.042 0.047 (0.047*0.42)-0.042= -0.0225
Colorado IV -0.020 -0.086 (-0.086*0.42)-0.020= -0.057
Colorado Tourism IV -0.24+0.038 (0.038*0.42)-0.024= -0.224
Vacant for Seasonal Use
Barron et al. 0.078* -0.018 (-0.018*0.42)+0.078= 0.0704
Colorado Baseline 0.087** -0.028 (-0.028*0.42)+0.087= 0.075
Colorado IV 0.128*0.070 (0.070*0.42)+0.128= 0.1572
Owner Stock
Colorado Baseline -0.023* 0.028 (0.028*0.42)-0.023= -0.0108
Colorado IV -0.029+0.015 (0.015*0.42)-0.029= -0.0223
Page 66
Peter & Dana Maxwell
Estes Park, CO
Disclosure: We operate three short term rental units in the building at 552 W Elkhorn, zoned
Commercial Outlying.
1)The study is CLEAR that specifically short-term rentals impact housing availability and cost.
Incredibly, figures are pre-2020, so I can only imagine how the figures would increase if more
recent housing costs were included. I agree whole-heartedly that the figures are conservative,
as mentioned in the study results.
2)Fees assessed by zone. There are Short Term Rentals in zones that do NOT allow for family or
long or short-term residential use. One example is Commercial Outlying (CO). This zone type
does allow for STR use but does not allow for long term or short-term residential use of any kind.
It’s impossible, then, that STRs in CO zoning areas are impacting available long-term housing or
the cost of residential housing. Given that, we would ask that any impact fees levied should
apply to STRs operating in zones that allow for long-term family or residential housing.
Three years ago, we were approached and asked if we would be interested in purchasing the
building then operated by Antonio's Pizza. The lot is zone Commercial Outlying. As ANYONE
who ever experienced it can attest, the building was too small for the crowd it drew, and the
parking available was insufficient. It created a lot of problems. We bought the building. The
issue was the business had created income that inflated the value beyond what the square
footage would bring under any other traditional use with such a small parking lot. For example,
you couldn't rent it as office space and ever have it pay for itself. (Sound familiar, inflated home
values!?!?) Already being in the hospitality business, we spoke with our condo neighbors to the
South of the building and discussed our plans to turn the previously overrun pizza place into
three, single bedroom, two occupants max, overnight stay units. The feedback was unanimous
–it was a welcome change. We’ve continued to have a great relationship with them and
appreciate them as neighbors.
The bottom line is that in this instance, these three units were 1) not disruptive to the
community, lessening the impact of the lot on the surrounding community and 2) utilized as
STRs without impacting the availability or cost of long-term housing in the Estes Valley.
We would therefor urge the board to not levee impact fees on STRs operating in zones where
long-term or family housing use is not permissible in any way – including Commercial Outlying.
Because they operate in a zone where long-term residential use is prohibited, STRs in these
zones simply cannot contribute to the lack of availability or increasing cost of residential housing
which has been otherwise brought on by STR operation in residential zones.
Public Comment received by 03-16-2022
Page 67
Fwd: Possible Fee Uses Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 1:32 PM
Good Afternoon Mayor Koenig, Trustees, and Staff,
Linked in this email is a document containing a list of possible uses for a funding stream that could
support housing. It includes values or costs associated with each to help provide some perspective
on the scale of funding needed.
I hope you find this helpful.
--
Naomi Hawf
Estes Park Housing Authority
Executive Director
363 E Elkhorn Ave Suite 101
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Office 970-591-2535
Fax 970-591-2538
Public Comment Received by 03-18-2022
Page 68
18 March 2022
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees and Staff
RE: Possible Uses for Fees
Dear Board of Trustees and Staff
Over the past several weeks, conversations are occurring regarding the uses of potential funding streams
for Housing. Including the presentation on March 1st from Root Policy Research sharing their results of
the Vacation Home Impact Study during the Study Session.
As a follow up, Estes Park Housing Authority wanted to share the following information. This list is not
intended to be all-inclusive but instead provide information as to the possible uses of having a funding
stream.
ACTION POTENTIAL COST
Acquisition of land/structures Millions of dollars
Land Banking Millions of dollars
New Construction Millions of dollars
Rehabilitating and preserving current structures
and affordable housing options
Millions of dollars
Establish and support of home ownership
programs: for rehab of a single-family residence
and to support down payment assistance and/or
down payment matching
$13,000-$30,000 per unit
(Estimated at 3% of home value on a $450,000
purchase price and the cost to add year-round
heat system)
Establish a program to purchase deed restrictions $67,635 average per unit
(Obtained from the Vail InDeed program 2017 to
2022. Total restricted 167 units = $11,295,111)
Incentives to convert short-term rentals to long-
term housing options
$31,544 per unit
(Obtained from data in the Vacation Home Impact
Study on page 7 ($1,845 rent x 12months) and
page 9 ($53,684 annual Short-Term Rental
income))
Develop an employer assisted housing partnership
Support the development of new housing (is
subsidizing tap fees, permit fees, etc.)
$23,000 per ‘apartment door’ developed
(Town of Estes Park’s water tap fees are
approximately $13,000 per multifamily unit and
Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer tap
fees are approximately $10,000 for each
multifamily unit)
Hire staff to support and develop housing
programs, incentives, and initiatives
$50,000 + annual salary
Support activities to streamline the development
process
unknown
Page 69
P a g e | 2
As it relates to the Vacation Home Impact Study, not all of the above options could be acted upon with an
estimated annual income of $600,000, * but could allow for additional housing opportunities. Continual
exploration and action to bolster funding will be needed. This includes taxes, fees, policy changes, and
legislative changes (such as HB22-1117). These could bring about substantial funding which would be
highly impactful to address our needs in a variety of ways, such as those listed in the chart.
We also need to take note of our current abilities and satisfy where gaps exist. Strategizing and prioritizing
necessary action to achieve the highest and best outcome is equally important. We know that the
conversations and actions taken today better prepare us for our tomorrow. Therefore, we must first begin
with a clear, intentional, and unbiased understanding of the composition of our community. Then be
equally diligent to envision the individuals, families, businesses and leaders that will define the future
Estes Park. Only then can today’s conversations be best served to prepare for our future.
Should you require any additional information, the Housing Authority would be happy to participate in a
detailed discussion.
Respectfully,
Naomi Hawf and Scott Moulton
Estes Park Housing Staff
*This amount is calculated from the current registered number of short-term rentals, 493 multiplied by
$1,157 per unit on the low-end, totaling $570,401 and on the high-end of $1,370 per unit, totaling
$685,270.
Page 70
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
3/18/2022 12:55 PM Ordinance 02-22. William Christopher Against
Mayor Koenig and Board of Trustees,
I am opposed to the linkage fee proposed to be imposed on short-
term rental(STR) properties to generate revenue for workforce
housing in Estes Park. While I fully acknowledge the need for more
workforce housing units, I believe the proposed fee is the wrong
way to proceed. STRs already generate considerable town revenue.
I would suggest that at some point, the taxes and fees imposed by
the town government will “kill the golden goose.” STRs play an
important role in providing the tourist to stay while enjoying the
the beauty of the Estes Valley. Adding more fees could well lead to
higher costs to the tourist who are the mainstay of your
community or be higher costs to us the property owners. We have
owned our property at 153 Stanley Circle for close to 25years with
the last two years being a STR. My wife and I would seriously
consider taking our cozy cabin off the STR market if approved.
3/18/2022 9:29 AM Ordinance 02-22.Jeffrey Doran Against TAX on VRBO's - NO!2022 3-17 Jeffrey Doran Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 9:16 AM Ordinance 02-22.Michael McDermott Against I strongly disagree with this concept!2022 3-14 Michael McDermott Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 9:12 AM Ordinance 02-22.G. Garcia-Oritz Against Vote No!2022 3-14 G. Garcia-Oritz Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 8:34 AM Ordinance 02-22.Lowell Richardson Against Vote No!2022 3-1 Lowell Richardson Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 8:23 AM Ordinance 02-22.James A. Dubovsky and Constance H. Young-Dubovsky Against NO COMMENT PROVIDED - Town Clerk
3/18/2022 8:10 AM Ordinance 02-22.Sid and Laura Brown Against Vote No!!!2022 2-25 Sid and Laura Brown Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 8:07 AM Ordinance 02-22. Maryanne Rose Against
I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation
rentals 2022 2-25 Maryanne Rose Letter.pdf
3/18/2022 8:04 AM Ordinance 02-22.Laura Brown Against
The unfairness of attaching an impact fee to a small group of
income producing, sales tax providing entities is
wrong. We are against this type of taxation for one small group,
moreover, leaving out the broader revenue stream
of rentals outside of town limits.2022 2-25 Laura Brown Letter.pdf
Page 71
Vacation Rentals in Estes
Mayor Wendy Koenig
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee
could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to
subsidize another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax
requiring voter approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a
fee on the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the
impact on town sales tax and local marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating
vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town
regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the
use of the revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions
throughout Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In
the Estes Valley, nearly all of the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their
homes in order to assist in financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are
intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the vacation rental and for others, the
owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later date. Very few
owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in
which they have been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes,
these properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property
managers and cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some
of the owners will cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism
and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could
be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is
unlikely that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding
source is needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an
impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Alex Knecht
Vacation Rental Owner
Page 72
Vacation Home Proposed Fee
Linda Small
Feb 24, 2022, 7:58:19 PM
Vacation home owners provide a lot for the town and many businesses. We are already paying our way. In
suggesting imposing another fee to this select, targeted, group is ridiculous. Owners are not “getting rich” which is
an often heard and untrue statement. It is a lot of hard work and expense. Please consider another Avenue to
address this problem.
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the
revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Linda Small
Vacation Rental Owner
402-215-5756
Page 73
Vacation Rental Fee Study
RaDean
Feb 25, 2022, 3:38:06 PM
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Dear Mayor Koenig:
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the
revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services as well as the local restaurants and merchandisers in town that cater to these tourists. If
additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease renting these properties
and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the
resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real
estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Vacation Rental Owners
Gareth and RaDean Mynatt
970-203-4134
ima...@aol.com
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Vacation Rental Fee Study - proposal
jhmcc...@gmail.com
Feb 25, 2022, 9:53:07 AM
Dear Mayor and Trustees of Estes Park,
I am a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license. My wife and I purchased the property with an
eye toward spending extended time in Estes Park after retiring, at which time we would no longer rent.
I understand that you are exploring the imposition of an impact fee in part to preserve affordable housing for the
local workforce. I am completely in alignment with wanting to preserve a livable community and affordable housing
for permanent residents of Estes Park. But, obviously, that must be balanced with the desire to preserve the driver
of the local economy which is visitors to this jewel of the Rockies.
In thinking about this problem I would like to propose a solution for your consideration that might prevent punitive
measures and use a market approach to limiting the expansion of rentals, preventing the escalation of home pricing
due to rental licenses, and raise money for the city.
Problem
Limit vacation rentals so home prices don’t escalate and price-out the locals; i.e. retain affordability
How to prevent actions on the bullet above from hurting tourism which brings significant income to the
community
Solution
Allow vacation property owners to separate the rental license from the property
The Town limits the number of licenses and has authority to grant new ones based on type of property or
growth
Allowing a vacation property owner to separate the license from their property establishes an independent
value for the license separate from the property
Owners can then sell the license (monetize it) to another owner who wants one but does not have one. In
doing this the owner is able to derive value from the license without it being attached to the value of the
house.
The property would now be valued per market independent of the license and the property can be sold at
normal prices.
The Town could assess a nominal fee (say 1% of the license sale) for transfer of license and derive income
The market demand for rental licenses may incentivize existing owners to sell licenses which creates
affordability with new/different properties as licenses are moved around.
People like me who intend long-term ownership and eventual partial year occupancy can derive
value/income by selling the license at some future date and still retain the property for my full/part-time
occupancy.
This solution uses a market-based solution vs. a punitive tax-based solution.
Benefits Summary
Separates home value from rental license value keeping property values in line with market
Allows rental licenses to change hands to new properties without increasing the overall number of licenses
in EP
Creates a funding opportunity for the Town with each license sale/transfer
Page 77
I hope you will consider my proposal which, in my opinion, creates a win-win-win for rental owners, the Town of
Estes Park, and local residents.
Thank you very much,
John McCall
Page 78
Vacation Rental Study Fee
Joy Harvey
Feb 25, 2022, 2:49:44 PM
Mayor Koenig
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Dear Mayor Koenig,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Valley with a short-term rental license issued by Larimer County. I
have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by
the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing. You may ask what my interest would
be in a town imposed fee when my concern should be with county fees? Well, as the town goes, generally so goes
the county.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
The ‘impact fee’ is just another word for ‘tax’. This approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input
rather than through enacting a tax requiring voter approval. Is this not ‘taxation without representation’?
How/why would you consider unfairly targeting one sector of the local real estate market to ‘subsidize’
another rather than addressing broader more comprehensive solutions to the workforce housing issue?
How much impact, realistically, would this ‘tax’ actually have on the workforce housing situation in Estes
Park? The hidden, underlying ‘elephant in the room’ is more than likely the hope that this will be the breaking
point for a number of short-term rentals, causing the owners to just give up and dissolve their business. Or,
is it that now the Trustees and Board can say, ‘Oh look, we’re doing something to solve this problem’?
Short-term rentals in Estes Park support and encourage the local tourist trade and local businesses. Without
fail, we recommend local restaurants and activities to our vacationers, direct them to local resources for
specific needs, to the Visitors’ Center for guidance and provide copies of the Estes Park News for their
information; we even provide them a Safeway discount card for their use while in Estes. How many times
have we heard our couples and families who rent our vacation homes declare, ‘ I would much rather stay in a
cozy, private home than a noisy crowded hotel’? These vacationers will undoubtedly choose another area to
visit if their only lodging option is a hotel venue. Short-term rentals provide a vital service to the tourist
industry upon which Estes Park businesses rely for their very survival. Why would you want to negatively
impact, i.e. punish, the short-term rental businesses here in Estes rather than encourage not only their
survival but their ability to thrive?
Most short-term rental owners understand the workforce housing issue is a critical issue for Estes Park
businesses and support creative solutions; just as we understand it is trendy and convenient to place the
blame for and the burden of solving the workforce housing crisis on the short-term rental industry. How
much impact will a tax of the size you are considering actually have on workforce housing? Much easier to
point the finger our direction rather than taking a comprehensive look at the many causes of this crisis.
When a crisis has gotten so far ahead of potential solutions it’s hard for those who have inherited this issue
and are now responsible for the solutions to think logically and clearly to create an action plan. Why would
you want to negatively impact the short-term rental business here in Estes rather than encourage it to not
only survive but thrive?
And lastly, the term ‘impact fee’ implies an unfairly assumed negative impact by the short-term rental
industry on the Estes Park community. It is honestly offensive and extremely unwelcoming. How many
short-term rental owners have you actually spoken with and gained truly accurate data? When we retired to
Estes Park, my husband in 2007, myself in 2014, we were excited to join an exciting, active, welcoming
community. Unfortunately, several Board of Trustee actions in the past few years have changed our current
impression.
Page 79
We are a retired couple living here in Estes Park, we have been lucky enough to own and operate our small vacation
rental for seven years now. It’s been a blessing to be able to supplement our retirement income with our rental. We
live across the road from our rental, manage it ourselves, are available to our guests 24/7, supply them with our cell
phone numbers and give them advice as we would our own family. We have not had one complaint in our seven
years. We follow the rules, have our required inspections and pay not only sales tax but Local Marketing District tax
as well. The majority of short-term rental owners are in similar situations. There are three short-term rentals on our
road, each are responsibly managed and have little impact on our neighborhood. The benefits they bring to our
neighbors and larger community far outweigh any negative impact to our neighborhood. In fact, I cannot site any
negative impact.
We urge you NOT to implement this ‘impact fee’ with respect to vacation rentals.
Rich and Joy Harvey
345 Joel Estes Dr.
Estes Park, CO 80517
626-602-4101
Page 80
VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:47:14 PM
to wko...@estes.org
Wendy, Bob and I are so against this fee proposal. We do not feel like workforce housing would ever use either of
our two properties and have seen this issue for over two decades…long before VRBO came into play. Thanks for
listening!
Linda Moak
VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:48:48 PM
to mce...@estes.org
Howdy…we are so opposed to this. What workforce housing would ever move into our home? Thanks for listening!!
Linda and Bob
Proposed VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:53:01 PM
to cyoun...@estes.org
Ms. Younglund
We are very much in opposition to any further fees being levied on vacation rental owners. We have lived in Estes
Park for 25 years and the issue was a problem in the 1990’s…likely before.
Respectfully
Dr and Mrs Robert Moak
VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:58:33 PM
to bmaca...@estes.org
Ms. Macalpine,
Just wanted to register our opposition to these proposed new fees. We already pay a premium for utilities and
higher taxes. I cannot see our VRBO home that sleeps up to 18 being utilized for any workforce housing. This
seems like a bad idea and one which would not help anyone.
Respectfully,
VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:58:53 PM
to cba...@estes.org
Bad idea!
Page 81
Bob and Linda Moak
VRBO fees
Linda Moak
Feb 25, 2022, 2:59:35 PM
to pmart...@estes.org
Terrible idea! Won’t solve the housing problem either.
Bob and Linda Moak
Page 82
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Ryan Esch
Feb 25, 2022, 7:27:19 AM
Mayor Pro Tem Patrick,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the
revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Vacation Rental Owner
Ryan Esch
817-602-5516
Page 83
Vacation rental fee study
Teresa Commerford
Feb 25, 2022, 12:29:10 PM
to wko...@estes.org
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
• It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize an other
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad based funding mechanism.
• The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
• An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
• The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation rentals.
Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
• It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the revenues
derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes valley nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and in others the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 84
vacation rental fee
David & Sue Vasek
Feb 27, 2022, 11:29:36 AM
to cyoun...@estes.org
Dear Trustee Younglund,
We own one home in Estes Park that we offer as a vacation rental. Actually, it's the home directly across from
Mayor Wendy's house. So as you might imagine, the prospect of another fee, as is being considered via the
vacation rental fee study, is concerning to us. Although we offer the home as a rental, we consider it our personal
home first, and a rental second.
We're concerned that yet another yearly fee could cause us to need to sell the house, which is something we really
don't want to do. We could end vacation rentals and let the house sit idle most of the time until we can get there
more often, but that wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. We're soon to become empty nesters and will have more time
to spend in Estes (which we really are looking forward to), with the option of potentially retiring up there.
The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation rentals. And
we're also forced to pay higher commercial utility rates. At some point, the cost of owning a home up there will
outweigh the benefits.
We appreciate your consideration,
Sincerely,
David and Sue Vasek
Page 85
Opposition to the Root Study
GREG Rosener
Feb 26, 2022, 6:58:25 PM
Dear Trustee Younglund,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the notion vacation rentals should pay addition fees to solve a problem
where the vacation rental industry has been singled out as the major cause of our housing issues facing our
workforce housing. If the true purpose of this study is solving our community’s housing issues, which is very real,
one must ask the question of why only limit the scope of the study to vacation home rentals? From my perspective
whoever is pushing this narrative has one of two goals in mind, which neither solves the problem. The two goals: 1)
This is really a ‘sin tax’ imposed on the culprit who needs to be penalized for their actions; or 2) vacation rental
industry is something that should not have a presence in this community.
I respectfully submit that if the proponents of a fee or tax were serious in finding real solutions to our workforce
housing challenges those proponents would have a much wider focus on a broader strategy to raise the money
needed to meet a specific objective and fund the strategic planning to meet the objective. These proponents so
adamant in solving the workforce housing have no clear objective except to just raise money.
There have been the comments vacation rentals needs to pay its way, carry its financial responsibilities. I
respectfully suggest the industry is doing exactly that. Again, I respectfully suggest you ask the question of the
Administration as to how much direct sales tax dollars does the industry already create for the Town’s bank
account. If you get a responding answer that it’s difficult to determine, I respectfully submit this is not correct. There
is enough data available that I can generate that number. It is not that hard, but again no one in the Administration
has asked for the information.
In addition to the direct sales tax contribution, there is the additional sales tax generated by the guests of the
vacation rental industry which in turn creates a high sales tax contribution to the Town of Estes Park.
With this high dollar sales tax volume to The Town, I respectfully ask what contribution has the Town offered from
this additional revenue to fund workforce housing issue? For the record, the contribution the Town makes to the
Housing Authority is not significant in relationship to the total sales tax dollars contributed to vacation rentals.
Because these numbers are available, I again respectfully submit the Town hasn’t utilized the tax dollars being
collected from the vacation rental industry to address the community wide workforce housing issue.
Bottom line, there is no plan to address the workforce housing issues. At the highest level of clarity, this is only
about raising dollars.
In closing for the reasons noted above, as one of seven key community leaders, I would ask that you do not get
caught up in the emotions of the sin tax principle or forcing the vacation rental industry into the position of the
unwanted community industry segment. Finish up the study because you’ve spent the money, put the study on the
shelf for future reference purposes and focus on developing real objective with clear strategies find real solutions to
a very real community wide challenge – workforce housing.
Respectfully submitted
Greg Rosener
SkyRun – Estes Park
950 Comanche Street Suite 101
Estes Park, CO 80517
303 875 0277
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
William Self
Feb 26, 2022, 11:23:31 AM
To All,
One more thing to consider with charging these vacation rentals a fee's, I am already paying 50% higher property
taxes then the average home in Estes Park. The average is $1677 annually, my assessment on my home (retirement
home) is at nearly $3000 this year. My home has two rooms and two bathrooms. Therefore, I am already paying
almost 50% more than most residential homes in Estes Park. We are already paying our fair share in taxes.
Thank you,
William Self
Vacation Rentals
William Self
Feb 26, 2022, 11:05:06 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
Please see the attached letter. I grew up in Estes Park, graduated from the High School and continue to be a big
part of the economy as a silent partner to businesses in Estes. I Beg you to reconsider this research.
William J. Self DNP, FNP-C
Trustee & Mayor
Re: Vacation Rental Study
Dear Mayor, Trustees & Public Officials:
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee
could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for several reasons:
• It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to
subsidize another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
• The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax
requiring voter approval.
• An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a
fee on the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes valley, including the
impact on town sales tax and local marketing district lodging tax collections.
• The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating
vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town
regulation of these properties.
Page 89
• It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to justification for this fee or the use
of the revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions
throughout Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the
Estes Valley nearly all the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in
order to assist financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide
supplemental retirement income with the vocational rental and in others the owner may intend to
finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later date. Very few owners own more than one
vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such properties in the Estes valley.
They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the matter in which they have been portrayed by
opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the tourist base in Estes,
these properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property
managers and cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of
the owners will cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism
and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be
adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely
that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is
needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you to not implement an impact fee
with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
Vacation Rental Owner
William J Self
1636 Brooks Lane
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 90
impact fee study
Gordon Coakley
Feb 27, 2022, 12:26:38 PM
to wko...@estes.org
Mayor Wendy Koenig
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Dear Mayor Koenig,
As a Colorado native who first visited Estes Park at 4 years of age and now 70+ years later as a property owner with
a short-term rental license issued by the town I have concerns regarding the impact fee study.
I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by
the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the
revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Respectfully,
Gordon Coakley
gord...@verizon.net
817-992-8627
Page 91
Vacation Rental Fee Study
Joey Young
Feb 27, 2022, 4:16:43 PM
to cyoun...@estes.org
Dear Trustee Younglund,
I am a home owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license for both of my properties. I have been following
the discussions regarding fees to vacation rental owners and have become aware of an impact fee study
commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the town without voter approval under
TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for many reasons.
This approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
It is unfair, unethical and just wrong to target one sector of the real estate market to subsidize
another. What should be used is a broad-based funding mechanism.
It is also unclear of a solid feasible plan for this fee and the use of the revenues derived from such a fee.
The town already collects a large fee for licensing which is used to regulate the vacation rentals. Additional
fees are not justified with regard to the cost of this regulation.
An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the economic consequences of such a fee on the
Estes Park tourist trade including town sales tax and other revenues brought into the town through the
vacation rental properties.
Vacation rentals in the Estes Valley have long been mis-represented with regards to who owns them and their
purpose. Nearly all of the vacation rental homes are owned by individuals who choose to rent their home to assist
in financing the purchase of the home or to supplement income for retirement or with plans to someday retire in the
home. Very few owners have more than one property and there are NO large corporate owners running a large
enterprise as portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations which brings visitors and their tourist dollars into the Estes
Valley, the properties support many local businesses like cleaning services, maintenance workers and property
managers. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, some owners will cease to rent, and this will not only
provide fewer accommodations but it could have a ripple effect within the local economy as the supporting
businesses will likely decline as well. A decline in visitors staying in town will also impact the gift shops, restaurants
and other tourist businesses.
Although most residents agree that there is a definite workforce housing shortage, it is very unlikely that this impact
fee will have any significant effect on this issue. It needs a broad based funding solution to truly make a
difference. I urge you not to implement an impact fee on vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this in more detail.
Thank you for your service,
Joey Young
joeyyo...@gmail.com
319-430-2310
Page 92
February 27, 2022
Re: Vacation Rental Study
Dear Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Martchink,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee
could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for several reasons:
It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to
subsidize another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax
requiring voter approval.
An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a
fee on the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes valley, including the
impact on town sales tax and local marketing district lodging tax collections.
The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating
vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town
regulation of these properties.
It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to justification for this fee or the use
of the revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions
throughout Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the
Estes Valley nearly all the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in
order to assist financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide
supplemental retirement income with the vacation rental and in others the owner may intend to finance
the purchase to retire in the home at a later date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental
property and there are no large corporate owners of such properties in the Estes valley. They simply are
not normal commercial enterprises in the matter in which they have been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the tourist base in Estes,
these properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property
managers and cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of
the owners will cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism
and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be
adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely
that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is
needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you to not implement an impact fee
with respect to vacation rentals.
Page 93
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
Linda and David Sexton
Vacation Rental Owner
1653 Brooks Lane
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 94
Planning Meeting Mar 1, Short Term Rentals
Feb 28, 2022, 2:34:22 PM
to wko...@estes.org, pmart...@estes.org, cba...@estes.org, bmaca...@estes.org, swebe...@estes.org, cyoun...@estes.org
Subject: Planning Meeting Mar 1, Short Term Rentals
Town Administrators,
I am not sure if my comments are to you in time for the March 1st Planning Meeting but if possible, please make them
available to the Mayor, Board, and staff. If it is more appropriate that I send them to someone else, please let me know.
I have tried to provide the below thoughts as an addition to those sent by other concerned individuals but echo and
support the thoughts of those that are rational, well-researched, and informed.
First, I believe strongly in the Town processes and ability of its leaders and administrators to make good decisions. This
is based on my family’s long involvement in that process from my grandfather as a trustee, my uncle’s long tenure on
the Planning Commission, and my father as both trustee and Mayor. I am reminded of all they did for Estes Park every
time I drive into town and see the Dannels Fire Station, the naming of which was a surprise gift to my father upon his
retirement as Mayor. That said, I am concerned about the direction the Town is taking with respect to short term rental
properties in Estes. The apparent targeting of these as a source of funds, ostensibly to support low(er) income housing
seems like a questionable path. The positive aspects of these rentals and need for them to support visitors should not
be pitted against the need for lower income housing. To target the short term rental market to solve the housing
shortage, especially if it causes short term rentals to be unaffordable or unmanageable to owners, renters, and property
managers, only creates another problem instead of solving one.
I do not have access to the housing data but it seems several of the property owners have sent letters to the Town with
questions and suggestions that some of what is being used to support decisions has been misinterpreted or premature. I
encourage the Town leaders to do what they do best – get the facts, question and consider all inputs, and make
informed decisions. Concerning the affordable housing situation (regardless of the relative and subjective definition of
“affordable”), my suspicion is that the greatest need is in the summer months for those temporary workers supporting
the influx of visitors. That is the time most short term rentals earn most of their income and their visitors spend the
most money in the area. Again, not having the data hinders my input, but the months with many fewer visitors seem
like there would be more available lower income housing. If that is accurate it makes the lower income housing
problem a more focused one to solve – high visitor months. Instead of targeting short term rentals, has consideration
been given to incentivizing them to support lower income housing instead of penalizing them for their success? I’m not
sure what those incentives might be but a citizen committee or staff study might offer good ideas.
The logic escapes me of not allowing short term rental transfer with property transfers. It only seems to create work for
already strained Town employees and resources while having little impact on increasing Town funds.
I look forward to viewing the Zoom planning meeting for more information and appreciate you making it available to the
public.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bart Dannels
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Vacation Rental Fee Study
On Feb 28, 2022, at 1:23 PM, JULIE REICHLE <julier...@cox.net> wrote:
February 28, 2022
Dear Mayor Koenig:
We are writing to address the board’s consideration of a workforce housing impact fee on
short-term vacation rentals. We have owned a vacation rental in Estes Park for many years and
have always tried to work with the town and its residents to find reasonable solutions that
balance the interests of all stakeholders.
We understand that housing prices are rising in Estes Park. This issue is certainly not
unique to our area. There are clearly other national impacts and trends - outside of vacation
rentals -that are driving up housing prices. Indeed, the pandemic has only accelerated certain
trends, such as remote work, that are causing people to leave higher-density markets to relocate
in smaller communities in search of a higher a quality of life. These are real issues that need to
be considered, but this does not mean that imposing an arbitrary fee on a single segment of our
community is the correct solution. We have reviewed the study commissioned by the town, and
after such review, question whether a fee on short-term rentals would be legal under the
Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The study only addresses a theoretical financial impact based
upon the approval of additional vacation rentals in the town, not based upon the existing
vacation rentals. Furthermore, under the existing cap, the number of vacation rentals will not
increase beyond the present numbers. Also, the town already charges a licensing fee and the
implementation of an additional fee, that cannot be reasonably connected to the cost of
regulating short-term vacation rentals, would, in essence, constitute a tax requiring voter
approval. In short, the implementation of a fee solely against vacation rental in an attempt to
address increased property values relies upon an attenuated connection at best and appears to go
far beyond what any other locality in Colorado has done. We respectful request the board
consider more broad-based and equitable solutions.
Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Scott and Julie Reichle
Page 98
Comment on STR Fee Study
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:30 AM KAREN THOMPSON <skks...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Trustees,
Thank you for the time and effort you spend on being a Town Trustee. It is greatly appreciated by many, including
me.
After attending the Study Session where the Short-term Rental Fee Study was discussed, it was noted that for every
100 STRs, the town would possibly lose 3-9 long-term rentals. With 322 STRs in the town limits, and using the
highest number of nine rentals lost, this would equate to only 35 housing units that might be available for long-term
rentals or purchase. Remember, their numbers encompassed ALL vacation rentals, not just those in residential zone
districts, so the numbers are skewed from the start, if the fee study would only apply to STRs in residential zone
districts.
In reality, you need to ask yourself how many of those 35 homes would actually be used as long-term rentals, or
how many of those owners would decide to sell their homes to the local workforce. If 20% of those 35 homes
decided to rent long-term, that would only be seven homes, which is not even close to having an impact on the
workforce housing issue. Surely there are several more of those 35 homes now being used as STRs where the
owners have no intention whatsoever of renting long-term because they also use the home as their second-home.
You also have to consider housing prices, and determine how many of those 35 homes would actually be in a price
range our local workforce could afford. Putting a cap on STRs has increased the value of those homes, which has
been driven by the buyers willing to pay more for the option to rent short-term.
I am disappointed that the study included ALL STRs, not just those in residential areas. This does not provide an
accurate picture of what I believe the Trustees were looking for in the fee study. Therefore, I do not believe you can
come to a conclusion, with a clear conscious, that STRs are creating a big enough impact on workforce housing to
implement a fee on STRs in residential areas.
Karen Thompson
Estes Park, CO
Page 99
Estes Park's Proposed Short Term Rental Tax Disguised As a "Fee" Violates Colorado's TABOR
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:58 AM <mr...@bajabb.com> wrote:
Mayor Koenig –
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I am the legal
representative and owner of a local business that includes short term vacation rentals that will be adversely impacted by
your proposed Short Term Rental Tax that you are attempting to disguise as a “Fee” in violation of Colorado's Taxpayer's
Bill of Rights (TABOR), which requires voter approval for any tax measure. I urge you to not only refuse to continue down
this path; but that you give serious consideration and discussion during the upcoming Special Study Session to the
following:
Why are you unfairly targeting a small sector of the Estes Park community rather than relying on a broad-based
funding mechanism? The obvious answer is the Town erroneously believes it would be more efficient to target one
business sector and call it a “Fee” to avoid a broad-based funding mechanism as this would require voter
approval. Simply calling it a “Fee” does not magically or legally change a tax into a fee. The difference between the two is
hugely significant. Fees can be passed by elected representatives, while under TABOR, new taxes must be approved by
voters through the ballot. This novel approach is being considered by other mountain communities and this
approach HAS NOT YET BEEN TESTED in the Colorado Courts. Don’t kid yourself, it will be once it is fully enacted in a
mountain community. The wise course of action would be to avoid costly future litigation and pursue a broad-based tax
that impacts everyone in Estes Park and let the electorate vote on it.
Every Resident of Estes Park Needs to Have Skin in the Affordable Housing Solution. Let’s face it, Affordable
Housing has been an issue that has been neglected by Town leadership for decades before the advent of the short term
rental industry which did not really start to be regulated in Estes Park until 2016. Every resident talks about the need for
more affordable housing EXCEPT for when it comes to having an Affordable Housing project next to their home or if they
have to pay to support it. Bottom line: As long as someone else pays for it they wholeheartedly support it! Targeting a
small sector of Estes Park to pay for the past sins and failures of Town Leadership to put together a comprehensive plan
to address Affordable Housing is not the answer. Some Trustees have said this is the first step and they will carve out
other sectors (like lodging, non-resident owners of second homes, all businesses that hire employees, etc.). The litigation
will only multiply exponentially and not solve the problem. The only fair and equitable course of action is to put together a
coherent plan to communicate to the electorate combined with a sales tax measure on the ballot to fund the Affordable
Housing initiatives. In Summit County, voters approved a 20-year extension to its sales tax to fund more affordable
housing projects. Roughly 71% of voters in the county decided to extend the .6% sales tax. The County Commissioners
put together a strategy and plan in which the money would be used to help the town leverage bonds for long-term housing
projects. Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue stated “I’m really overwhelmed by the margin with which it won in
Summit County. I think it certainly speaks to what a crisis or affordable housing is in the mountains and the voters are
very much willing to support resolutions and solutions.” Learn from this example of good governance, put together
a coherent plan to communicate to the electorate combined with a sales tax measure in which everyone has skin in the
Affordable Housing solution. Wouldn’t it be better to unify the residents behind a coherent strategy/plan instead of
promoting this Us v. Them approach which only serves to divide the community. Wouldn’t it be better to have the voters
in Estes Park also very much willing to support resolutions and solutions? If you do the right thing, I believe the electorate
in Estes Park will also do the right thing.
The Town does not have any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the revenues derived
from the proposed STR tax. This fund first, then put together a plan is not good governance. A wiser course of action is
to put together an Affordable Housing Task Force which includes local developers, local realtors, local lodging
representatives and other local housing professionals, etc., to put together a comprehensive Affordable Housing strategy
and action plan. This course of action actively seeks community involvement and builds consensus. During the Town
Trustees meetings in September 2021, I observed many of these local professionals stand up during the meetings and
volunteer to offer their assistance. Why have the Trustees not included these local professionals who are subject matter
experts in their respective fields on a Task Force to assist on putting together a coherent plan and build consensus?
Thanks in advance for your attention and consideration of my request to re-focus your approach on the Affordable
Housing Issue. It is not too late to change course and adopt a wiser course of action which is to first put together a
Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan which you present to the electorate to fund through a broad-based funding
mechanism, such as a sales tax, where all of the residents of Estes Park have skin in the game and help fund the
solutions.
Page 100
Sincerely,
Richard James, Esq.
Mountain Rendezvous LLC
305 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone 719-244-1933
e-mail: mrep@bajabb.com
Page 101
Rents and housing
Feb 28, 2022, 2:40:15 PM
to wko...@estes.org, pmart...@estes.org, cba...@estes.org, bmaca...@estes.org, swebe...@estes.org, cyoun...@estes.org
Please take a moment to read these two articles
rents and property prices are not any more and Estes Park
problem than anywhere else
https://www.aol.com/rents-reach-insane-levels-across-150552548-
231538624.htmlhttps://www.aol.com/finance/housing-prices-interest-rates-aren-125157397.html
Are the hotels, motels and lodges going to be held to same standards and fees as STRs ?
Rob McCauley
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Observations from the February 8, 2022 Town Study Session.
Scott Thompson
Feb 28, 2022, 11:37:01 AM
Dear Trustees and Candidates:
There was a lot to digest about the presentation by Molly Fitzpatrick of Root Policy Research on the Vacation Home
Impact Study. You are to be commended for studying and comprehending this maze of information. I had a few
observations about the presentation that I would like to share with you.
There are 322 licensed short-term rentals in residential zoned areas in the town limits and 266 in residential zoning
areas within unincorporated Larimer County within the Estes Valley Development Code area. This totals 588 short-
term rentals in residential zoned areas that could potentially be converted to work force housing. Molly shared an
illustration that stated for every 100 short term rentals there is a corresponding 3–9-unit loss to our rental stock. If
every short-term rental in residential zoned areas was denied a permit to operate the Estes Valley would gain 53
units of rental stock using the larger number. This would not put a dent in the over 1,700 housing units needed as
projected by the last housing study.
I have analyzed the 322 short-term rental units in residential zoning and would be happy to share the data with you if
requested. The largest sector of the 322 units is composed of 147 three-bedroom homes with an average value of
$631,164. Is this workforce housing? It would require $126,226 for a 20% down payment which would make the
monthly payment $2,588 including insurance and property tax for a 30-year term loan at 3.75% over 30
years. Lending guideline requirements stipulate that no more than 30% of a person’s gross wages be spent on
housing, which in this instance equals a wage $49.78 per hour, which is well above most Estes Park workforce
wages.
Is there a link between Short Term Rentals and the lack of Workforce Housing in Estes Park? Certainly, but that is
not even the main cause. Molly reported that the total number of jobs in Estes Park has been rising over the last
few years, which you could reasonable deduce is the leading cause of lack of workforce housing. Should we tax the
employers who hire these workers? Are short-term rentals the low hanging fruit from which have a negative image
to some to be taxed as the scapegoat for lack of workforce housing?
The town owns land on Fish Hatchery Road and is exploring options towards helping to facilitate building workforce
housing. It is not centrally located and would require additional mass transit to get the workers from there to their
jobs or families to schools or the grocery store. Would it be a better idea to sell this land to a developer and utilize
the funds to purchase property in the centrally located Reclamation District? When enough adjacent Single-Family
Homes are purchased, they could be raised where apartments could be built for workforce housing. Reclaim the
Reclamation District!
The median price of a residential home sold in the entire Estes Valley last year was $643,250 as reported by the
Estes Valley Board of Realtors. This is not workforce housing. The lack of workforce housing has many causes and
will need to be attached from many directions. Adding a tax to an industry that has little to do with it is not the
answer. We need to build more dense housing in centrally located areas and not more less dense housing in areas
5 miles outside of town. The town could issue bonds that could be repaid by rents collected from the leading cause
of the lack of workforce housing, the workers.
There has been local speculation that institutional investors are purchasing the short-term rentals in the Estes
Valley. Three of the local property managers report that they have no institutional investors as clients. As a matter
of fact, a recent poll of the Estes Valley Board or Realtors reveals that less than 6% of all home sales in 2021 were to
be used for short-term rentals and none of those sales were to institutional investors.
I would encourage and even request a response from each of you so that I can ascertain who does listen to their
constituents. Any feedback would be appreciated, and I would even offer to buy you a cup of coffee to discuss
workforce housing in person.
Page 105
Sincerely,
Scott K Thompson
970-590-9941
Page 106
Vacation Rental Fee Study
akpbuff
Mar 1, 2022, 8:43:35 AM
to wko...@estes.org
Mayor Koenig
I'm a vacation rental owner in Estes and I'm concerned that vacation rentals are being singled out as both the
cause and solution to the affordable/workforce housing problem in Estes.
The town study only examines vacation rentals impact but it also clearly demonstrates what we all know, that
the affordable housing challenges in Estes predate the creation of airbnb and that retirees moving and living in
Estes absorb housing, lots and resources but don't result in adding workers to fill jobs. Do retirees actually
impact the affordable housing challenges more than vacation rentals? Who knows because you haven't asked
the consultants to look at it.
And why is that? A hot potato I wouldn't want to tackle myself but to be fair, to be thorough, to be accurate
don't you have to look at it?
If you are planning to implement a fee to vacation rentals will retirees pay a like fee?
Thank you for listening.
Andy Pierce
303 949-9762
Page 107
Economic Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes Park and Short Term
Rental Fee Study
Jane Livingston
Mar 1, 2022, 1:30:49 AM
Dear Mayor Keonig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink and Estes Park Town Board of Trustees:
Thank you for your service and contributions to Estes Park.
Attached is an analysis of Economic Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes Park. The numbers
are not exact but based on readily available data to most accurately represent the Economic
Contribution of Vacation Rentals to Estes Park. Also attached is a graphical depiction of the Estes
Park Vacation Homes Sales Tax Contribution to the Estes Park Town Budget Sales Tax for 2022.
In addition to the attached documents, I have several concerns/questions regarding the Short Term
Rental Fee Study being conducted by Root Policy Research.
1. What is included in Commercial Listings that Root are counting as active STR's? Does it included
individual managed units in Commercial Zoning? Are they individually managed units in
Accommodation Zoning? Does it include units such as Bear Paw, Riverstone and Solitude?
2. The Town engaged Host Compliance (iCompass) in 2016 which identified 750 Vacation Homes in
the Estes Park Valley as of July 2016. As of February 2022, there are 799 Vacation Homes in the
Estes Park Valley. Figure 11-1 of the Root Policy Research Update dated February 1, 2022 does not
tell the complete story. The graph does not paint a complete picture . . . the graph only paints a
picture of the increase in registered Vacation Rental Homes, not of actual Vacation Rental Homes
which is a significantly less number. In July 2016, even though there were 750 Vacation Homes in
the Estes Park Valley, only 66 percent or 492 of the 750 homes were licensed/permitted. The growth
depicted in the graph has been for licenses/permits for Vacation Rental Homes not an increase in the
actual number of Vacation Rental Homes. The actual growth in the number of Vacation Rental
Homes has been much less than depicted by that graph. One of the goals of the 2016 Vacation
Home Rental initiative was to get 100 percent of Vacation Rental Homes in Estes Park
licensed/permitted (up from 66 percent) which has been successful based on the increase of
Vacation Rental Homes with licenses/permits.
Please feel free to contact me via email or on my cell at 612-991-4000 with any questions.
Thank you,
Jane
Jane Livingston, PhD
612-991-4000 (cell)
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Vacation Rental Fee Study
Liz Mulhern
Mar 1, 2022, 1:22:49 PM
Dear Mayor and Trustees
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park. We have had STR licenses since this process began both in
the city and in the county. It has been a challenge to keep up with all of the ever changing requirements and
expenses to keep our property up to the standards. It has been a challenge for our business to keep up with
changing what is expected. Many of us were on the waiting list for a couple of years investing in our home with
the hopes of getting a license. Then the rules changed to make the licenses non transferable. It always seems that
our business is being singled out and that we are not really welcome in Estes Park as we seek to help serve our
visitors.
My husband and I use the supplemental retirement income with our two vacation rentals to allow us to live in Estes
Park. Otherwise we would not be able to do so. We contribute in many ways to the community - we are not just
"takers" and would be very sorry to have to leave this town we have lived in for so long.
Our properties support numerous local businesses that provide maintenance and cleaning services. If additional
fees are imposed we would have a much harder time providing a living wage for those that we use. Currently we are
paying them on the higher end of the wage scale.This helps them offset the slower season with lower rates
that must be charged to be competitive.
I have asked for a study on how many long term rentals there are in Estes Park and have never gotten a really good
answer to that question. I feel it would be a good idea to put your efforts into getting a better assessment of that as
well as what is being charged by the landlords. I have owned long term rental property in other states and have
always had to pay a tax as well as register my properties. I had to give the city the name of the property manager
and the monthly rate that I typically charged a tenant, also whether it was a 1, 3, 6 or 12 month lease etc. How can
you make this decision about our fees when you don't know all of the facts? I have also wondered why they don't
have the safety and dark sky requirements for them? Maybe you need to get a better grasp of the long term rental
business owners. If they are charging outrageous rent then maybe they can afford to pay a little something, since
they are impacting the rental market.
The Town of Estes Park has actually done a much better job than many of those other places, that is why there was
a cap put on the STR's several years ago...you were way ahead of many of those towns.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
- I was concerned that the report went outside of the Estes Park area to get some of the statistics. It used
Colorado and national data....I think that we all know that Estes Park is unlike other areas in our state. Please be
careful to not mistake Estes Park for a Breckenridge or Vail.
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the
revenues derived from such a fee.
It is my hope that you will seriously begin to listen to us as business owners trying to serve our community. We do
not want to have to inflate our rates to our guests to cover this expense....if we do that it makes Estes less
affordable to many of those people that we love to have come visit. I do not want Estes Park to become a place for
higher end guests....I am very afraid that this could happen...
Page 111
Thank you for listening,
Liz and Dick Mulhern
970-590-0923
vacati...@gmail.com
Page 112
Estes Park Vacation Rental Fee Study
mrwal...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2022, 6:36:11 PM
Dear Mayor Wendy Koenig:
Hi. I am a frequent visitor and a current property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be
imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
1. An impact fee on vacation rentals will create significant negative consequences on the Estes Park tourist
trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections. Prior to purchasing a home, I frequently traveled with my large family
(children & parents), and we always stayed in a vacation rental home that had several rooms to accommodate
our family. Any tax or fee that increases those costs will make if more expensive and less attractive for visitors
to stay in Estes Park.
2. The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these
properties.
3. It is inefficient and unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize
another sector (workforce housing), rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
4. The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring
voter approval.
5. It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the use of the revenues derived from such a
fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals, such as myself, who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in
financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement
income with the vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the
home at a later date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate
owners of such properties in the Estes valley. Estes Park vacation rentals simply are not normal commercial
enterprises in the manner in which they have been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes Park, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
Bottom line, vacation rentals are an important part of a vibrant Estes Park tourism market, and I am proud of the
support that I provide to the Estes Park community. While most residents agree that we have a significant
workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue,
and a broader funding source is needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to
implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Page 113
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss further
Sincerely,
Manny Walters
mrwal...@gmail.com
Page 114
Nancy V
Dear Ms. Koenig, Mr. Martchink, Ms. Banks, Ms. Cenac, Ms. MacAlpine, Mr.
Webermeier, and Ms. Younglund:
As the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees for Estes Park, Colorado, I am writing to
you today as the trustee for property in Estes Park at 1524 Fish Hatchery Road. Our
property was recently converted into a short-term rental in 2021 and permitted by
Larimer County. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the
town to determine what fee could be imposed by the town without voter approval under
TABOR to support workforce housing. I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee
based on this study.
Although we may not be impacted by this fee because we are permitted by Larimer
County, I would like to provide a little information about our property and home. Stories
of other homeowners may be similar to ours.
The property itself was purchased in 1931 by my great grandfather and
grandmother. Built in the 1920s, the home on the property used to stand in Rocky
Mountain National Park. It was the horse wrangler’s cabin for the Horseshoe Inn. The
inn was purchased by the government in 1931 and was razed (dismantled and burned)
to restore the terrain for wildlife. At that time our cabin, purchased by my great
grandfather, was dismantled log-by-log and rebuilt where it resides today.
The property and home have been handed down for several generations and when my
father passed away in 2013 he created a trust for the property. I am the trustee for that
trust. With very limited funds in the trust I have tried to make the money last. But, alas,
it dwindled to the point where something needed to be done. So, the family and I
pursued converting the cabin into a short-term rental. Perhaps with the income from the
rental we will be able to keep our cabin and property in the family. I would like to be
able to pass the property on to future generations. Any additional fees may make a
huge impact on our or other's ability to realize this goal. The rental of our property may
help prevent us from having to sell our home.
I understand the challenges related to workforce housing in Estes Park. Our property
will definitely be impacted by the proposed Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing project
just because of it's locale. But, again, I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee
based on this study for a number of reasons:
• It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals)
to subsidize another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad based funding
mechanism.
• The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through
enacting a tax requiring voter approval.
Page 115
• An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of
such a fee on the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes
valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local mar keting district lodging tax
collections.
• The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of
regulating vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect
to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
• It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this
fee or the use of the revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees and other
restrictions throughout Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature
of vacation rentals. In the Estes valley nearly all of the vacation rentals are owned by
individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing. In some
cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and in others the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to
retire in the home at a later date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental
property and there are no large corporate owners of such properties in the Estes valley.
They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the touris t
base in Estes, these properties support numerous local businesses which service the
properties, such as property managers, maintenance services, and cleaning services. If
additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will
cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative
impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the
local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in
Estes Park, it is unlikely that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the
issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the problem on a
comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to
vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Nancy Voiland, Trustee for the Voiland Cabin Trust
6954 W. 53rd Pl.
Arvada CO 80002
303-503-7790
Page 116
Vacation rentals
Steven McCrane
Mar 1, 2022, 11:48:53 AM
Trustee Carlee Bangs
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Dear Trustee:
I wanted to agree with the info below on the template letter but add that many VRBO owners are part time
RESIDENTS to Estes, especially in the Off -peak times. For example, we have been coming to Estes for 40 years! My
uncle has owned his home on Larkspur for 70 years as well.
WHAT I HAVEN’T SEEN EVALUATED is the TAX REVENUE that we bring in versus other commercial lodgings and
what percentage of the town and county budget is this??
Isn’t that a fair question if you are evaluating IMPACT?
I serve as President of our road association (Giant Track Road).
We employ a manager, housekeeper, and hot tub guy in addition to utilizing numerous tradesman when the need
arises for repairs/maintenance just got our one property!
A “Pillow Tax” is unfair as we already pay additional marketing district and commercial rates when it is mainly OUR
home.
It should AT least go to a vote of the PUBLIC.
This will be fought with attorneys no different than the LOOP issue!
We also were not grandfathered to life safety updates and expended tens of thousands of dollars to meet new
codes for VRBO owners when the same rules were not applied to overnight stay commercially zoned properties! Not
Fair either and will be brought into this matter if has to be taken to legal.
I am also writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation rentals.
Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the revenues
derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
Page 117
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Steven McCrane
1291 Giant Track Rd
Estes Park, CO
325-642-0439
Sent from my iPhone
Page 118
Fwd: Vacation rental fee study
Town Clerk
Mar 7, 2022, 8:34:05 AM (10 days ago)
to Trustees, Travis Machalek
Hello All,
The following comment was received by the Clerk's office and is being forwarded to the Board. To r eply to the sender
add willia...@brownwinick.com in the "to:" section.
Thank you,
Kimberly
Town Clerk's Office
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4777 (p)
970-577-4770 (f)
town...@estes.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brown, William C. <willia...@brownwinick.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 11:49 AM
Subject: Vacation rental fee study
To: town...@estes.org <town...@estes.org>
Cc: Donna Carlson <do...@esteschamber.org>
Attached is a memo I shared with the town attorney over the weekend and which we discussed in a phone call
today. The town trustees may be interested in the memo in connection with the study session.
WILLIAM BROWN
ATTORNEY
P 515-242-2412
F 515-323-8512
willia...@brownwinick.com
666 Grand Avenue | Suite 2000 Ruan Center, Des Moines IA 50309
Main Phone 515-242-2400 | Toll Free 1-888-282-3515
Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross and Baskerville, P.L.C.
Notice: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521, is confidential and
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
Page 119
Mary's Lake rental
Jeff Heiserman
Mar 2, 2022, 12:05:56 PM
Hello,
My name is Jeff Heiserman.
My wife and I have owned a condo at Mary’s Lake for 4 years. We have struggled over the years with questionable
management, covid, threats of flooding and forest fires. Due to government shutdowns for covid and wildfire we
have had many months of no income while trying to pay a mortgage. We have also been living with the seemingly
constant threats of increased short term rental fees, taxes, licensing, etc. since we’ve owned it.
We have been made aware of a rule that’s seemingly about to pass requiring another fee/tax for a short term
license to put toward the affordable housing shortage in Estes.
For the time being our property manager is saying most owners will make these fees up by increasing the nightly
rate. That feels like a bandaid on an infected wound.
We have owned lots of rental property in Fort Collins that we’ve been selling off and moving to more friendly
landlord areas of the country, as many other investors we know have done.
As I can empathize with the position that a City official would be in regarding the problem of affordable housing, I
also realize this is a problem in virtually every mountain town in Colorado. Vail, Aspen, Breck, Steamboat, etc. all
struggle with this and none of them have found a solution yet. It seems like elephant hunting with a bb gun.
My biggest concern is that this measure will not solve the problem and there will be continuous fees and tax
increases perpetually on this issue.
I hope at some point this cannot continue to be the solution for this problem since I have not seen anyone else solve
this problem.
Thanks for your time,
Jeff Heiserman
Page 120
Affordable Housing and STRs
James Schwarz
Mar 2, 2022, 4:04:29 PM
Estes Park Town Board
March 2, 2022
Hello my name is Jim Schwarz. My wife and I bought a house in Estes Park last year and use it as a STR. I
have followed some of the Town Board meetings via zoom concerning this topic as well. I wanted to share
some of my thoughts with you concerning this. Sorry about the length.
First a pet peeve. In listening to discussions of STR certificate administration ( e.g. should they be time limited,
should there be less, the STR waiting list, etc) I have heard a number of board members talk about
incentivizing those who have a STR certificate but do not use their property for this to get them to either give
up the certificate or to rent the property. If STRs are causing a problem with affordable housing for the work
force then people not using their STR certificate would be beneficial correct? It seems a bit schizophrenic to
talk about the detrimental effects of STRs in one breath and then to desire to get some folks to utilize theirs
more.
I’m not a very organized writer and so I will just go through some things in order in the information from Root
Policy Research.
First it is reasonable to look at the study upon which Root Policy Research’s study is largely based:
The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb
K Barron, E Kung, D Proserpio - Marketing Science, 2021 - pubsonline.informs.org
(So this study can be read in its entirety by doing a google scholar search and clicking the
Pdf link to the right at turinschool.eu. )
It was done by essentially just gathering data from the internet from the VRBO website and zillow and looking
at the correlation between presumed VRBO usage and rent and house price data from zillow. Zip codes were
used as neighborhood boundaries. The bulk of the data therefore comes from the places with the most data
points such as large cities like New York and LA. As best as I can tell they did not do a derivation set of data
and then analyze a separate set of data to validate their mathematical model.
Here is the second part of the abstract:
At the median owner-occupancy rate zipcode, we find that a 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to a 0.018%
increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices. Considering the median annual Airbnb growth in
each zipcode, these results translate to an annual increase of $9 in monthly rent and $1,800 in house prices
for the median zipcode in our data, which accounts for about one fifth of actual rent growth and about one
seventh of actual price growth. Finally, we formally test whether the Airbnb effect is due to the reallocation of
the housing supply. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that, while the total supply of housing is not
affected by the entry of Airbnb, Airbnb listings increase the supply of short-term rental units and decrease the
supply of long-term rental units.
If there are 300 residential short term rental houses in EP with a total house stock of 4300 houses (7%) then
this would translate to an increase in median rent of 63 dollars per month and 12,600 to the median home price
in EP. To me a 12,600 dollar increase in the median home price would not seem to be a significant driver in
Page 121
affordability of houses in EP. 63 dollars per month rent would likely impact folks at the very low end of the
income spectrum.
The Root Policy Research Presentation:
Figure 1-1. Age Demographics over time.
This figure shows that the total population of EP has not changed a great deal over the past few years but it
has gotten older. The percentage of folks over 55 has gone from 45% in 2010 to 60% in 2019. Whether this is
due to existing residents getting older vs. older residents moving in, vs younger residents not moving in or
moving out preferentially cannot be determined.
We can’t say what percent of the group over 55 is retired or working part time or what type of jobs they work or
what type of housing they occupy but this is very skewed compared to the US as a whole. (16.5 % in US over
65, vs 37% in EP).
I imagine that many of the folks that we are concerned about with respect to the local workforce and affordable
housing are in the younger than 55 group. Have they been “pushed out” by rich retired people pushing up the
housing prices vs. they moved away and retired folks moved in vs. the existing population just got older can’t
be concluded but these numbers are pretty dramatic compared to much of the other data presented.
Figure 1-2 Jobs and Workers
This figure shows that jobs have steadily increased over the past several years. Unfortunately there is no
detail on types of jobs, income associated with the jobs, seasonal vs. not. So it is hard to say much about this
other than the overall population has gotten a bit smaller, it has gotten older and much older than US average
and there are more jobs. Interestingly the percent of jobs held by in commuters has stayed basically flat over
the past 10 years. ( If increasing home prices were making a large impact here I would have expected this to
increase significantly).
Figure 1-3 Housing Units and Occupancy
This figure does show that the number of units that are classified as seasonal or vacation or occasional use
has gone from roughly 1000 in 2010 to 1500 in 2019. Given that residential STRs only represent about 300
units it makes me wonder what happens with the others. I suspect that some may get used by friends of the
owners for a nominal or minimal fee. This may contribute to work force housing issues as well.
Figure 1-4 Building permits. It seems that duplex and multifamily units have been permitted at a reasonable
rate.
My main question here is can the town dictate what the selling price of these should be when it allows
permitting?
Figure 1-5 Rental Rates
I do not understand the use of average rather than median rental rates here by people who deal with numbers.
It would seem to be very inappropriate when trying to match people with variable incomes to housing costs.
Page 122
They use craigslist data to determine this. Not sure that’s the most accurate. Anyway when I try to guess
median monthly rents from the data I get. 750 per month in 2010 and 2015 and 1000 per month in
2019. Although this is not cheap it is much less than the 1800 figure used to calculate the fee for STR homes
later on.
Figure 1-6 Home Sales Price
Again the use of average rather than median sales price is inappropriate.
Figure II-1 Registered STRS by Zone
Until last night’s meeting I was unaware of what commercial zoned STRs were. I emailed Town Clerk
Williamson for details about these but have not heard back yet. It seems like she felt that these were directly
contributing to decrease in resident housing. Why are these not limited like residential STRs are? If these are
causing a problem then it would make sense to limit them correct?
Figure II-4 Estes park STR characteristics.
To me this illustrates one of the problems with using consultants. You basically have the data on the STRs via
the certificates and it typically is 2 people per bedroom correct? So instead of using the towns data, they go to
get data on the internet and come up with numbers that say that for 2.1 bedrooms the occupancy is 6.7
guests. This makes me question the accuracy of the internet data.
Section III Impact Analysis
Here Root Policy Research uses the mathematical model from the Barron et. al. paper to make some
estimates about the effects of STRs on house prices and rents in EP. Construction of a
regression analysis of just EP was not feasible because it was too geographically small they state. So they
used data from Colorado as a whole. They do not say exactly what variables were replaced. I assume it is
things like actual home prices in Colorado and percent of home ownership in Colorado zip codes but they do
not state that here.
Figure III-1
This shows the impact of a 1% increase in STRs on rental stock owner stock and rents and home prices
according to this model.
To me these effects do not seem that large and they do not provide an explanation for why the Colorado model
is different from the national model ( such as houses are more expensive in Colorado, a tourism effect, etc. )
This is due to changing some of the input variables in the model but there is no indication of what variables
impacted this the most.
In addition, they are not able to make an estimate for their Colorado model of an impact of STRs on either
housing prices or rents.
Figure III-2
This is an estimation of loss of housing for EP due to STRs. Using their worst case scenario it would seem that
STRS have caused the loss of 27 houses that would have been available to working residents of EP. This
Page 123
seems large to me. I would encourage you to look at the homes that are registered at STRs and see if you feel
that they would fit in the affordable housing category.
Now for the fee:
Here we go again with the mean rather than median. They use groups of people based on median income
which is reasonable but they all are going to buy a mean priced house?
This is not how things work. People in lower incomes buy less expensive housing.
Perhaps looking at rents is easier to see.
Back on Figure I-5 we see that in 2019 about 27% of rental units were 500-749 dollars. So who rents these
units. I would guess its the folks with lower incomes. So then why in the fee assessment are the folks with the
lowest incomes assumed to be renting apts at 1800 dollars a month?
The same is true for houses. Perhaps even more so as there are some very expensive houses that
significantly skew the averages. In calculating this, rents and house prices need to be matched to incomes.
My conclusion from the study is that the impact of residential STRs on affordable housing in EP is likely not
that great. The commercial STRs may be a different issue but I am not clear on what they actually are. My
impression in talking with people is that workforce housing has been an issue prior to AIRbnb. The fee
assessment to mitigate this impact is flawed and there was not a clear plan on what to do with the money if it is
generated.
Other thoughts:
Are these businesses or not. That is a difficult question and it likely runs the gamut. For my wife and I we
have vacationed in EP a lot and were looking to buy a house there for us as well as an investment that was not
the stock market. We picked the house we did however because it came with a rental certificate. We
purchased (semi locally in Longmont) a great deal of furniture for it as well as painted the entire inside as well
as flooring upgrades and backyard up grades. Because we stay there over a couple of weeks a year, it is not
considered a rental house by Federal Tax Code. Thus none of these expenses are business expenses, and
there is no depreciation. We have a local property manager (who does pay business taxes) and he gets paid a
percentage as well. The income at the end of the year is taxed at our personal income rate. We are basically
happy with covering taxes and utilities and getting some income from it. Compared with recent stock market
history, we would probably be doing better in the stock market. Its also nice to know that other people are able
to enjoy the house. I’m sure there are others who try to make a living out of buying properties and doing STRs
and that does seem like a more traditional business as well.
The impact of STRs on the work force.
Tons of people visit EP and stay at lots of different types of places. Hotels, motels, camping,RVS. I would
argue that the visitors to STRs may have a bit less impact on the workforce in the sense that meals can be
cooked in the house rather than a restaurant and there is no daily maid service just at the end of the visit.
Other thoughts on this issue:
Affordable housing has been an issue in EP for a long time. STRs may have had a small impact but in my
opinion not large.
Page 124
I think that if you as a town board want to really make an impact you will have to get into the housing business
in a larger way.
You could purchase houses that come on the market at the market price. You could then sell to a person with
a certain median income at a lower price. That person could only sell back to the town in the future at a similar
discount relative to the market. This is somewhat akin to rent control. It would require a significant amount of
work on the part of the town and need to be very transparent.
You could get in the business of building low income homes or rental properties. In this case, you could
probably get investors who were looking for a pretty safe bet but not one that would necessarily generate a
great deal of income. You could work with the State government and possibly the Federal government so that
income generated to investors would be tax free at least.
I also think that you need a bit better data upon which to make some of these decisions. This also requires a
bit of work. I would survey various businesses, schools, about the housing needs of their workers, what type of
housing is desired, the single seasonal worker is much different from folks with a family who want to live there
year round.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Jim Schwarz
jksch...@gmail.com
Page 125
Study Session Reflections
Karen Randinitis
Mar 2, 2022, 8:16:51 AM
Good Morning Mayor & Trustees,
After watching last night’s study session, I walked away with a lot more questions than answers, which makes
me think more streamlined thinking and planning needs to be considered before a vote or even a discussion on
a vote regarding the implementation of any fee on short term rentals.
What is the end goal here? Is the money going to be used for land acquisition? Will the money go directly to
new development? Will this go straight towards local partners including the Estes Park Housing Authority? No
one seems to know.
Then I question, are we just arbitrarily picking a fee based on a report that says it’s a good idea? Does the fee
make sense? What are the unintended consequences? No one talked about that. Why would we put a fee on
commercial zoning when that’s exactly it’s purpose and housing just happens to be part of the property? Is the
proposed fee and subsequent annual revenue material enough to make a difference?
Voting this in before the election and new candidates begin, doesn’t make sense to me. The majority of the
candidates value childcare and housing. My fear is you pass this and our community says, ‘yay housing
funding is solved’ when really $500k-$600k isn’t even close to the tens of millions of dollars it will take to even
make a dent. Let’s keep the conversation going and work towards building more political will and work towards
a tax (to be put before the voters) to bring in millions of dollars not just pennies in a giant bucket.
I urge you as both a candidate and a community member to take pause on any vote before a new board is
elected. Defining a strategic plan for housing with a lot more information and then working towards a
sustainable funding source, which could include an impact fee, should be the next steps, not a vote.
--
Karen Randinitis
Candidate for Estes Park Town Trustee
Page 126
C. Wyndham Kidd, Jr.
2001 Lincoln Street, Unit 3023
Denver, Co 80202
March 03, 2022
To: Mayor and Trustees of the Town of Estes Park
Re: Vacation Home Impact Study
By way of introduction, I am Wyndham Kidd and own a cabin (1632 Brooks Lane) in the
Mountain Village development in Estes Park. I wish to comment on the pending study the
Town has undertaken regarding short-term rentals (STR’s).
At this point, I do not think there is a specific proposal on the table to support or oppose, so I
offer these comments in an effort to fully understand the problem.
I am generally skeptical of studies such as the one offered by Root Policy Research. While they
do provide some constructive insights to an issue, they can often be designed to support a pre -
or dained position. This can be especially true with correlation analyses.
For example, while it makes sense that the existence of STR’s might have a negative impact on
the availability of longer-term rental housing, it may not make that housing more affordable
and available to the workforce. Moreover, workforce availability and affordable housing issues
are not unique to Estes Park, but rather are national issues.
I have three young adult children, one of whom owns his own business. Here in Denver where
STR’s have little or no impact, they all struggle with the affordability of housing and in hiring a
workforce for their business. I fear that we may be asking one slice of the Estes Park economy
to address a more global issue.
In my own case and that of 29 of my neighbors, I would argue that while we would be impacted
by much of what is being considered, the development of Mountain Village has had no impact
on the availability of workforce housing. This development was designed and built specifically
for the STR market. This development has meant significantly more property tax collection for
the Town versus what was previously collected on the vacant land. Additionally, the occupancy
of these 30 units by owners and guests adds significantly to the sales tax revenue base of the
community.
Page 127
Personally, I spend about half of my time in Estes Park. I make the remaining days available for
rent which helps defray the costs of ownership. While in Estes Park I eat at restaurant, shop at
grocery stores and other shops, buy gas, etc. In short, I contribute to the economy of the Town.
In summary, I do not disagree that the existence of a viable workforce and the availability of
affordable housing are challenges that deserve our attention. I simply encourage you as
leaders of the Town to view this issue in its broadest form and select solutions that address
these issues without creating other negative and perhaps unintended co nsequences.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Wyndham Kidd
Page 128
14 views
ma...@shopmaryjanes.com Mar 4
to swebe...@estes.org
Dear Trustee Scott Webermeier:
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
We once were full-time residents and at that time started a business in Estes Park, called Mary Jane’s. We
moved away after about 6 years, but could not have kept our business there without having a home to stay at
during the busy summer months, when our business requires utmost attention.
My family and I stay in our vacation home during the summer months, so that I am available to work daily in our
small business supporting tourists and locals alike. After the summer months, we return to our out-of-town full-
time residence and allow guests to stay in our home under our vacation rental license. This arrangement allows
us to use our own home during the high traffic summer months, but rent it out when we are not there to help us
offset the costs of owning a home there. Our home would never be added to the long-term rental pool because
we need it during the summer to run our business. I am not sure that you have considered how many homes are
used in this manner, and would like to bring it to your attention.
While I know that the workforce housing shortage is a real issue facing Estes Park, I do not believe it is fair to
target one segment of lodging to fund it. I believe this is a town issue that requires a major initiative across all
channels to support it. My question is why doesn’t the town incentivize builders to build workforce housing by tax
incentives, relaxed regulations, easing restrictions, etc. This is not a new problem - it has been a problem for
many years and the town has been too slow to address it. My understanding is that the residential vacation rental
quantity is capped and has not grown in several years due to the cap. Why would we be penalized now? I urge
you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Smithson
Small Business & Vacation Rental Owner
ma...@shopmaryjanes.com
808-339-5935
Vacation Rental Fee Study
Page 129
Vacation Rental Fee Study-Why
Traxinger, Tim
Mar 4, 2022, 10:16:29 AM (13 days ago)
Dear Town of Estes Park Member,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have
become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the
town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing. The Question is Why? Why this group?
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
• It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad based funding mechanism.
• The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
• An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local
marketing district lodging tax collections.
• The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation rentals.
Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
• It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the revenues
derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes valley nearly all of
the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the
purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the
vacation rental and in others the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later
date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have
been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the tourist base in Estes, these
properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and
cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease
renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of
accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also
have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the
problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
Vacation Rental Owner
Page 130
Tim Traxinger | Managing Director
Magenium Solutions | 535 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 103 | Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
P: 630.786.5901
Let’s Connect : Facebook : Twitter : LinkedIn
Page 131
From: Joe Elkins <joe.t....@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 3:47 PM
To: Becky Robbins <beckyro...@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: Information about the Short Term Rental Fee study - Town Council will vote on March 22
Hi Becky,
Thank you for putting this together and your leadership in this matter.
Do you have any data regarding how many STRs are owner-occupied and only rented out occasionally as opposed
to those houses that are purely STRs? I dont think what is being proposed is fair in either situation. But in my case
it seems very unfair: I have an STR license on my home but have yet to rent it because I have been repairing it and I
live in it. I have an STR license because I hope to use it in the coming years once my home has been updated.
Thank you,
Joe Elkins
145 Courtney Ln.
‘The Elk Inn, LLC.’
Page 132
STR fee
Linda Small
Mar 9, 2022, 2:14:00 PM (8 days ago)
to wko...@estes.org
Mayor, I strongly disagree with the fee being proposed for in town short term rentals. At the meeting board
members kept saying they needed the fee as vacation home numbers keep going up. The in town number was
capped since the inception of the licensing so in town rentals should not have to pay the fee if it is passed. The
numbers are not going up in town. Please thoughtfully consider.
Please also quit treating us like second class citizens. We work hard. We are not rich, or getting rich, which many
presume and voice We work at this just like you work at your job We are a big part of visitors positive experience in
Estes. We pay Contractors, sub contractors, repair people, housekeepers, and are considerable contributor to people
wanting to work and to taxes coming in. It’s time to recognize vacation homes as a positive element to the town
instead of always demeaning them.
Thank you,
Linda Small
Page 133
Impact Fee for STRs
Chris Hines
Mar 11, 2022, 6:35:44 PM (5 days ago)
to wko...@estes.org
Please don't penalize STRs even further for the high revenue each one brings to the Estes Park
Valley. As demonstrated by the study paid for by the town of Estes Park, short-term rentals have very
little impact on either the availability or affordability of workforce housing.
Page 134
STR fee
Linda Neely
Mar 11, 2022, 3:45:43 PM (6 days ago)
to wko...@estes.org
I own a home in Estes Park which is a second home and I have a license for rentals. I do not have a problem
contributing towards worker housing, but the current proposal puts too much of that burden on STR homes. If the
fees become too high I will just quit renting but continue to have a second home In Estes Park. The city will gain
nothing if that happens. Someone else will scoop up my license opening and another house will not be available for
worker housing. Please look for a broad based funding plan.
Thank you
Linda Neely
Page 135
STR Impact Fee
mary...@gmail.com
Mar 11, 2022, 3:40:48 PM (6 days ago)
to Wendy Koenig
Dear Mayor,
I wrote the letter below to you in August and I am resending to emphasize my opposition to the proposed
impact fee. I watched the recorded presentation of the Impact Study and have read and re-read the statistics. I
believe that any consultant group can find numbers and rearrange them to support just about any desired
conclusion.
A major point for me is that if I were not allowed to rent my house as a short-term rental or if fees prevented
me from economically continuing to rent, I would DEFINITELY NOT consider a long term rental. I want the flexibility
to use my house as often as possible. My grandparents built this house in 1947 and our family has never missed a
summer spending time in Estes Park. We will not be selling either.
Further, at the end of the rental season, my family has just enough “profit” to have a small rainy day fund for
an emergency repair and a small amount of money that we put right back into improving our house using local
contractors. We do not put one penny in our pocket.
In my opinion, penalizing short-term rental properties is unethical and the connection to STRs causing
workforce housing deficits is not substantiated.
Thank you for listening to both sides of this situation.
Mary Ross
124 Stanley Circle
Estes Park, CO 80517
On Aug 16, 2021, at 12:37 PM, mary...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Mayor,
My brother, two cousins and I are Estes Park home owners (124 Stanley Circle) and hold a vacation rental
registration. I listened to the town meeting on August 10th and want to convey my concern and objection to
increasing the tax burden or adding fees on rentals. I understand there is a significant need to address workforce
housing, but I feel like vacation rentals have been an ongoing target for several years.
My grandparents built our cabin in 1947 and the legacy has been passed down to my generation. We don’t hold a
permit without using it or look at it as a means to inflate our property value. Instead, we rent in order to afford to
keep the house we love and maintain it in the best manner possible. As you know, the window for rental is primarily
from May to October and then we wait and budget to get to the next season. In 2019, we spent $10,913.40 to meet
and pass the safety inspection requirements. We use a very qualified management company and our neighbors
have not complained about our rental guests. I feel like we contribute to the economy in Estes Park as a provider of
accommodations, a customer of many local repair trades and a client of a local management group.
Thank you for representing our community. I really appreciated your balanced viewpoint. We love Estes Park and
view it as a family treasure.
Mary Ross
2323 Farrington Street #100
Dallas, Texas 75207
214.697.5135
Page 136
short term rental/workforce housing
Nancy Collinet
Mar 11, 2022, 10:34:42 AM (6 days ago)
to wko...@estes.org
Dear Mayor Wendy Koenig,
Please stop ignoring us and start listening to the citizens of the town of Estes Park regarding workforce
housing.
You are in that seat because of us and you are there to help us collaborate and come up with a plan.
Before you require me to pay $1,400 per year for workforce housing without a defined plan in place, please
listen to all the ideas from the citizens.
(There were some great ideas that the candidates shared with The Women League of Voters last night!!)
Short term rental owners are contributing to our town by opening their homes to visitors for a unique lodging
experience. This has a direct positive impact on our town's economy.
1. This imposed fee would have been more widely accepted if you presented what you were going to do
with the funds-FIRST. Asking us for $1,400 per year and not explaining what it will be used for doesn’t
sit right. People want to know what their money will be used for.
2. EVERY homeowner uses the services in Estes Park that requires a workforce so every homeowner
should contribute - not just short term rental owners.
3. Short term rental owners already contribute so much to our community and workforce. In addition to
property taxes, sales tax, utilities and permit fees we also pay cleaners, plumbers, handymen,
electricians, HVAC companies, Property Management companies etc.
Let us ALL create a solid plan together!
Thank you for reading,
Nancy Collinet
Page 137
STR “impact fee”
Shelley Richey
Mar 11, 2022, 4:16:31 PM (6 days ago)
to wko...@estes.org
Hello. I own a short term rental vacation home. I have no idea why the town is so against these homes. I can assure
you if they were not STR, they would not contribute to workforce housing. The town is punishing us or simply
looking for more revenue. For the record I am totally against. You are making Estes Park a less desirable vacation
destination. We will sell before we participate in this. Way off base on this one.
Respectfully
LE Richey MD
Sent from my iPhone
Page 138
Proposed Tax to short term vacation homes
Bill Self
Mar 12, 2022, 3:28:46 PM (5 days ago)
Ms. Koenig,
You were an excellent teacher for the school district for myself. I hope you see that the shortage of employees in
Estes is the responsibility of all the people who live in Estes Park. We are all interested in making more affordable
housing for workers and we are all responsible to help make this possible. If you tax me, a vacation home owner,
what is my incentive to continue to rent my home that helps increase the daily economy for Estes Park (tourism)?
Every citizen should be responsible for this tax! We all need the workers to help with our economy! This is like a
punishment because I want to retire in Estes Park; thus making me question if I really want to retire in a community
where I am punished for having a short term vacation home! Please, reconsider this tax.
Thank you for being that teacher and thank you for being our mayor!!
Bill Self
DNP, FNP-C, RN/BSN
Page 139
Mayor Wendy Koenig
Re: Vacation Rental Fee Study
Dear Mayor Koenig:
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the town. I have become
aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee could be imposed by the town without
voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax requiring voter
approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes Park
tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and local marketing
district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation rentals.
Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of the revenues
derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all of the
vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in financing the purchase of
the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the vacation rental
and for others, the owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later date. Very few
owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such properties in the
Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have been portrayed by
opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes, these properties
support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property managers and cleaning services. If
additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some of the owners will cease renting these properties and
may end up selling them. Not only would this decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting
negative impact on tourism and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market
that could be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this impact
fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding source is needed to address the problem on a
comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Donald Frevert
Vacation Rental Owner
dkfr...@netzero.net
Page 140
STR Fee/Tax
JOHN E FANNON
Mar 12, 2022, 6:34:27 PM (4 days ago)
Mayor Koenig,
I'm a home owner in Estes. It's a vacation home that I've owned for 16 years. I use it most of the summer. I was
renting on the shoulder seasons but lost my license because I couldn't get the safety requirement remedied in time
due to Covid affecting all workers and supplies. I asked for a short extension which the city denied. Didn't matter
that a pandemic was in the works. I applied to be on the list again, I was #57 when I signed up.
If the fee/tax goes as high as is being considered, I won't renew and I'll take my property out of circulation reducing
the availability to tourists. I won't be the only one. None of these vacation homes will do anything to remedy lack of
affordable housing. We are not a ski resort if that's the model you're trying to follow. None of the data I've seen
supports anything you're trying to accomplish. It's just another poke in the eye by city hall.
My experience with formerly owning a business in Estes Park is being reinforced again. The town leadership clique
does what they want to help themselves - only. Nothing to help struggling businesses or home owners or anyone
outside the clique.
John Fannon
Page 141
Impact Fee Regarding Short Term Rental Properties
Robert Scruggs
Mar 12, 2022, 11:01:59 AM (5 days ago)
Dear Mayor Koenig
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee
could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing. I
urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
• It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize
another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad based funding mechanism.
• The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax
requiring voter approval.
• An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on
the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes valley, including the impact on
town sales tax and local marketing district lodging tax collections.
• The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating
vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town
regulation of these properties.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increases the tourist base in Estes,
these properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property
managers and cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some
of the owners will cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism
and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could
be adverse to local residents.
The proposed impact fee regarding short term rentals is different from the impact fee for the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District. A classic impact fee is applicable only to new development. Unlike the
existing Fire District impact fee, this fee would be imposed on existing short term rental properties
thus departing from traditional use of impact fees.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is
unlikely that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue. A broader funding source
is needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis.
I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Sincerely,
Joann S. Scruggs
Page 142
STR IMPACT FEE
SUSAN MEDINA
Mar 12, 2022, 3:52:23 PM (5 days ago)
to cba...@estes.org
---------- Original Message ----------
From: SUSAN MEDINA <susan...@comcast.net>
To: "wko...@estes.org" <wko...@estes.org>
Date: 03/12/2022 3:40 PM
Subject: STR IMPACT FEE
Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees,
I purchased a home 6 years ago to hopefully one day use for a
retirement home. Did I know how difficult it is to live up to all the rules and regulations, Exuberant
fee's, Licenses, inspection's and constant changes in the rules I never would have signed up for
being a STR. I due everything in my power to be an asset to community and educate my guests on
being respectful of all the things EP has to offer. We pay our fair share.
Just off the top of my head I noticed approval of 109 new vacation
units in EP. These are Fall River Villages and Mountain Villages. If you do the math STR's are
responsible for less than 5% of the housing shortage but you allowed another 5.39 % to be built
without being included in the housing shortage equation. This is a whole community issue and 100%
of us need to address the issue not 5%.
My home will never be used for long term rental housing or
workforce housing. I too am considering vacating the STR market as we are always a target in
EP. I think you need to consider all the revenue our homes and guests bring in to the Town and
show some appreciation for all that we contribute. This fee is discrimination and should go to voters!
Sincerely
Susan Medina
Page 143
New tax on Short Term Rentals
tonib...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2022, 4:10:26 PM (5 days ago)
Dear Mayor Koenig,
I am the owner of a property in Estes Park that is considered a Short Term Vacation Rental. It is my understanding
that on March 22nd, you will be considering a tax or “impact fee” on rental properties because you do not have
enough rental property in the town for the “workforce”. I am asking that you vote NO on this proposal.
Here are my thoughts:
After visiting Estes Park for several summers, I purchased my condo because I wanted a place to stay when my
family came to Estes for the summer and other quick visits throughout the year. Eventually, we plan to make Estes
Park our permanent year-round home. My primary purpose for the purchase was for my family, and it will NEVER be
converted to a long term rental, especially during the summer months when the workforce shortage is the greatest.
Moving my property out of the STVR will not help your housing shortage.
I have the opportunity to rent my unit on a short-term basis when we are not in town, the renting of which brings
additional income to the town through license fees, sales taxes and increased utility fees. It also gives visitors who
spend THOUSANDS of dollars locally a place to stay, which helps the economy of all the shops and restaurants in
town that HIRE these seasonal workers. It is unfair and inappropriate to expect the STVR owners to subsidize the
profits of all these other businesses. EVERY BUSINESS should participate in the solution to the housing for their
employees.
I believe there are 322 STVR licenses. Are we only 322 units short for workforce housing in the city? It seems to me
that WE are not the problem, especially since not everyone would automatically convert their rental to a long term
rental property. We should not be singled out and taxed any more than any other contributing member of our
community.
Part of the problem is that rents are not affordable for many workers. Rents in the city have gone up
significantly. The 2 bedroom unit next to me was renting (long term) for $1300 per month in 2020. When the rent
was set to renew, the rent was going up to $2300. That is $27,600 per year. If you assume that a person’s rent
should be 25% of their income, that means the household would need to make $110,400 per year. How many jobs
in the city pay that kind of wages - Even half that much if 2 people share the rent and work? How do we get the rents
down to an affordable amount?
We need MORE housing.
I have 3 suggestions to help affordable workforce housing:
The city needs to come up with a plan to provide AFFORDABLE workforce housing. A dormitory style facility needs
to be constructed for the seasonal employees in the hospitality industry. This should be owned by the city or a non-
profit.
Here is an idea for those full time people seeking to buy in the city. When an existing property goes on the market,
for the first 10 days, require all offers be from people who work 40 hours in the community (the real full time work
force). After that, people from outside the community can make their offer. This is similar to what FHA does with
their foreclosures – first 10 days from owner occupants, if no full price or acceptable bid, then investors can bid. If
the locals have a serious pre-APPROVAL letter, they should be considered seriously above cash offers from
investors. Get the local banks and realtors involved. I’m talking a serious pre-APPROVED letter, not some random
pre-qualification letter off the internet.
Page 144
Build more restricted single family projects like Vista Ridge. The non-workforce units are sold at market to anyone
and a certain percentage of the units are designated workforce with the initial price reduction for the workforce
units subsidized by the city/developer. The developer can use less fancy finishes inside the workforce units to keep
the cost down and recoup his costs on the non-workforce units.
There are many options that can be considered and implemented without penalizing those of us who love Estes
Park and contribute to the community.
Thank you for your time, and all you do to support the Estes Park Community.
Toni Bird
1240 South St. Vrain Ave, Unit 3
Page 145
STR Tax Concerns
Barb Bortz
Mar 13, 2022, 2:14:03 PM (4 days ago)
Hello Mayor Koening,
My husband and I own a Short-Term Vacation Rental home in Estes Park.
We are writing to you at this time to express our concerns about the possible fee that will be voted on shortly.
First, we will say we feel it is very unfair that STR properties have been singled out for this. Without the addition of
STR properties there would be much fewer accommodations for tourists who bring in lots of cash flow for Estes
Park. There wouldn't be enough hotel rooms for all the incoming tourists. (Perhaps a study should be done on the
number of tourists that come into town and the number of hotel rooms available - not counting STR properties for
rent to see how important STR properties are)
So, we don't understand why we will have to pay a fee and no other business would. but in addition to hotels, we
bring in tourists who spend money at the park, restaurants, shops, etc.
Why aren't hotels and motels having to pay the fee? They too are taking away from lodging for workers. Often
people will rent a hotel room on a monthly basis. but I doubt if they could afford to do that in Estes Park.
We understand there is a shortage of homes/rentals for workers in Estes Park. Unfortunately, this is not just in
Estes Park. but affordable housing is hard to find almost anywhere you go.
Personally, we would be okay paying a smaller fee to the town as long as ALL businesses had to do this. Perhaps
our business license rates could all go up a pinch. Again, if everyone in town that had a business had to chip in a
little it may seem more fair to everyone. Everyone's little could go a long way. WE ARE ALL PART OF ESTES PARK!
- WE ALL NEED TO COME TOGETHER TO HELP THIS SITUATION. (All businesses rely on employees)
Thank you for your time. We hope you consider what we have to say.
Michael & Barb Bortz
Ideas: Perhaps there could be some grant money for business owners who may have space above their units that
could be renovated for employee lodging. Just a thought!
Maybe a shuttle service from Lyons/Longmont for employees to get to Estes Park.
Page 146
STR and workforce housing
Ed Wagner
Mar 13, 2022, 10:37:22 AM (4 days ago)
Trustee Bangs,
We've been watching the Board proceedings with respect to short-term rentals and the workforce housing shortage
and would like to share our two cents.
We thought that it was a reasonable step to engage a consulting company to understand the correlation between
short-term rentals and workforce housing. By all means, let's introduce some data into the conversation. While the
level of accuracy of the study can be debated, we can reasonably assume that it is directionally accurate - i.e. that
short-term rentals have some, but not much, impact on workforce housing. Maybe 5% of the housing gap can be
attributed to short-term rentals. Now that we all understand the order of magnitude, why are we spending any more
time talking about something so insignificant?
As members of this community, we are happy to pay whatever taxes and fees are necessary to support our
community and help it thrive. As a short-term rental operator, we'd be happy to pay this fee if it would substantially
fix the problem of workforce housing. However, it's not clear what benefit it will have at all. On the other hand, it will
certainly add work and expense to both short-term rental operators and town staff for collections and enforcement.
Let's all stay focused on what we agree is an issue worth solving - workforce housing - and search for meaningful
and impactful solutions. You can count us in when there is a meaningful solution on the table. You can also count
us in on this fee proposal if it indeed will make meaningful progress towards addressing our workforce housing
problem. We just don't see how it does so please either enlighten us or let's move on to the next proposal.
Thank you for your service to our community,
Ed & Jennifer Wagner
430 Fall River Ln
Page 147
STR Impact Fee
Michele West
Mar 13, 2022, 4:58:16 PM (4 days ago)
Dear Estes Park Mayor and Trustees,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license. I have owned property
in Estes Park for 22 years including a small resort for 14 years and now a 2 nd home/short term rental for the
last 8 years.
I’m frustrated, disappointed and angry that a fee would be imposed on such a small group of people to fund a
community wide problem that has been around for years. I remember getting calls over 20 years ago asking if
we could provide much needed workforce housing at our resort, this was way before STR’s were even a thing
in the Estes Valley.
I believe it’s an unfair plan which seems a bit sneaky and somewhat corrupt to pass something (that
essentially IS a tax) without voter approval.
If I didn’t rent our house as a short-term rental, I would never use it as a long-term rental or workforce
housing. So, it’s not taking away from that sector in the least bit. I also use this house for my family and host
other family and friends as well.
Honestly, if additional fees are going to be imposed on each rental, I’m more likely not to rent it out as
much. If a flat fee is imposed, I’m still more likely not to rent it out as much just to pull out additional
sales/marketing tax from going to the town.
I believe that funds for workforce housing should come from a focus on the whole community instead of just
from 322 legal STRs. We already feel underappreciated and undervalued (from some of vocal locals..I’m sure
you know who they are) for the revenue our businesses bring to Estes Park. This is just another way you are
proving that point.
Sincerely,
Michele Westmoreland
Page 148
Dont punish STR
Elements of Touch Wellness Spa & Estes River Retreat
Mar 13, 2022, 11:04:44 AM (4 days ago)
I have been in town for 30 years, raised my family, run multiple businesses and have owned a STR
(zoned in a commercial multi-use district) since 2006. I have seen this industry grow a lot in the last
8 years and notice that I don't have to do anything special to rent during the summer/ fall months as
the demand is SO high for rentals that the hotels/ condos cannot keep up.
At the same time I run a wellness spa and struggle constantly with hiring as most of the staff drives
up from the valley - the cost, weather influences and burnout is a real consideration and living up
here as you know is pricey and difficult.
The solution is NOT to punish the existing STR owners- yes put a cap on it and then get busy
building multi story apartment homes for people to live in and work in town.
I hope you think hard before you add more restrictions to existing STR owners and increase fees, it
will not solve your problems- This town has been asleep at the wheel for years, in my opinion -not
preparing for this, watching the #s of RMNP rise and not planning for what that means for this
gateway town. We now experience congestion, pollution and an experience that is full of long lines
and not as enjoyable as it could be-
The parking garage was a great idea, Estes will NOT grow, it will continue to be a boutique mountain
town. The amenities need to be there and so do the rentals.
I believe one of the issues you are running into is that the way people like to travel is not in hotel
room- but the families and even couples want space and so the " home" experience is what they
want, have you asked yourself if there are enough of those types of units for the people coming up
here?
Have a bigger vision, plan for the future, create housing for the workforce so we can employ people
and at the same time accommodate people wanting to come up here and experience the mountains.
Ravit Michener
Rest Relax and Rejuvenate the Rockies
477 Pine River Lane Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-6597
BOOK YOUR SPA TIME NOW- CLICK HERE
STAY AT OUR LUXURY ACCOMMODATIONS - CLICK HERE
Page 149
STR tax
Alpha Omega
Mar 13, 2022, 6:46:15 PM (4 days ago)
Mayor Pro Tem Martchink,
While it is true that there is a shortage of affordable/workforce housing in Estes Park, the assumption that the
solution to the problem is taxing short term rentals is a fallacy. Short term rental properties. tend to be homes
whose prices are beyond the reach of those in need of "affordable housing". The town's own study indicates that
STR's are not having a significant impact on the affordable housing market. The town knows, based upon their own
inquiries, that few owners of STR's would be willing to convert their homes to long term rentals and even fewer still
would be willing to make their homes available to the affordable housing market.
The town needs to incentivize investors and builders to venture into the "affordable housing market. Tax breaks, fee
waivers, zoning adjustments, etc. may prompt a favorable response. In reality, the most likely way to provide
affordable housing is for the town to get into the business of building, maintaining and renting out affordable
housing units. There is a limited amount of available land for development. This drives up the cost of housing. Who
controls zoning, the government. Who controls the land use plan, the government. Who can allow prohibited lands
to be developed, the government.
Rather than doing what may be perceived as politically expedient, (taxing STR's) do that which will actually work. We
live in a free market society. Find a free market solution. Tax and spend will only increase inflation, it will not solve
the problem.
--
Sincerely,
Steve Ferrante
rentes...@gmail.com
Page 150
Proposed STR Fee
Steven Allely
Mar 13, 2022, 8:13:15 PM (4 days ago)
STR's bring people to Estes Park who spend their money there. The town has capped the STR's,
this tax will not lower the number of STR's but penalize the people who come to spend their
money in Estes. This is a tax and should be put before voters. Let the market make decisions, if the
workforce can't afford to live here, it will demand better pay for them to live here, putting the
burden on a new sector of non centralized property owners is unfair & heinous!
The Trustees should drop this ill-considered and unfair plan to impose fees only on STR owners
and focus instead on ways to raise funds for workforce housing from the entire visitor base.
Page 151
STR Impact Fee
Karen Spitznagle
Mar 14, 2022, 10:01:07 AM (3 days ago)
Good Morning,
We are Doug and Karen Spitznagle, from Avoca Iowa, and we have a second home in Estes Park.
We Love Estes Park and had always wanted to be able to have a second home there.
When the opportunity came we jumped on a condo at 607 Park River Pl.. We had not considered being a part of the
STR population, but after purchasing the condo, we knew we wouldn't be there in the summer and worried about it
sitting empty. So, we investigated Property Management companies and hired a locally owned and operated
company, Sky Run.
We decided to rent our condo, when we were not there.
This decision was not to make money, but rather to have a presence in the condo when we couldn't be there, and
allow others to enjoy all Estes Park has to offer.
As a property owner, we felt like we were offering the community tourism dollars. And now feel as though we are
being punished for making our home available.
In the past, we have supported Estes Park, and would like to continue to do so, as we have always attempted to use
local resources for any thing we have needed, flooring, groceries.etc.. And Sky Run has also utilized local people for
their business, maintenance people and cleaning people.
This fee seems to be more of an attack on the STR people than an answer to the housing problem.
We feel we have brought money into Estes through our own ownership and by providing a place for people to come
to spend their money at local amenities.
Please consider not allowing this STR Impact fee to go forward, as we feel it could have a negative impact on the
tourism community.
Doug and Karen Spitznagle Phone # 712-579-1363
614 E Jaycee St.
Avoca, IA 51521
Page 152
Unfair penalizing STR's for affordable housing
earl colm
Mar 14, 2022, 9:21:28 AM (3 days ago)
Cindy,
I wanted to write you about the proposed penalty tax on STR's for employee housing and let you know how unfair &
unrealistic this proposal is. The price of housing across Colorado has absolutely sky rocketed and making
affordable housing possible is an issue that everyone in Colorado has to deal with. I find the current proposed
penalty tax on STR's just part of the blame game that is also hurting everyone across the United States, which we all
need to stop. STR's are not the cause of lack of affordable housing, but just an easy lets blame them and penalize
them which is extremely misguided and frankly unfair. I think instead of blaming STR's for the lack of affordable
housing we should be asking why isn't homes with long term rent options being utilized. Unfortunately with the sky
rocketing home rates many owners are instead trying to cash out instead of offering their homes as long term rents,
so why don't we try to focus on helping to reduce this affect. Why not off tax incentives to home owners who are
willing to do long term rentals and add a sales tax to everyone to help cover? This seems extremely fair and an easy
solution since everyone in Estes will agree that we need to help drive affordable housing. Also why are we not
pushing to raise the minimum wage, so people can help to better take care of their families and have a better
chance and affording to be able to live in Estes Park.
I appreciate your time reading this and hope that you as a Trustee will help to drive a better solution instead of this
"lets blame the STR's" which is just an absurd argument.
take care and have a great day
Earl Colm
Page 153
Suggestion to Estes Park Town Trustees on Short Term Rentals and
Workforce Housing
Gordon Ulrickson
Mar 14, 2022, 10:46:04 AM (3 days ago)
Dear Estes Park Town Trustees,
Thank you for taking on the problem of affordable housing for full-time and seasonal employees for the businesses in
the Estes Valley.
This problem has already been successfully solved by other mountain communities such as Aspen, Breckenridge and
Avon.
Please study and consider the program created in Aspen, Colorado. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority has a
very comprehensive and successful program for providing affordable housing for the full time and seasonal employees in
Aspen and Pitkin County. The funding for their program comes from many sources. A real estate transfer tax of about 1%
is added to all existing home sales. A new build fee for employee housing mitigation is added to all new building
construction. This Housing Authority currently has 3,200 deed restricted units with more currently being built to come
available soon. This very successful program has been in place since the mid 1960’s. Their website is: APCHA.org. The
town of Aspen has a Lodging Tax and Sales Tax, but no tax specific to short term rentals.
The burden for funding affordable work force housing should come from the whole community and not one single
source.
Thank you for reading these comments,
Gordon Ulrickson
Property Owner
690 Moraine Ave., #3
Estes Park, CO 80517
Cell: 303-882-0822
Estes Park Vacation Home Business License #6207
Page 154
STR fee
Linda Small
Mar 14, 2022, 10:21:14 PM (2 days ago)
Respectfully, Please keep an open mind and think about this for a minute. Everyone at the meeting kept
stating that vacation home numbers keep going up, thus the extra fee is needed for city and county properties.
The city STRs have been capped for many years. The city rentals are not adding to less workforce housing
units. The fee SHOULD not be charged to city properties as you are not losing ANY city properties. We are
capped and have been since licensing started.
Also, when a property is for sale locals are also allowed to purchase not just non locals. They are equally
important welcome to buy a home that is for sale. So if these homes aren’t purchased by a local it is not
anyone else’s fault. Workforce housing units are also available with a partial down payment provided at times.
This needs to be looked at more carefully. Vacation homes get attacked from all sides. People hate us and the
thought is always to hit up vacation homes for extra money. I have heard it stated smugly many times myself
Vacation homes and good owners should be treated better. Many of us work very hard and we are NOT
getting rich as many think There are so many expenses it is almost unbelievable. We bring a lot of tax dollars
and people purchasing from businesses and restaurants. Provide many with jobs, and subcontract
improvements. Vacation homes are contributing greatly to the community. This negative attitude needs to
STOP and it can start right at the top. Let’s change things around.
Linda Small, a proud owner
Premier Estes Park
Vacation Homes
Page 155
Tax on Short Term Rentals
mini...@live.com
Mar 15, 2022, 8:14:45 AM (2 days ago)
Hello Cindy,
I wanted to write you about the proposed penalty tax on STR's for employee housing and convey how unfair &
unrealistic this proposal is. The price of housing across Colorado has sky rocketed, and making affordable housing
possible is an issue that everyone in Colorado has to deal with. I find the current proposed penalty tax on STR's just
part of the blame game that is also hurting everyone across the United States, which we all need to stop. STR's are
not the cause of lack of affordable housing. It is easy to blame them and penalize them which is extremely
misguided and unfair. May I ask, why aren't homes with long term rent options being utilized. Unfortunately, with
the sky rocketing home rates many owners are instead trying to cash out instead of offering their homes as long
term rents, so why don't we try to focus on helping to reduce this affect. Could we offer tax incentives to home
owners who are willing to do long term rentals and add a sales tax to everyone to help cover? This would be a fair
and an easy solution since everyone in Estes will agree that we need to help drive affordable housing. Also why are
we not pushing to raise the minimum wage, so people can help to better take care of their families and have a
better chance and affording to be able to live in Estes Park. Additionally, how are we utlizing the extra property tax
being received due to higher housing costs?
I appreciate your time reading this and hope that you as a Trustee will help to drive a better solution instead using
STR's as an outlet for gaining additional tax money.
Regards, Lisa
Page 156
Impact Fee Targeted Unfairly to Short Term Rental Owners
Pamela Wallace
Mar 14, 2022, 10:08:26 PM (2 days ago)
Dear Mayor Pro-Tem Patrick Martchink,
I am writing to you as a property owner and full-time resident in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by
Larimer County. I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine what fee
could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce housing.
I urge you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is patently unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize another
(workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
A more equitable plan should be considered first that draws funding from existing taxes (especially given 2021 sales
tax beat the old record by 28% in 2021), and from additional commercial businesses that also provide services to
tourism in Estes Park (such as hotels/lodges that operate without a short-term rental license that STRs compete
with for short term rental bookings, tour operators that provide jeep/ATV excursions and rafting trips, amusement
parks/mini golf/bumper car/other family entertainment establishments, stores, shops and restaurants).
In addition, it is unfair to impose a flat fee on all STRs, given the varying sizes/amenities and income generated by
the varying properties for which licenses are granted. Some STRs are larger and provide a much higher profit to the
owner than smaller units which often barely clear the operating costs, especially if they only operate seasonally.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input by enacting a tax without
requiring voter approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a fee on the Estes
Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the impact on town sales tax and
local marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating vacation
rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town regulation of these
properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the use of
the revenues derived from such a fee. Imposing an annual impact fee is a knee-jerk reaction without a thought-
out solution or plan to address the long-standing problem of workforce housing in the Estes Valley that is punitively
targeted only to short-term rental owners.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions throughout
Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In the Estes Valley, nearly all
of the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their homes in order to assist in
financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are intending to provide
supplemental retirement income with the vacation rental and for others, the owner may intend to finance the
purchase so as to retire in the home at a later date. Very few owners own more than one vacation rental property
and there are no large corporate owners of such properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal
commercial enterprises in the manner in which they have been portrayed by opponents. In my case, the income
from my STR is needed to provide food, transportation, clothing, and education expenses for my family,
and we have been raising two children in Estes Park and within the Estes Park School District R3 since
2007.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact fee would provide any significant resolution for the issue and a broader funding source is needed to
address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to
vacation rentals.
Page 157
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Pamela Wallace
Vacation Rental Owner and Full-Time Estes Park Resident
(970) 744-1827
Page 158
Mayor Wendy Koennig:
I have been informed the city is looking at an impact fee to be assessed on Short Term Rental properties
with the conception that they are making a lot of money and can afford extra expense. I have informed
the city office months ago that I didn’t feel this was a wise choice and there may be a misconception as
to the financial gains involved with these properties. My comment to them is the same comment I will
give to you. “When the cost of a commodity exceeds the perceived value of the commodity, the
salability of that commodity will diminish and or disappear.” The short term housing industry in Estes
Park can be priced out of the market. When guests feel the cost of their place to stay exceed what they
feel is a fair value, they will pursue other options or just access another market where value for price is
aligned with their perceived value. So, you as a governing body can cut or shut down the industry
without really meaning to.
In my instance, money from a retirement account was invested in a property. The property was already
a short term rental and we continued to operate it as such. Our plan was to move to Estes upon
retirement. We have been operating for an excess of 7 years, and have yet to earn enough to cover
expenses and depreciation in any year. So an additional expense on top of what we already deal with
just moves us closer to that point where operation becomes unprofitable. At that point we must sell out
and reinvest in a profitable situation. We have to manage expenses to match a limited income do to
rental rates and days rented. Our problem is rental rates are not unlimited and expenses continue to
increase at a rate that far exceed the ability to raise rental rates and still remain within the rule of
commodity sales I stated in the previous paragraph. Short Term Rentals are just like any other business,
you either operate at a profit or your out of business.
To give you an example of expenses and their increases I have experienced and where the money goes,
The banker : Makes a little less each year but still makes more than our profit.
Housekeeping/Laundry: Has increased about 70% and their annual cost exceeds our profit
Supplies: up about 58 %
Utilities: up about 70 %
Cable/Tv/Phone: up about 60 %
Town/: License fee from $100 to $350, a 250% increase, Living safety inspection, and now an
impact fee, not counting the gross 2% tax for local marketing district already in place.
Management assistance: $499 plus about 11+ percent of the gross sales and 3% of the net to
owner.
All costs, regardless of source, have an impact on the ability to sell a product. Costs drive price, and
when the price meets or exceeds that perceived value point, your out of business.
Page 159
I can remember my father tell me when you barrow money you work for the bank. When I analyze this
business, It appears a number of providers are making more than I am, and I am the one taking the risk.
It seems I am working for a host of others and having some reducing my returns at will. With the
inception of the predicted impact fee, the town will be approaching the territory of those expenses
previously listed as major when compared to profit.
You know your business, and I know mine. Your study doesn’t seem to pinpoint Short Term Rentals as
the cause of your workers housing shortage, but if your fee structure affects the Short Term Housing
business, it will decrease your need for workers and there by relieve your worker housing shortage. I
know several owners who have already left the market, and I am becoming more of a believer. If the
housing problem is a community problem, then the community should be subsidizing it. I also didn’t see
anything that said this money was exclusively going to be spent on the worker housing problem, and
when will it end. Or, is this impact fee going to be forever and redirected to impact the next problem
someone comes up with. Why is Short Term Housing being picked as the scape goat for this issue.
As viewed from an owner,
David Cisler
Page 160
Taxing STR homes.
From: kaiseryusuf <kaise...@aol.com>
Date: 3/15/22 11:20 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: vacationre...@gmail.com
Cc: wko...@estes.org
Subject: Taxing STR homes.
The issue of not having enough homes for the workforce in Estes Park is relatively straightforward.
The problem is that there is not enough reasonably priced larger parcels of land to allow for the
development of smaller homes, townhomes, or duplexes for the workforce. We have looked for such
land over the past 2 decades, and they are all priced so that by the time you add your infrastructure
costs, it does not make business sense for development. Meaning you cannot make any profit for all
the work you have put in. And nobody works for free.
And if it is somewhat reasonable, you do not have water, electricity, and sewage hook up to the city
systems. This again makes it unsustainable from the business sense. So, if the Town of Estes Park
wants to penalize anyone, they should consider adding a tax for the overpriced land owners who are
making it difficult for developers to build reasonable accommodations for the workforce. Rather than
shifting blame only to STR homes. And many of the STR homes are bigger homes that many owners
will not rent out at what is considered "reasonable rent" for the workforce. Quite a few are second
homes, and many owners will not rent those homes long term and not be able to use them when they
want to.
So, the workforce housing shortage is more a result of poor planning, and the blame should not be
shifted to STR owners. Taxing STR owners will definitely not solve the workforce housing shortage.
Kaiser and Mary Yusuf.
Residents of Estes Park.
Page 161
Proposed tax on vacation home owners
John W Dorsey
Mar 16, 2022, 7:43:54 PM (yesterday)
to cba...@estes.org
I am sure you are aware of the attached email that I have copied and pasted here. I am writing this to ask you to not
vote for this proposal.
Other articles that I have researched indicate this proposal does not solve the stated issue it is supposed to be
addressing. Please look at all the possibilities and find a solution that actually works. There are many factors in this
housing issue and I hope you are open to researching all of them to find the best possible solution.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Vacation Rental Owners & Managers
Objection #3: No Voter Approval
From: Vacation Rental Council
As the Estes Park Trustees prepare to vote March 22 on an ordinance to tax Short Term Rental
Property Owners, it is important to note that this matter has not been put before the voters of Estes
Park.
This proposed tax—$1,390 per STR property—was suggested to the Town Board by the research
firm the town hired to research what impact if any vacation rental properties have on available
workforce housing. That company suggested that 7% of STRs might otherwise be available for long-
term rentals or as properties that would be affordable to meet Estes Park’s needs for workforce
housing if they were on the market.
Assessing a new tax on Estes Park property owners is a serious matter that should be put before the
voters. But the Town Trustees are choosing to call this an “impact fee,” and instead of asking the
voters to approve a tax, they are rushing to vote on this matter themselves on March 22, just two
weeks before the Municipal Elections on April 5.
Seriously, what’s the rush?
The Colorado Constitution requires voter approval on any new tax. And this “impact fee,” as the
Town Board is referring to it, is nothing short of a tax because it raises money from a small group of
property owners to fund an unrelated government objective—workforce housing.
And, curiously, the Town Board has not clearly laid out how exactly the money would be used to
address the workforce housing shortage. But members of the Town Board want to vote on this
ordinance on March 22.
Again, why? What’s the rush?
In truth, this tax on the 490 short-term rentals is like spitting in the ocean to raise the sea level – it
doesn’t even begin to mitigate the very real and serious problem of the workforce housing shortage.
To satisfy the need for an estimated 1,700 workforce housing units, a more comprehensive solution is
required. Estes Park voters should have a role in designing that solution and the Town Trustees
Page 162
should not deny Estes Park voters their voice as property owners and taxpayers by rushing to pass
this ordinance.
As a property owner and taxpayer, you have a right to voice your concerns about this and to be
heard.
Please reach out to the Mayor and the Town Trustees before 7 p.m. on March 22 to slow this
process down. And please plan to attend the Tuesday, March 22 Town Board meeting which will
begin at 7 p.m. in the Estes Park Town Hall.
Contact information for Mayor and town Trustees:
Mayor Wendy Koenig
970-577-3706
wko...@estes.org
Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Martchink
no phone available
pmart...@estes.org
Trustee Carlie Bangs
no phone available
cba...@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac
970-481-8612
mce...@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine
no phone available
bmaca...@estes.org
Trustee Scott Webermeier
no phone available
swebe...@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund
no phone available
cyoun...@estes.org
John Dorsey
Sent from my iPhone
Page 163
Short term rentals
Ken Sample
Mar 16, 2022, 8:53:50 AM (yesterday)
Hi Wendy,
I own a second home in Estes Park and do weekly rentals during the summer through VRBO. I recently learned of
discussion around a impact tax for short-term rentals to help address affordable housing in Estes Park.
I’m not sure what exactly what a tax would accomplish. Short-term rentals bring in significant tourism dollars for the
city and businesses. A tax, along with all the other inflationary issues/regulatory items may deter people from
providing short-term rentals thus having a detrimental effect on tax revenue and business livelihood.
Making it easier to build affordable housing/housing projects and providing incentives around that type of
construction seems to be a better route to ultimately solve the problem. Has that been considered? My
understanding, from visiting with construction folks in Estes Park, is building those types of projects has been
discouraged in the past (either outright or through regulation hurdles).
Given today’s world of increasing prices and inflationary issues, I hope an additional tax won’t be the ultimate
decision.
Thanks
Ken Sample
(512)-423-4825
Page 164
Tax on short term rentals in EP
susan mcdermott
Mar 16, 2022, 4:40:30 PM (yesterday)
I feel that this tax , no matter how you dress it up semantically, needs to be put forward to the residents in Estes
Park. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. This is a tax and we residents should hear the debate and discussion
on both sides and then put it to a vote. This issue of housing can be solved in other ways within our community. As
with issues like this, it involves time and effort to search those out. This research firm, hired by the town of EP, has
given an opinion on this topic for a lack of affordable housing for those who work in our town. As such, this opinion
is , on bottom line, involves a tax for only a certain group of people who reside in the EP area. There should be room
for any other considerations to be laid out for this complex issue.
In closing, please do not support this vote.
Mike
Page 165
its a tax !
rhga...@gmail.com
Mar 16, 2022, 5:09:08 PM (yesterday)
my gosh I just heard about this supposed impact fee that you all are considering. That is surely a tax and really does
need to be presented to all of the voters.
I really resent you’re making these decisions behind the backs of the people. I hope it was not your idea
My family and I have been a short term rental provider for nearly 60 years on and off. usually only for a few weeks
because we want to be here ourselves of course We did not come from rich families so this is how we were able to
pay for things like improvements and taxes and insurance. With taxes now so incredibly high it is even more
important.
It seems that hotels and motels would be subjected to the exact same rules. Several of us have gotten together and
we are considering whether we do need to hire an attorney now or not.
/s/ Robert H Galyan
Page 166
Estes rental tax
Steven McCrane
Mar 16, 2022, 7:49:34 PM (yesterday)
to bmaca...@estes.org
I’m reaching out again re: the upcoming meeting.
I would love to visit with you prior to the meeting.
I’m concerned as the “impact” study didn’t take into account many things.
1) It didn’t separate impact of VRBO’s just in City where the fee would be applied versus those in the marketing
district? How then is the true impact calculated?
2) also the positive impact of VRBO’s and the fact that for our one home (we sold our second home there) we own,
we employ a manager, cleaner, and hot tub guy. What about those when/if the number of VRBO’s decrease?
There is already a cap so negative impact of any more has already been mitigated.
Many of us owners have a potentially better idea that we would be open to that would generate more revenue
EQUALLY amongst all lodging facilities and actually generate millions of dollars to actually address the housing
issue, which we ALL agree is a problem but not created by VRBO’s or solved by the proposed tax without voter
approval.
Once again, I’d love to talk to you before Tuesday nights meeting.
We are coming up from Texas for the meeting so that we can meet others and discuss hopefully better options.
Please call me anytime when best for you.
Steven McCrane
325-642-0439
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
New Short Term Rental Tax
Donald Verhaeghe
7:51 PM (3 hours ago)
March 17, 2022
To the Estes Park Town Board Members,
I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose the new tax being considered on short term rentals
(STR's). Reportedly, this tax is being proposed to assist in improving the availability or affordability of
workforce housing. Imposing this new tax on STR's is preposterous since it will do virtually nothing to
address that problem.
Even though this is labeled as an "impact fee," anyone with a clear head can understand this is a tax.
New taxes cannot be levied without voter approval per the Colorado constitution. A small group of
people cannot just pass a new tax on a specific group of property owners to fund an unrelated
government objective. Before the Town Board commits an illegal act, it must stop and think clearly
about this.
The STR's in this community provide a very real benefit to the Town through sales tax revenue which
Estes Park is realizing and enjoying. In addition, the STR's raise the standard of living of those who are
employed by STR owners.
In short, this new tax proposal is wrong-headed. I implore all of you to reject this proposal at the next
Town Board meeting.
Sincerely,
Donald Verhaeghe
Page 170
vacation rental fee survey
frank kintzle
3:08 PM (8 hours ago)
Please reconsider charging owners of short term rentals as it will have an negative impact on tourist
as owners will have to charge more and then pass on to renters. Some renters may choose to visit
other places if cost is too high in Estes.
Also consider having some other type of tax increase that affects more board base.
In addition I would suggest you put out to vote to the general citizens so they can have a say so.
Finally, it is a surprise to me that you would consider such a plan which will effect the very people
Estes is trying to attract. Please pass this letter onto other board members. Thank you,
Frank Kintzle
Cedar Raids Iowa
Page 171
proposed tax on STR's
John & Ruth Stude
3:55 PM (7 hours ago)
to cyoun...@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund,
I am contacting you to give you my opinion on the proposed tax on STR owners. I know you are
calling it an "impact fee" but it smells like a tax to me and I find it very distasteful to try to pass
this proposal off as anything but a tax. Even as a tax, it doesn't seem fair to single out a small
group of citizens to pay for something that is not the fault of the group being taxed. STR's
already provide support to the Town of Estes Park by way of taxes paid from rental fees. Even if
all of the STR's were converted to housing for seasonal employees, it would not be nearly
enough to make much of a difference plus it might force some tourists to either lodge
somewhere else (perhaps Loveland) or vacation elsewhere which would deprive Estes Park
business owners of added business. Lastly, what is the plan for using the funds collected from
the proposed tax? As a taxpayer, I would never vote to charge a tax without having a
reasonable explanation for how it is to be spent.
I agree that there is a problem with housing for seasonal employees, but the proposal for an
impact fee is neither a good solution or a fair solution.
Best regards,
John Stude
Page 172
Vacation Rental Fee Study
kuyler....@agilent.com
3:21 PM (8 hours ago)
Dear Mayor Wendy Koenig,
I am writing to you as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license issued by the
town (#3396). I have become aware of an impact fee study commissioned by the town to determine
what fee could be imposed by the town without voter approval under TABOR to support workforce
housing. I bought my condo during COVID in 2019 as a safe place for my husband and I to retreat
and we enjoy spending time in it enjoying Estes Park and renting it out to other kind guests visiting
Estes Park. I am confused about this added fee as I don’t see how it will help provide housing for
the work force. Have you also looked into assessing a fee for part time residents? People who live
here only 4 months out of the year also take housing from the workforce.
I request that you to refuse to implement an impact fee based on this study for a number of reasons:
· It is unfair to target one sector of the local real estate market (vacation rentals) to subsidize
another (workforce housing) rather than relying on a broad-based funding mechanism.
· The impact fee approach appears to be a means of avoiding citizen input through enacting a tax
requiring voter approval.
· An impact fee on vacation rentals fails to account for the unintended consequences of such a
fee on the Estes Park tourist trade and economic development in the Estes Valley, including the
impact on town sales tax and local marketing district lodging tax collections.
· The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of regulating
vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of town
regulation of these properties.
· It does not appear that the town has any coherent plan as to the justification for this fee or the
use of the revenues derived from such a fee.
Vacation rentals have been a target for the imposition of additional taxes, fees, and other restrictions
throughout Colorado. This is due in part to a misunderstanding of the nature of vacation rentals. In
the Estes Valley, nearly all of the vacation rentals are owned by individuals who choose to rent their
homes in order to assist in financing the purchase of the home. In some cases, the owners are
intending to provide supplemental retirement income with the vacation rental and for others, the
owner may intend to finance the purchase so as to retire in the home at a later date. Very few
owners own more than one vacation rental property and there are no large corporate owners of such
properties in the Estes valley. They simply are not normal commercial enterprises in the manner in
which they have been portrayed by opponents.
In addition to providing additional accommodations to visitors that increase the tourist base in Estes,
these properties support numerous local businesses which service the properties, such as property
managers and cleaning services. If additional fees are imposed on these properties, invariably some
of the owners will cease renting these properties and may end up selling them. Not only would this
decrease the availability of accommodations for visitors with the resulting negative impact on tourism
Page 173
and tax collections, but it likely will also have ripple effects on the local real estate market that could
be adverse to local residents.
While most residents agree that we have a significant workforce housing problem in Estes, it is
unlikely that this impact fee would have any significant impact on the issue and a broader funding
source is needed to address the problem on a comprehensive basis. I urge you not to implement an
impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Kuyler Coopwood
Boulder Colorado, 80301
Page 174
Vacation Rental Tax
Liz Mulhern
10:46 AM (12 hours ago)
Dear Trustees
It is my hope that you will see the "bigger plan" to address the workforce housing problem. I
appreciated one of the Trustee's comments when they said in the study session "we are not wanting
to punish the short term rental owners" I hope that all of you feel that way and understand that we
do not want to be punished but we want to be a part of the solution. As Scott said "there are many
prongs in the bigger plan" I don't believe that vacation rental owners really mind being one of the
prongs in the big plan. However we do want to see the "big plan" and how it will all work together.
I am glad that some people in the community are looking at realistic solutions to solving the
problem. I appreciated the recent article in the Estes Park Trail. I would agree with the approach that
they are suggesting.
Please "think big" and do not pass the ordinance on the 22nd. I hope that you will all be open to all
that is being said and really listen to the different points of view and represent your
constituency well.
Thank you for your time and service as a Trustee.
LIZ
--
Have a great day!
Liz Mulhern
970-590-0923
Page 175
Scapegoating independant STRs with Punitive Tax What
happened to FAIR Government?
Sherry Timm
3:26 PM (8 hours ago)
Patrick,
I have owned a duplex in Estes Park since 2008, and both units have been short
term vacation rentals (STRs). I don’t appreciate you wanting to discriminate
against us independent STRs and use us as a scapegoat that will not solve the
housing problem. I read that Wendy Koenig said she became mayor to help
Estes Park. Well Wendy do the job you said you wanted to do and involve all
Short term rentals in the Estes area including hotels and all condo groups. You
are discriminating against small fish in a pond with HUGE fish.
In the March 11 issue of the Gazette, Mr. Howard Hanson expertly explained the
workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley and the flaws in the proposal to
single out STRs to bear the financial burden of solving this problem.
He explains that the STRs are responsible for “less than 5% of the Estes Valley
housing shortage”; that Root Policy Research, the consulting firm the Board of
Trustees retained, gave no rationale for singling out STR owners to pay the
proposed tax; and that the tax, as punitive as it would be on owners, would pay
for only 15% of the estimated costs needed to fully address the issue.
“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the guy behind the tree” -- this is the game
lawmakers are tempted to play when circumstances allow. STRs are targeted for
the tax, I believe, because they are unpopular and because some STR owners
cannot vote in Estes elections. But equal protection -- treating similarly situated
persons and entities similarly -- is a bedrock principle of fair governance. I
endorse Mr. Hanson’s plea that the Trustees drop the plan to tax only STR
owners and “find ways to raise funds for workplace housing from the entire
visitor base,” including owners of hotels and condominium complexes, who are
for some reason not being considered for the tax.
Sherry Timm
Page 176
Strongly oppose Additional STR tax
Reem Ghalib
Mar 15, 2022, 1:12:50 PM (2 days ago)
Hello,
My name is Reem Ghalib, and I’m writing to you to oppose the proposal of additional taxes on short term rental
owners in Estes Park. Both my husband and I are physicians in Texas and have been homeowners in Estes Park
since 2007. My parents have lived in Estes since 1982, owning a couple of homes and businesses in the town. We
acquired our home from my parents, who had built it back in 1987. The only way we could afford to keep our family
home was by listing it as a short term rental. By renting the house all these years, we have brought a lot of business
to the town of Estes Park by hiring contractors to do multiple remodels, hiring cleaning crews and maintenance
crews. We have also attracted many tourists to the town of Estes Park as there are a lot of tourists now that prefer
to stay in Vacation Homes as opposed to hotels. There are also a limited number of hotels in Estes Park.
We strongly feel that it is not fair to punish short-term rental owners and add additional taxes to them. The shortage
in housing in Estes Park is not because of short-term rental owners but due to the limited land in the town as it’s
surrounded by national parks. In addition, the town has already limited the number of licenses for short term rentals.
We strongly recommend that you do not impose any additional taxes to short-term rental owners in addition to the
prior limitation to the number of licenses. If additional taxes are imposed, short-term rental owners might consider
selling their property in Estes Park which could result in less tourism and business brought to the town we love. As a
multi-generational family who has lived, worked and owned business in the town of estes park for over 40 years we
would be devastated to have to sell our home due to the unfair treatment and harassment by the town of Estes
Park. We hope you take this into consideration and explore other solutions to the housing shortage and ways to
attract young families in working ages to the town.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reem Ghalib MD and Tarek Al-Assi MD,
Owners of 1740 High Pine Drive Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 177
March 17, 2022
To: Mayor and Trustees
From: Eric W. Blackhurst
Subject: Short Term Rental Fees
Thank you for taking the time to review this correspondence concerning fees on short-
term rentals and workforce housing
The Study
My issues begin with the study conducted and attached fee-implementing ordinance. This
is the first paragraph of the study: “The object of the Estes Park Vacation Home Fee Study is to
quantify the relationship between the operation of homes in the Town as short-term rentals
(STRs) and the cost and availability of workforce housing. The study is founded on a rigorous
methodology such that the Town could base a fee on the results if desired.” By Town Board
directive the very nature of the study was to provide a justification for establishing a fee.
Furthermore, the study uses a national statistical model, but it also concludes: “Due to the
significant reduction in the sample size from the national to the state level, several factors of the
coefficients in the state model are not statistically significant.” And that reduction is even more
severe when using the model in the very small community of Estes Park. So, data the consultants
used are taken from a national model in which they had a small level of confidence and now they
drive our Estes Park model.
If the introductory paragraph is taken at its face value, then we can assume the
consultants have found a relationship between workforce housing and short-term rentals. Page 10
of the study says that number is between 3 and 9 units per 100 short-term rentals are lost. The
cover letter to the ordinance indicates there are 500 short-term rental properties (licenses, if I
remember correctly are, capped at 322 in the town limits). This provides a range of 15 to 45 units
that may have been used as long term/workforce housing. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment
indicated a catchup/keep up need of between 1,480 and 1,690 new units. There were 118 units
built in 2017 and 2018. Those are the last dates that I have to work with.
The Ordinance
Proposed ordinance 02-22 does not address the issues facing the community dealing with
workforce/permanent residential housing. What it does is establish a new Town governmental
Enterprise Fund similar to the Water and Electric Departments. It is designed to be run by the
Town Board and funded to the tune of a projected annual income of $700,000 – which in today’s
market would buy one home – maybe.
Findings named in Section 5.20.120 of the proposed ordinance are largely taken from the
questionable Root Study are largely without merit as they rely on insufficient Estes Park data and
Public Comment Received by 03-21-2022
Page 178
the amount collected in fees will hardly address the workforce/permanent housing deficiencies.
Instead, a large amount of narrative is used to justify assessing the fee to a very limited segment
of our hospitality industry.
Collected fees will go to workforce housing programs. What are those? What is the cost?
Who will administer the programs? The town gets to collect the fees and then must pay for staff,
accounting, and personnel to manage the programs. That does not appear to be a good use of
funds.
Ordinance Section 5.21.020: The Board of Trustees shall serve as the governing body of
the Enterprise. That sort of reminds me of the time between 1993 and 2000 when the Town
Board was the Housing Authority. Nothing much happened.
The ordinance has conflicting language about what entity controls costs, who gets to pay
what and what entity is responsible for funding. It also limits the amount of funds it can obtain
from State and Local governmental entities to less than 10 percent of its annual revenues. It
makes absolutely no sense to limit the enterprise’s ability to generate funds for additional
projects.
The ordinance places additional burdens on the Town Administrator, Finance Director,
and Trustees now become the Housing Enterprise administrators and governing body. Is this
really what you want? This is a faulty piece of legislation that needs a lot more input and work
from those in the community concerned with this issue.
Should the legislature-initiated effort to address lack of housing throughout the state
through a potential 2 percent lodging tax on all lodging stays under 30 days receive voter
approval (in addition to the Local Marketing District’s 2 percent lodging tax), revenue for Estes
Park’s housing issues will generate about $3 million every year, not the projected $700,000 for
an enterprise fund. And, Trustees already have approved a resolution supporting that effort. What
would be more beneficial to address Estes Park’s housing crisis -- $700,000 a year or $3 million?
Enough is enough. I have been involved with Estes Park housing issues since 1987 when
I helped raise awareness and funds for the 1989 Housing Needs Assessment. I did the same for
the 1999, 2008 and 2016 studies. I have served on the Estes Park Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners since it was formed as a separate entity in 2000, and I am currently its Chairman.
I do not own, manage, sell, buy or rent any short-term rental property. I am opposed to
the fee of $1,390 per unit per year that raises funds to address a community-wide problem by
assessing one segment of our hospitality market – namely short-term rentals.
Please contact me if you have questions or concerns.
Page 179
Fwd: Ordinance 02-22 Amending Title 5 of the Estes Park Municipal Code
Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:54 AM
RE: Ordinance 02-22 Amending Title 5 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Vacation Home Business
License Fees and Establishing a Related Enterprise.
I am a full-time Town of Estes Park resident residing at 2020 Monida Ct. I respectfully ask that you approve
Ordinance 02-22 establishing a workforce housing regulatory linkage fee and the associated enterprise fund to
support the Town’s workforce housing programs and policies. Much has been said about the problem of workforce
and affordable housing and this action can be part of the solution.
In 2015, the Colorado Association of Ski Towns reported in their Vacation Home Rental Study that membership
(including Estes Park) identified as a top concern the loss of free-market workforce rental housing as units were being
converted to short term rentals (STRs). Among the many best practices listed was to increase license fees and
allocate this revenue to mitigate these impacts.
The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation identified workforce housing as a top community priority in their
2015 Economic Development Strategy
According to the Estes Park Housing Authority in the 2016 Housing Needs Assessment, “Between 1,480 and 1,690
housing units are needed to address current workforce housing shortages and keep up with future demand. This
averages about 300 to 340 units per year, which is well above the number of residential building permits issued during
any one of the last five years.” Further, the report recommended creating a dedicated revenue source, specifically
fees on STR permits, to help mitigate the shortage.
Later in 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission in their Vacation Rental Position Document stated it was critical
to retain the residential community nature of Estes Park given the negative impact STRs have on affordable and
workforce housing as a result of increased buying and renting costs associated with decreased housing/rental unit
availability.
Also in 2016, Town Trustees and County Commissioners established a maximum number of STRs permitted to
operate in residential zones in the Valley. The established limit was more than the number of STRs operating legally
in order to accommodate those that were operating illegally and those looking to jump into the industry. The business
permits allowing a commercial STR enterprise to operate in residential zones to the exclusion of all other businesses
were quickly claimed.
In 2017, STRs, which by definition are considered to be hotels, operating in residential zones could not meet the
existing building code for life, health and safety. Finding it overly burdensome, except it was the same requirement for
any hotel operating in commercial zones, the Town amended the Code for STRs in residential zones to a lesser life,
health and safety standard.
Looking at the Towns database for STRs as of this month, only one in every four STRs in residential zones is owned
by an Estes Valley resident. All remaining STRs are owned by persons or entities who do not live in the Valley and
one in every three is owned by persons or entities living outside the State of Colorado. And why not?! Commercial
property tax is not collected for their hotel in a residential zone, the International Building Code does not apply to
them, and they don’t have to live in the same residential neighborhoods where their hotels operate.
So now comes the Short-Term Rental Fee Study that confirms all that was foretold – STRs are problematic. We
suspected than and now we know that! STR conversions in residential zones reduces supply of housing/rental units,
increases associated costs, diminishes neighborhood quality, and reduces workforce numbers and availability. And in
turn, those factors have a negative effect on the overall economic condition of the Town and the quality of life for
residents.
Page 180
Implementing the STR permit fee and the subsequent enterprise fund is not the full answer but it is part of the
solution. I hear what is said. But more importantly, watch what is done. Please do this.
Sincerely,
/s/
Tony Schetzsle
Page 181
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
3/19/2022 8:25 AM Ordinance 02-22.Steve Ferrante Against
Here is a much better option than taxing short term rentals:
HB22-1117
Use Of Local Lodging Tax Revenue
Concerning the use of revenue from a local tax on lodging.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1117
Page 182
Rick & Cheryl Grigsby
Estes Park, CO
March 21, 2022
Town of Estes Park, CO
RE: Board Study and proposed Ordinance 02-22 establishing a new (annual) impact/linkage fee on old
established vacation home residential development.
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Trustees:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Estes Park Vacation Home (Short-Term Rental) Fee Study and
proposed Ordinance 02-22 now under your consideration.
In as much as the Ordinance was just released to the public on March 16th, and rumor has it some on the Board are
pushing hard for a March 22nd adoption (in our view short-circuiting citizen input), we ask leave to revise, extend
and supplement these remarks with additional testimony, legal authorities, and documentary evidence. However,
should you press forward with a rushed adoption, please register our strenuous objections to the form and substance
of the proposed Ordinance and include this statement with the Ordinance’s searchable legislative history.
We will first state guiding principles of relevant Colorado law, then facts of our backstory, and conclude with our
specific recommendations and requests.
Guiding Principles
Local government has authority to regulate land use on the basis of the impact of the use on the local community.
The primary purpose of impact fees must be to defray costs of services provided to those charged, not to fund an
unrelated government objective.
Impact fees should be reserved for one-time charges assessed during the development process for new development
that will be directly served by public improvements or services necessitated by the development for which the fee is
collected. No impact fee should be established except to defray projected impacts caused by the proposed
development. Existing development and previously approved uses should be exempt.
No impact fee should be established unless it is applicable to a broad class of property on a proportional rational
basis. It should not single out a narrow, arbitrarily defined, class of residences. Splitting classes simply on the basis
of rental terms more or less than “30 days” is irrational.
Property owners should be protected from the imposition of new or different regulations after they have
reasonably, and to their detriment, relied in good faith on local government approvals granted for their
development pursuant to earlier regulations.
No impact fee should be imposed on any development license or building permit if the approval was issued prior
to the adoption of an impact fee ordinance or fee schedule.
Relevant Facts
Our family, friends and out-of-town guests have witnessed Estes Park's housing conditions and challenges over the
past 40 years through pendulum shifting periods of up and down markets, booms and busts. We have real life
experiences in Estes Valley home shopping and comparative analysis, in designing and building a new Estes Park
family home (from 1999 thru 2000), and in re-designing and rehabilitating one tiny old mountainside lot on E
Riverside in downtown Estes Park (from 2009 thru 2020) with 3 existing antique vacation cabins circa 1914, 1928
and 1936.
Our vacation cabins were saved from total demolition and are presently in good standing with the Town of Estes
Park having been approved for 3 separate Short-term Residential Building Permits, 3 short-term safety and
occupancy certificates, and 3 individual Short-term Vacation Home Licenses.
of 1 4
Page 183
Rick & Cheryl Grigsby
Estes Park, CO
We were the daily laborers and workforce behind every detail of the property’s complete restoration (demo to trim)
and we are presently the daily workforce caretaking every detail and hosting all our guests. We work hard and have
persevered much to claim this small extraordinary rocky mountain town as our family legacy. We are blessed. We
demonstrate high respect and support to working people everywhere, especially the workforce in Estes Park and
northern Colorado, so to promote their blessings as well.
Throughout our time here, Estes Park consumers (like us and from everywhere) have been seriously challenged with
a housing affordability gap. Everything is more expensive here. Most locals have to hustle as hard as we do year in
and year out to make a good go of living here. After all, for generations people worldwide have dreamed of
establishing a long-term base in our land-locked Top 10 USA Small Town. Estes housing has been and will continue
to be in high demand by more people than our tiny territory can easily withstand.
Before the Town was incorporated, vacation homes were a part of the Estes Valley economy and have been
important contributors to the culture ever since. Some vacation homes where used exclusively by their private
owners, others (like our 1914 Redemption Cabin) were shared for a night, a week, month-to-month, or for all
season, with out-of-town family and vacationing guests. Before we purchased our E Riverside property (during the
Great Recession when nobody else saw any value in the distressed broken property), Town officials confirmed that
short-term rental occupancies (1 day or many) are appropriate, legitimate and legal uses of Estes Park residential
property unless restrictive HOA covenants apply. Further to that public guidance, we applied for and secured
official Town Permits to “restore antique traveler cabins” and operate as “Short-Term Residences (Rented less than
30 days)”.
We were induced by Town policies to spark urban renewal along south E Riverside Drive and to practice our gifts of
hospitality and mentorship with short-term guests. So, in reliance of the Town’s guidance, we invested our full time
labors and retirement savings (we are now 68 and 62) into a larger This Mountain Life ministry project. For 20
years (more or less) before our plan to make something useful out of it, the property sat as EP’s most distressed
unfriendly site, abandoned, broken down, crime ridden, and unproductive. After 3 failed bank auctions to unload it,
no one else came forward willing to take on the financial risk or trouble of problem solving historic restoration of
non-conforming tiny seasonal structures in extreme states of dilapidation. In faith, we took a chance. Our rebuilding
plan was designed around family, friends, other persons in need, and out-of-town guests. Our security plan was to
recoup costs of redevelopment and time for our labors, and work hard sharing our experiences and serving guests in
order to provide a modest self-sustaining retirement income. We planned for and executed the “vacation rental by
owner” model. As noted above, we applied for and received 3 separate (the last as late as February 28, 2020) Short-
Term Residential Building Permits for Short-term Residences “Rented less than 30 days” consistent with our
callings and the property’s characteristics, limitations, natural attributes and feasible possibilities. Operating under
the Permits, we rebuilt the structures board-by-board and one-by-one putting them back into useful productive
service. No impact, linkage, or conditional affordable housing fee was known, disclosed or ever established
before final permitting or issued COs. We transformed the worthless property into 3 extraordinary mountaintown
short-term vacation get-a-ways and a beautiful legacy for our 3 working children. All 3 cabins are back now paying
local taxes. Presently, the property supports the Estes community with real property taxes (now tripled since the
beginning), sales and lodging district taxes (many thousands of dollars every year), commercial utility rates, and
annual VR License fees. We contribute to multiple local community service projects, have provided free rent to local
workforce facing personal challenges, and help others looking to improve housing options. Our short-term rental
project has not caused direct workforce housing problems. To the contrary, we have added to the Estes housing
stock and do more than our proportional share to mitigate workforce housing challenges.
Applied to us, the Ordinance’s impact fees ($4,500+ off the top every year whether the property cash flows or not)
would be inequitable and a financial backbreaker. It will directly challenge our preexisting development and
retirement plans, putting both in jeopardy necessitating us to develop additional income generating improvements
(like increased floor space unlikely gaining Town approval by reason of new code requirements and the property’s
physical limitations), new skills or perhaps professional management, and more time devoted to personal workforce
like labor to offset the Ordinance’s new massive Town fee impact.
Not all Estes vacation homes and short-term rentals are the same. Some vacation homes are small seasonal
accommodations with practical limitations (like ours) only appropriate for short-term stays, others are fully
functioning residences that can accommodate long-term occupancies. Some homes were originally designed as
primary family residences but are relatively newcomers to local short-term rental activity and others (like ours) have
of 2 4
Page 184
Rick & Cheryl Grigsby
Estes Park, CO
served as short-term vacation homes from the beginning and many decades. The class defined as “less than 30 day
rentals” includes different property attributes controlled by differing private and professional management, financial
structures, locations, dates of availability, seasonal limitations like heat or running water capacity, other physical
restrictions like on-site parking and personal property storage, operational details, regularity of upkeep, guest
profiles and services, owner purposes and preferences, rental rates, revenue streams, maintenance and operating
costs. Some licensed properties collect rent and remit sales and lodging district taxes on a monthly basis while others
(due to recent Town regulation causing a run on VR licenses) simply buy and hold inactive licenses for future
possibilities. Vacation rentals "rented for less than 30 days” are mostly independent, diverse, unique owner-operated
projects providing good benefits to the Town as a whole. Fairness demands that any new policy punishing
unwanted workforce impacts must allow for individual factual ad hoc “net impact” determinations.
The Fee Study may demonstrate some logical “nexus” between housing “rented for less than 30 days” and
“affordable housing”. Nexus is an easy legal standard. “Justification” of a targeted impact fee against old
developed short-term vacation housing is a very different matter. The Study raises more questions than it answers.
The Fee Study only finds tenuous indirect consequences of rental period terms arbitrarily defined by the Study
itself. It does not show the fee is rationally related to any capital improvement or service required by “less than 30
day” occupancies and provided by the Town. It does not deal with relevant distinctions and deviations from
“average” short-term residences, is unintelligible in key parts, and does not satisfy fundamental fairness tests. It
should have sampled households. The Study was based on “averages” that drove erroneous conclusions about our
very un-average situation. We have limited revenue generating seasons, lower user rates, and less revenue than the
Study assumes to be true about us. And, the Study did not consider or recognize our legitimate grandfathered
rights. The Study is too narrow thinking. Attempting to affix causation on the “average” <30 day housing unit
without considering in the nexus analysis other relevant distinctions, operating histories, or impact contributors,
renders the Fee Study worthless on which to base new public policy (except perhaps regarding new development).
Even so, the Study still concludes the total VR impact is somewhat trivial and has been assessed by the Mayor Pro
Tem to be “very small”. The fee will utterly fail to further the ends advanced as justification for the fee. At best,
the Study only supports impact fees on new short-term rentals, not on existing vacation properties.
We do not believe the Fee Study justifies establishing a housing impact fee that by definition targets our E
Riverside project. The Ordinance does not qualify as an Impact Fee under Colorado law. The Town presently
collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the Town of regulating vacation homes rented for terms less
than 30 days. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect to the cost of regulation of these
properties. The Ordinance is a disguised tax on private property, subject to Tabor regulations and taxpayer vote.
The Board’s rush to act on the Ordinance reminds us of the rush of past Board’s to unilaterally commit to the
Downtown Loop project without considering unintended consequences of signing a Federal agreement with its
unconscionable termination clause binding the taxpayers of Estes Park to the wildly unpopular uncompromising
Federal Option 1; that is, the 24/7/365 day, year-round, one-way, downtown encircling highway loop without
making any room for hometown desired seasonal edits. It's also telling that Town officials have recently flipped the
script on honest hard working vacation home owners and users, singling us out as the ones to blame for creating the
town housing affordability gap, when the same Town officials have claimed, over our workforce objections, that all
social, economic and environmental impacts of the Downtown Loop were/are “de minimus” and insignificant. Only
months before the Town initiated your housing impact Fee Study, the Loop Project demolished 10 affordable
housing units from our historic downtown neighborhood forever removing them from Estes Park’s housing
stock. Why wasn’t that considered in targeting of your blame?
Recommendations
We believe the proposed Ordinance is the wrong approach to solving much broader housing challenges. It will have
terrible unintended consequences already mentioned above and in pitting neighbor against neighbor while raising
the ire of 500+ short-term property owners who have already relied on past local government policies in choosing
their homes, planning their uses, and structuring their financing. Why adopt a plan that promises to create so many
new conflicts? Why threaten real progress on future affordable housing projects by actually increasing the cost of
housing or introducing protracted litigation? Who will answer for this new policy when it fails the larger
community?
of 3 4
Page 185
Rick & Cheryl Grigsby
Estes Park, CO
We believe it will take our whole village, with all segments working together, for true progress on all workforce
housing opportunities. In that light, we urge Town decision makers to:
1.Resist the temptation to single out current regulated vacation home owners to solve general conditions
caused by diverse factors in and out of town.
2.Reject the risky, novel and untested, disproportionate Ordinance and avoid exposure to its unintended
consequences including higher housing costs, slower sales and lodging tax, and the real possibility of
facing slow-moving, time-consuming, complex litigation and related uncertainties.
3.Consider all direct causes of the housing affordability/accessibility gap, including Federal, state and
local government policies and economic conditions, public and private employer growth and hiring
practices, local workforce contributions and discretionary spending practices, private property
development including short-term vacation homes, and out-of-town guest influences on workforce
housing.
4.Make a comprehensive affordable housing plan and choose a simple-to-understand, easy-to-administer
broad-braced funding mechanism that spreads the financial burden evenly and equitably over all
primary impactors; that is, on all folks living, working or playing in Estes Park.
Requests to our Elected Representatives
But should you decide to rush on with the passage of the ill-conceived Ordinance, we respectfully request the
Ordinance be amended to:
1.Limit its application to new development and new licensed vacation rentals, not existing short-term
license holders.
2.Exempt all residential housing with the grandfathered rights of existing "Short-term Residential
Application/Building Permits (Rented less than 30 days)” like ours, or similar development approval
previously granted by the Town with no impact schedule or fee established as a condition thereof.
3.Establish a fact specific inquiry with individualized determinations of nature and extent of impacts for
each short-term property so to make the fee equitable. Otherwise, it will fail as arbitrary, an abuse of
discretion, and an illegal taking.
4.Have a town vote before making it effective. The fee is more accurately a tax because it is intended to
fund an entirely new, tenuously related, and different function of Town government; not for the
regulation of short-term rentals.
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Thank you,
Rick & Cheryl Grigsby
Subject property: 260 E Riverside Drive
Mailing address: 1950 Cherokee Drive
Estes Park, CO
of 4 4
Page 186
Dear Estes Park City Leaders:
I have loved Estes Park since I was a kid in the 1960’s. Our family has
taken many trips to Estes Park. My wife worked at the YMCA
camp of the Rockies in the 70’s! We spent our 25th anniversary in your
beautiful community, my in laws 50th anniversary at the Y.
We decided to buy a vacation home in Estes Park. We have owned the
home 12 years now. The ability to rent the home allowed us to buy a large
beautiful home. We have met all of your rules and regulations for
vacation homes even though we do not like being singled out with special
requirements.
Taxation without representation seems un-American!
You are ruining Estes Park for us! Our Estes Elk House at 1501 Country
Club is the majority of our life savings! We have been bringing
people Estes Park for 50 years!
Please stop your unfair treatment of homeowners like us!
Cliff and Vicki Shank
Page 187
Opposition to Impact Fee on Vacation Rentals in Estes Park
David Bates
12:00 PM (3 hours ago)
I am writing to you, as a property owner in Estes Park with a short-term rental license, to object to
the impact fee that could be imposed by the town.
I request that you do not implement an impact fee for the following reasons:
•My family uses our home approximately 7 months a year and it would never be
available for rental by any local family needing permanent housing.
•Our rental home results in additional customers for local businesses throughout the
year and supports a number of local businesses.
•If not used as a vacation rental, the town would actually collect less taxes and support
fewer businesses.
•The town already collects a licensing fee intended to recoup the cost to the town of
regulating vacation rentals. Adding an additional fee would not be justified with respect
to the cost of town regulation of these properties.
•While I agree that we have workforce hou sing problem in Estes, it is unlikely that this
impact
fee would have a significant impact on the issue.
I urge you not to implement an impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
David Bates
Page 188
Katherine Wood
1:27 PM (1 hour ago)
March 18, 2022
Dear Mayor Pro Tem Marchink
We three sisters are short-term rental owners of a cabin at 919 High Acres Drive in Estes Park,
reserving it for a short time for family use. It was our parents' cabin and means a lot to us all.
Family members live all over the US and we sisters live in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Colorado,
not in Estes Park. We have celebrated weddings, anniversaries, and special birthdays at our
cabin.
We three are very concerned about the lack of affordable housing. We have been active in
supporting efforts in our own areas to address this problem. However, we do not feel more
added fees for short term rental units is an effective way to provide more affordable housing in
Estes.
We do pay the annual rental license fee, and support many local businesses including our rental
agency and businesses providing cleaning, laundry, utilities, and various upkeep needs. Our
renters and our family shop, eat in restaurants, and spend money for recreation in Estes and
nearby Rocky Mountain National Park.
We do not feel that the "impact fee" of $1,390 per STR property is the best way to address the
need for more workforce housing. The Colorado Constitution requires voter approval on any
new tax. This impact fee is essentially a tax raising money from a small group of property
owners. More time is needed to design a more comprehensive solution that is required to meet
the need for an estimated 1,700 workforce housing units. Estes Park voters should have a part
in designing that solution.
Broader funding should be used to address the affordable housing problem. I urge you not to
implement this impact fee with respect to vacation rentals.
Please contact one of us if you would like to discuss this.
Sincerely,
Katherine A. Wood, 703 765 4301, wood...@gmail.com
Barbara J. Sample, 303 587 7496, bbsa...@ix.netcom.com
Elinor J. Boldus, 414-531-2840, ellie...@att.net
Kay Wood
Page 189
STR Impact Fee proposal
megan teddysteeth.com
Mar 18, 2022, 3:04:50 PM (16 hours ago)
Dear Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Martchink:
You’ve probably gotten many of emails that contain a form-letter protesting the proposed fee on
STRs in Estes Park. I, too, could send you one, but I thought that I’d send my story instead.
My family has a long association with Estes Park and the environs. My mother and her family lived
their summers outside of Estes on Holy Hill, starting their visits back in 1926 or 1927. My grandfather
spent a lot of his time helping with the direction of the YMCA Camp of the Rockies along with the
others on Holy Hill. They also spent a lot of time in RMNP and in town. When my mother married,
she talked my father into visiting “Just once”, and he did to shut her up about Estes. Low and behold,
he loved the area as well. As a result, my siblings and I grew up summers in Estes as well, starting
our visits in 1954.
In the late 1960s, they found the lot that they decided to retire to and bought that lot with the
inheritance my father received from his father. They built a small house on Windcliff, which they then
enrolled in the nascent rental program that Windcliff started. They rented the house back then so
that they could afford to keep it and improve it for their retirement. When my parents died, we
children inherited the house. I ended up purchasing the house from my siblings so that I would have
a place to retire when ready. Currently I rent the house from May to December, closing it to renters
during the winter so that I can make some use of the house myself as well as get maintenance and
cleaning done for the next season.
Unfortunately, renting a home on the STR market doesn’t mean that we’re making a lot of money.
There is a lot of upkeep and maintenance that is spent, keeping the house maintained and up to
code, paying higher rates on some utilities, purchasing items that are worn out due to rental wear
and tear (and sometimes bear wear and tear). Every year the house pays routine costs and allows
us to do small things to maintain and improve the house, such as painting inside and out, replacing a
deck that was falling off, replacing concrete that was failing, etc. In other words, we really just break
even renting the house out.
At the same time, renting on the long term rental market doesn’t work for me as it would deprive me
of being able to use the house during the year. And even if it would work for me, the house doesn’t
really fit or fulfil the need by Estes for affordable housing. By adding additional fees and taxes, the
house will become too expensive for me to keep and it is likely that the people who purchase the
house will do a huge remodel and push the house even further out of the affordable housing market.
Although I understand the desire to slow down the conversion of apartments, condos, and homes in
Estes to the STR market, I don’t think that adding these fees makes a lot of sense in actually
providing what Estes needs to solve that problem. It will need a bigger, more inclusive solution with
the involvement of the whole town.
I ask that you take the time to actually think more deeply about this issue and bring the residents
(whether full-time or part-time) into the discussion. Estes is a wonderful, magical place and very
deep in my heart. Let’s keep it that way by actually having a longer-term strategy to solve this issue.
Page 190
Thank you,
Megan MacMillan
2062 Red Feather Point 3125 Eaglecliff Drive
Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Estes Park, Colorado 80517
me...@teddysteeth.com
720-938-3028
Page 191
Vote NO on tax on Short Term Rental Properties in Estes Park
stephanie vrabec
Mar 18, 2022, 3:57:08 PM (16 hours ago)
Dear Mayor and Town of Estes Park Trustees,
I was just made aware that at the March 1 Town Board meeting, the City Attorney was directed to
draft an ordinance to tax Short Term Rental Properties so the Mayor and Trustees can vote on the
measure on March 22.
I would strongly suggest you not rush through this process and take time to develop a
comprehensive plan to address the shortage in available, affordable, and decent workforce
housing. Fast-tracking this measure in just three weeks limits engagement and creative thinking and
and is short-sighted in trying to solve a housing problem in the community. What other solutions
have been considered? And is this tax actually a viable solution to such a large problem? This fine
on short term rentals will actually discourage people from using their property as a vacation rental
property but only result in a small number of units that may turn over to affordable workforce
housing. And the money raised is not going to begin to solve the problem. There are many other
more favorable solutions that I know have been brought to your attention. The best of those pass the
cost on to tourists across the board. This has been done in many other communities and generates
significant revenue for housing development. Those extra costs will impact revenue to STRs as well
in a competitive market but it is the fair approach.
Please step back and take a more comprehensive look at how to address this community wide
problem. I am sure the entire community can benefit from thoughtful planning.
Respectfully,
Michael and Stephanie Vrabec
1709 Theatre Way
Estes park CO 80517
Mountain Village Vacation Rental Owners
Page 192
STR fee
Mike Kingswood
12:36 PM (2 hours ago)
Dear Estes Park Town Trustee(s)
As continuous (and still working) residents here since ‘72 and ‘77 respectively, my wife Cindy and I
are deeply concerned over the proposed STR fees under consideration .
We offer the following points that should get serious consideration …
The housing issue is EVERYBODYS problem so we ALL need to be part of the solution …Not
just a small targeted group. It has been created over time due to increased growth that has
been promoted by the Town , Chamber, Visit EP , Economic development corp. and general
business community . Ironically , lack of action ( ie. ADU regs) by the Town subsequent to
the last housing study pushed the issue to the now tipping point . Town regulations have
made it too difficult on potential developers for many years causing them to look elsewhere
.
Increased business growth that follows residential growth. Every body ,whether a passive
resident (that needs nurses, doctors, a police depart, grocery clerk , town snow plow drivers
etc.) or business owners needing employees to thrive, has contributed to the need for more
housing .
There are far more Second homes here than vacation rentals . Many are used only a few
weeks out of the year . They too have contributed to the shortage . On top of that we have
seen sudden and drastic spikes in estate values further exacerbating the problem . This
seems to have been largely due to large amounts of cash buyers with whom our local
workforce cannot compete .
If enacted , ANY fee collection policies should have an expiration date . That allows for
reconsideration of the needs at say 2 year intervals . Once we have achieved a healthier
housing balance, fees can be reduced or eliminated. Correct me if I m wrong but from our
understanding , the study from which this board is relying heavily upon , does not account for
the hundreds of units being built or planned . This data needs to be included .
Str’s generate many millions in revenue already . We’d say they are doing their part .
a specific plan on how the money will actually help the situation needs to be developed
through thorough discussions amongst the community at large .
A 1 bedroom / 2 person unit should not be charged the same flat rate as a 3 or 4 bedroom (
8 person ) unit
This should be voter approved . Not a ‘ tax’ hiding behind the word ‘ Fee’
To conclude ,
As a nurse and construction business owner we are keenly aware of the problem . We have
personally seen first hand how STRs have certainly played a part . We have known folks whose long
term rental situation disappeared when their landlord decided to convert . We feel , however, they are
not solely responsible . Everybody has played a part, everyone should contribute to the solution .
Shared problems require shared solutions .
Here’s a couple suggestions …
- can a cap be put on second home buying?
Page 193
new or upgraded existing developments , such as Elkhorn Lodge and Twin Owls, need to
supply housing for a major portion of their workforce in their development plan.
Allow a vote on a timed sales tax increase so everyone contributes … even the tourist who
also relies heavily on our workforce
We appreciate your willingness to serve our town and look forward to an equitable result . Please
vote ‘ NO’ to this unbalanced and unfair approach to our housing solution.
Sincerely ,
Mike and Cindy Kingswood
152 Stanley Circle Drive
Page 194
STR Impact Fee
Michael Bryant
Mar 19, 2022, 10:41:49 PM (11 hours ago)
Firstly, I would like to thank the Vacation Council Rental Board for making me aware of this proposal.
Although I will be in town later next week I will miss the meeting. As someone who will be greatly
impacted if this passes, I am at a loss as to why I was never notified by the Town this was in the
works.
I observed a lack of so called “worker housing” when I came to Estes over 50 years ago and again
when I moved there 32 years ago. Nothing has changed. This has always been a problem and much
talk and little action has ensued.
I have some questions and comments.
How does the proposed $ 1390 fee apply? A fixed amount for each Vacation Rental unit, regardless
of income? This would be 12.5% of my net average annual rental income. And how does it benefit
me? As vacation rental owners we already pay income tax, lodging tax, sales tax and higher utility
rates to operate our business.
I, and others I know, own both vacation rentals and month to month housing in Estes Park. I already
provide low rent for three people that contribute to the local economy and work in town. But neither I
nor my tenants pump but a portion of what vacationers do into local spending. Making vacation
rentals less viable only leads to higher rates and reduced occupancy which will have a negative
impact on local merchants.
Let me clarify some numbers that so far I have not seen discussed. According to the Root report this
tax could offset the impact of those who work in Estes and earn up to $127,816. This is not a renter,
it is a home buyer, and they do not need low cost housing!
Larimer County records state the average household income for Estes Park (and we have some
heavy hitters living here) is $62,848. For Larimer County (they did not have a specific number for
Estes Park) the median renter occupied household income is $43,133. For a single person that
equates to $21.57 per hour in wages. Using an average of 33% of gross income to cover rent that is
a rental of $1235 per month.
This is not realistic because wages are lower than that for most lower end jobs. And where do you
get a rental that inexpensively?
I know! We build them a house. Say, 1200 square feet. At a current cost of $250-300 per square foot
plus land you are looking at a median cost of $425,000 or so. I know this isn’t cast in stone, but let
me explain.
Someone will have to build this house and rent it out because the renter can’t afford to do that. At
current rates for a non owner occupied house like this costs are as follows: $127,500 down (30%),
Loan payment $1597, Insurance $100, Taxes $227. Total $1924/mo. That is with no reserves,
vacancy allocation, repairs, etc. Is this the “low cost” rental you are talking about? Where is the
return on investment?
Page 195
I beg your indulgence for my last example. It concerns the attachment I have included. While you
may think it irrelevant, please read on, because eventually it will happen here.
This lovely little house in Culver City California was worth about $30,000 in the ‘70s. It’s in escrow
now for somewhat over the listed price. Back in the day, this was a “starter house” and an investor
could buy it with 20% down, rent it out and get a small cash flow. The average blue collar one worker
family could comfortably afford to live there.
Now, with $500,000 down, an investor is looking at about $5700 a month in payments with a
gardener for a house that would rent for $3500. This just doesn’t work. So if they ask $6000/ month
you need a renter that makes $220,000 a year. Why they would live there is a question I can’t
answer.
In closing, remember some workers drive up from down the hill to work here, while others commute
from here down the hill to go to work. It has always been that way. And a new tax will not help that,
nor solve a perceived problem.
Look at Aspen. It used to house workers. Then it got too expensive. So, they moved to Carbondale.
The Yuppies found it and gentrified it so the workers moved to Glenwood Springs. Then Glenwood
got noticed and the prices shot up, so the workers moved to Rifle and Parachute. Now they pay even
more in rent and have to drive 60 miles to work.
The point is, there is no easy solution here and punishing the Vacation Rental owners will not solve
the problem. Please rethink the plan because it isn’t viable.
Sincerely,
Michael Bryant
Page 196
Page 197
I need your help ahead of March 22nd
Tina Riley
unread,
Patrick,
It has been brought to my attention that Estes is planning to provide an additional $1400 fee to
owners of STRs to put towards a budget for affordable housing and that council members will vote
on this without any public input. As the owner of affordable Long term rentals in Estes Park and the
owner of one short term rental (which is our second home and one we live in periodically) this is an
over reach of council power and something that needs to be called out.
The entire nation is facing the affordable housing crisis. Many places are coming up with far more
pragmatic solutions for the problem that require less 'fees' (taxes) and actually address the issue
through focusing on changes to zoning, regulations for tiny homes, encouraging ADUs for primary
home owners etc. In my observation, Estes Park tends to have a very backward approach to this
topic that comes across as an inability to govern the town effectively
In the event Estes pushes this through l, I plan to sell my long term rental (which has a Short term
rental license) to an investor. This isn't solving your problem....
Tina
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
Page 198
Mayor Wendy Koenig
I sincerely appreciate your position and courage as the only Town Board member to officially state your
position against the STR Tax Ordinance. I look forward to the Board Meeting on Tuesday and hope you
are successful in tabling and/or defeating this attempt by Trustee Martchink (and Trustee Bangs) from
depriving the citizens of Estes Park from engaging in a meaningful public debate of the workforce
housing matter which would produce better ideas to solve not only the funding issue but put together a
comprehensive plan of housing initiatives. In the short time after the March 1 st Study Session wherein
the Town decided to have an Ordinance prepared, you have already received a much better plan for a
broad-based funding solution from the Trail-Gazette Editorial Board and I am sure with more time and
public input many more good ideas will surface.
Let me introduce myself. I am a semi-retired businessman and licensed attorney who moved to Estes
Park in 2014. I started my legal career 30 years ago practicing law in a labor law firm representing
construction labor unions throughout the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia fighting
for the rights of unions and workers to organize (through secret ballot elections) in federal district &
appellate courts, all levels of state courts and administrative hearings. I spent the second half of my
career working as a labor consultant for a large multi-national corporation. My specialty was finding
solutions to complex labor issues; fostering good working relationships at its unionized facilities and
training management on how to effectively lead and manage employees in both a union and non-union
work environment. I have been on both sides of the bargaining table, and I have a track record of
problem solving through win-win negotiations.
As an AFL-CIO Attorney, I fought hard for the rights of employees to have their voices heard in the
workplace and the right to have an election. The STR Owners have a right to be extremely upset as the
current course of action to impose a STR tax is depriving them of a MEANINGFUL VOICE, and it is an
unjust taking of their property. I am a member of that STR owner community owning three rental
properties: one active short-term rental, one long-term rental, and one vacant short-term rental
property which I am currently debating whether to sell or operate again as a short-term rental.
It is very clear from the scope of work provided to the paid consultant that the Fee Study proposed by
Trustee Martchink was solely to determine the dollar amount that should be charged to STR owners and
not determine ALL the contributing factors to the housing shortage issue and look at ALL possible
funding avenues. To paraphrase Trustee Cenac: The Trustees need to have a comprehensive plan and
more of a discussion so the STR Owners will see that the Trustees are not just trying to penalize them for
having a short-term rental. Well, this didn’t happen. There is no comprehensive plan and there has
been no public debate. So, guess what, the STR Owners all feel that they are being singled out and
penalized for having a short-term rental! This fast tracking of the Ordinance is taking away the rights of
the citizens of Estes Park to engage in meaningful debate as to the best course of action to take to
address the housing issue; each side presenting their ideas and arguments, incorporating the best ideas
into a plan, and then let the chips fall where they may at the ballot box.
Why the Rush? The REAL ANSWER – Trustee Bangs is not running for re-election and Trustee Martchink
needs her VOTE. The entire community knows, as Trustee Bangs has been very forthcoming during the
recorded Study Sessions, that she has little regard for STR properties and their owners. The rumor that
is circulating is that Trustee Bangs wants desperately to be able to cast her vote for the Ordinance so she
can show her like-minded circle of friends that she stuck it to the STR owners. I hope this is not true.
Page 199
I agree with you that there is no good reason to expedite a vote on this Ordinance. The proposed
Ordinance doesn’t take effect until next year. The Town can wait a month or two to have a full debate
and formulate a plan. In the meantime, you already have a funding stream through the over 5% excess
sales tax revenues. Why not abandon this folly and work on something productive that will make a real
difference like adopting a Lease to Locals program like Summit County:
https://landinglocals.com/summitco/
The Summit County Lease to Locals program launched on October 15, 2021. Their program has
produced an excellent ROI (Return on Investment). The County has paid to date $424K in total
incentives to property owners and they unlocked 54 new bedrooms and housed 46 workers in their
community. As stated above, I have a vacant short-term rental property that I am currently debating
whether to sell or operate again as a short-term rental property. Operating it as a long-term rental is
not an option currently on the table. However, providing an incentive program like the Summit County
Lease for Locals program would make me re-evaluate my options. The current Ordinance is ALL STICK
and NO CARROT. If the Town’s intent is to truly unlock more properties to workforce housing and not
penalize STR owners, then you need to incentivize this behavior. A win/win solution that would gain
widespread public support would be a Lease to Locals program funded by a broad-based funding
mechanism like the over 5% excess sales tax revenues currently in place.
What is painfully evident from the recorded Study Sessions is that the Town doesn’t have a plan and it
hasn’t any stated initiatives that would be funded by this STR tax. Instead, we hear that this is just one
funding avenue and the Town is working on other funding avenues. Really??? If you can’t articulate
your plan, there obviously is NO plan. Or does the Town not want us to know the plan is … as we won’t
like it. This leads us to the following questions:
Does this plan involve more Impact Fee Studies targeting other sub-groups within Estes Park?
Does this mean you can use the current Impact Fee Study to charge owners of homes that are
not occupied by fulltime residents?
Will there be Impact Fee Studies to tax hotels, motels, BnBs, etc.?
Will there be Impact Fee Studies to tax business owners who have employees?
The Consultant admitted under question by Trustee Webermeier that: (1) there hasn’t been an Impact
Fee Study done that hasn’t been able to calculate a fee; and (2) there are lot more non-resident second
homes than STR homes. Why didn’t the Town include non-resident second homeowners and other
groups in the STR Fee Study and/or ask the paid consultant to find all other viable sub-groups to tax?
Based on the data provided by the consultant to Trustee Webermeier, you could tax non-resident
second homeowners at a minimum of twice the amount you are taxing STR Owners. Why stop with
non-resident owners? You could do an Impact Fee Study to justify taxing all Business Owners. Oh, but
you may have a problem getting that study approved as Trustee Martchink and other Trustees on the
Board own businesses that employ individuals. They might be against that because then they would
have to pay the tax, not the evil STR owners.
I make all these comment in jest, but if the Trustees supporting this Ordinance were effective leaders,
they would have lead by example. The Impact Fee Study would have included a more broad-based cross
section of Estes Park including, but not limited to, looking at businesses that employ workers to
determine the impact and tax that all such groups would have to pay. The Trustees would be in a much
stronger position than they find themselves in now with the public. The Trustees would demonstrate
Page 200
that they are leading by example, by not asking other citizens of Estes Park to pay a tax that they
themselves were not willing to pay.
Trustee Martchink is not a skilled politician, and he is his own worst enemy. His speech made during the
Study Session is best summarized as follows: You STR Owners stop complaining about paying the $1,390
additional tax on top of your Vacation Home business license fees (which in my case for a 4-bedroom
home is $400); because if you do complain and this doesn’t pass, then we will put it on the ballot and I
guarantee it will be MUCH HIGHER! Living in the digital age where you are recorded, he and/or the high
over-priced attorney the Town hires to defend this STR tax can’t spin his words and his contempt. His
speech will not play well with a jury! In labor law, we call this speech the “iron fist in the velvet glove”
and any such speeches made by an Employer to intimidate its Employees would automatically overturn
any lost union election.
The Trustees have made it incredibly easy to organize the STR Owners in Estes Park. The STR Owners
are mobilized and ready to fight and all avenues are now on the table … legal action, recall, referendum,
etc. to stop this “STR FOLLIES” …. you know it’s bad when the local press editorial board is also united
against you! But wait there’s more, the Town went the extra mile and ignored the repeated requests of
local experts in the Housing, Real Estate, Property Management, Property Development, STR Owners,
Workers, Employers, etc. to have meaningful participation in this process. Now public support is on our
side. I have read all the comments submitted on the Town public e-mail system and there are a lot of
very thoughtful, knowledgeable individuals who are experts in their respective fields – so why wouldn’t
you want to engage them in the process when they are volunteering their help and guidance. There are
more than a handful of individuals who are emerging as true leaders with vision and wisdom. I will be
reaching out to them in the future to encourage them to run for elected position.
I have a meeting on Wednesday with a consulting firm that is working with a cross section of STR Owner
groups in Colorado mountain towns to connect with the Breckenridge STR Owners to share information,
resources and strategies. As you may know, Breckenridge recently enacted a similar Ordinance also in
violation of TABOR. All the other mountain communities have put together comprehensive plans to
fund their housing initiatives and they put them on the ballot. I will also be reaching out to the TABOR
Foundation; Air BnB and VRBO to notify them of this disturbing trend to disguise a tax as a fee to avoid
TABOR and seek their assistance. I will offer whatever assistance they require in this fight. I hope to be
able to give them good news that the Town of Estes Park has course corrected, but if not, I will do all in
my power to fight this injustice.
As in Union Elections, it all comes down to VOTES. All the other excuses heard during the Study Session
are smoke and mirrors. This is local politics at its worst. Our politicians are unskilled at the art of
deception - the lies and excuses are very paper thin and will not survive cross-examination … the
depositions will be entertaining!
You are fighting the good fight and good luck on getting the necessary votes to stop this nonsense.
Sincerely,
Richard P. James, Esq.
Mountain Rendezvous LLC
305 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 201
STR impact fee
jrme...@gmail.com
Mar 20, 2022, 5:01:29 PM (8 hours ago)
Trustee MacAlpine,
I want to offer my comments to the Mayor and Trustees in regard to the potential “impact fee” (tax)
on short term rentals. We bought our home, which is located north of Lake Estes and on a hill
overlooking the golf course, in 2011. We had enjoyed visits to Estes Park in the past, and thought
having a home would be great; and potentially a future place to retire. The real estate market was
still down in 2011 and “affordable housing” was not really an issue. We needed to rent it out as a
vacation rental because we were not in a position to own a second home outright. For the majority
of the years we have owned the home, it has not had a positive cash flow. Even in the past couple of
years, as income has increased, we have re-invested the cash (above our fixed expenses –
mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities) in the home (new boiler, paint, appliances, plus significant
expenses in maintenance and repairs); it is an older home and requires yearly expenditures to keep it
safe, attractive and accommodating. We utilize local property managers and also local (as in Estes
Park) contractors whenever possible.
When the Town instituted regulations on STR’s 6-7 years ago, I was supportive, as these were
primarily aimed at safety and ensuring neighbors were notified and could contact owners/property
managers. Plus there was a phase-in period to become compliant. Even before these regulations, I
made sure my closet neighbor had my personal number and advise me of any issues. These
regulations and inspections were reasonable, and part of being a good neighbor; there was nothing
inherently unfair about them.
I have three primary concerns with the latest proposal to impose an impact fee (tax):
1.The process – or should I say lack thereof. Very little buy-in from all impacted, and no
comprehensive assessment of the affordable housing issue – its causes, the solution,
alternatives, and how the all stakeholders are impacted and should be part of the
solution. The legal issue of whether this is a tax or not could have been negated had the
Town put it up for a vote as it should have. The Town should also look to other communities
and find a ‘best practice’ approach to the larger issue before targeting one group……
a.Additionally, there was no effort to assess the positive impact of STR’s to the
economic benefit of the Town and local businesses. STR’s are a vital part of
accommodations for visitors, the very visitors that are the economic engine of the
Town
b.Have you sought out county, state and even Federal support – with RMNP adjoining
the town, the Federal government is a stakeholder as well
2.Targeting the STR ‘s. It is clear to anyone who is familiar with this issue, that STR’s are being
targeted. Period. No discussion about other accommodation entities, businesses, or real
estate owners/operators, or any others who have contributed to the affordable housing
problem, including the Town itself. Most STR’s are owned by out-of-town owners, who have
no vote in local matters, and have little representation. This is simply not a fair and unbiased
approach to the affordable housing problem; AND STR’s are hardly soley responsible for the
problem. So why is the only action being directed at us?
3.How does the money collected, as proposed, address the affordable housing issue? There
has been no information provided to support how these funds will actually make workforce
housing more affordable. It’s a one-off action with no plan!
Page 202
We will be spending a couple of months this Spring staying at our home, and considering whether to
retire here. As always, I make a list of advantages/disadvantages to any decision. I never thought
having a vote and being an activist would be part of my decision, but having a vote and being active
in local politics is obviously an important factor in our decision.
I respectfully ask that the Trustees table this issue until a more comprehensive assessment is made
of the broader housing issue, solutions are identified and all alternatives are evaluated for a fair and
equitable resolution by the greater community. A reasonable fee (or tax) may be appropriate as part
of a comprehensive solution; but at this point, there is no justification, and we oppose this action.
Regards,
Jim & Jeanna Meek
Page 203
short term tax/impact fee
chis...@reagan.com
Mar 20, 2022, 4:28:24 PM (8 hours ago)
Ms. Younglund,
We have a short term rental property in Estes. We keep our rates low so families can
come and enjoy the area, we do not make much income from rentals. If you pass this
tax/impact fee, we will seriously look at discontinuing having a rental property. We
STRONGLY appose this tax. Please do not vote for this tax/impact fee!!
Regards,
Pam Huffman and Frank Bilek
Page 204
Attn: Mayor Koenig - Thank you and Additional Data Request
D Cramer
7:39 AM (1 hour ago)
Greetings Mayor Koenig,
Thank you for stating that you oppose the proposed yearly flat rate impact fee on STR permit
holders. I know that you agree that we need to be doing everything we can to help ease the
workforce housing situation in Estes Park. I would like you to also know that speaking as a STR
permit holder, I would vote for an $8 nightly flat rate tax on STRs and I would vote to add additional
taxes to other business sectors in Estes Park in order to support workforce housing initiatives.
Again, even though you have said you do not support the proposed yearly flat rate impact fee on
STR permit holders, I am including below the following request for data I asked for from the other
members of the town board because I believe it shows why a yearly flat rate tax creates an undue
burden and is unfair to STR permit holders and why if any additional tax is to be collected from STRs
to support workforce housing initiatives a nightly flat rate tax would be more appropriate.
1.) Can the town interview all current STR permit holders to see how they use their permits?
Having it as a yearly flat rate tax assumes that all STR permit holders are renting their homes in the
first place, it assumes that all STRs are renting their homes enough during a year's time in order to
pay the town an extra $1390, and it assumes that all STRs are able to make a profit. As one of the
STR homeowners who has never rented my home (my family and I have been living in our STR, 365
days/yr, as full-time workforce/residents in Estes Park) - this yearly flat rate tax is unfair because
they / we are living in the homes full-time as Estes Park workforce and residents. Knowing other
STR homeowners that live full-time in Estes Park but rent their homes a few weeks a year, just
enough to help cover their property taxes and utilities - this yearly flat rate tax is unfair because they
are simply trying to afford living in Estes Park. Knowing other STR homeowners who don't have a
profitable vacation rental for whatever reasons, from having to use a property management company
to simply trying to maintain a family homestead - this yearly flat tax is unfair because they are
simply trying to have a familiar place to stay when they visit Estes Park and aren't in it for huge
profits. There are too many assumptions about STR homeowners attached to the proposed yearly
flat rate tax and it ignores the undue burden it puts on STR permit holders who either do not rent
their homes at all, who are simply trying to afford living in Estes Park, or who are not making a profit.
This new data should be collected and must not be discredited before making a decision.
If there is to be any additional tax added to only STRs*, it would be appropriate to make it a nightly
flat fee tax. Again, I would happily vote to add a $8 / night flat rate tax on my STR for the purpose of
supporting workforce housing initiatives. When I am finally in a position to use my STR permit, it
means whether I am able to rent my home 7 days a year ($56) or 365 days a year ($2,920), it is set
fairly. By making it a nightly flat rate tax, myself and all other STR permit owners, regardless of their /
our reasons for having a STR permit, will also have a means by which to generate the money
required to pay the appropriate tax in order to offset the impact of STRs on workforce housing.
After watching the study session, the only reason why a nightly flat rate tax is less appealing is
because charging a yearly flat fee is thought to be "easier" for the Town Clerk's office. Where is the
data that says it is easier? Towns all across America are using computers to automatically collect
and remit these taxes through AirBnB & VRBO. In addition, it is easy for every STR permit holder to
provide stats of nights rented per year to the Town Clerk. When STR permit holders pay for their
next year's permit, simply request they also give the Town Clerk a report from AirBnB or VRBO or
the like with the exact number. Perfect. Done. Fair.
Page 205
*I would like to add, I believe it is unfair that STRs are the only ones blamed and taxed for the
housing situation in Estes Park. The town board says they are looking at other avenues, but actions
speak louder than words and all actions have been solely focused on the small number of STRs as
being the ones to tax and blame.
2.) Can the town collate the data from all of the emails to the town board regarding this
issue?
I have only gone through the last week of emails received by the town board, but the data shows
that the majority of emails are from STR permit holders who are against the yearly flat rate tax
specifically because they are in one of the 3 situations I mentioned above. The data shows that
people are urging the town board to stop rushing this yearly flat rate tax without gathering more data
and without including other business sectors to tax. The data shows that STR home owners agree
that workforce housing needs help but it is wrong of the town board to attach the weight of that only
on their shoulders and not including and taxing other sectors in town, too. The data shows that
everyone is in support of SB/HB22-1117 and want it to be approved in Estes Park. There is more,
but all of this new data should be collected and must not be discredited before making a decision.
3.) Can you interview the next 60 homeowners on the waitlist and collect data regarding their
future plans?
What happens if 60 STR permits are released next week because of the proposed yearly flat rate
tax? The Town Clerk's office thinks it is a good idea if people release the STR permits from their
homes simply because then the Town Clerk's office would get people off the STR waitlist, but this
will actually make the workforce housing situation worse in Estes Park. The impact study did not
personally interview anyone on the waitlist, but I have personally spoken with roughly a dozen
homeowners on the waitlist and I can tell you those people are currently using their waitlisted homes
as Long Term Rentals that are filled with members of the Estes Park workforce, from teachers to
waitstaff. As soon as those waitlisted homeowners get a STR permit they will stop renting as a LTR
and those Estes Park workforce members will have to find a new place to live, in turn, making the
housing situation worse than if the 60 current STR permit holders keep their permits. This new data
should be collected and must not be discredited before making a decision.
4.) Is there data showing that an additional "pillow tax" (SB/HB22-1117) would help raise
funds from tourists, not locals, to support workforce housing and childcare?
Yes. Based on the current pillow tax collected in Estes Park, at 2% this would bring in an estimated
(minimum) 3.8 million dollars a year for our town to use on workforce housing and childcare. I would
happily vote for an additional 2% "pillow tax" on all lodging in Estes Park and surrounding areas, to
use toward workforce housing and childcare. Let's get that on the ballot this November and let's
do it!
We are all in this together and we should all bear part of the burden, not only STRs.
Thank you,
Dana Cramer
Page 206
Short term property tax
Greg Starr
8:56 AM (2 hours ago)
The planned tax on people who rent property in Estes Park so the city can create low income
housing to enable local businesses to steal wages their employees deserve is beyond ridiculous. I
cannot even begin to imagine how the city of Estes Park can in good faith support Estes Park
business, many multi-national corporation underpaying workers with taxpayer subsidized housing
that requires the residents to work for businesses in Estes Park. This situation will expose worker to
abuse by Estes Park businesses who know firing and black listing employees means they will be
evicted. Any sane person understands if local businesses are having trouble hiring, they have a few
choices, increase wages, increase benefits, get more efficient, or close up shop. Stealing money
through taxes to enable businesses to steal from employees is not a solution.
Best regards,
Dr Greg Starr
Page 207
Proposed STR assessment
dwight jepson
9:54 AM (1 hour ago)
Dwight and Kathy Jepson 2307 Aspen Knoll Dr
The proposed STR assessment is targeted, completely unfair and inappropriately termed a "fee"
(it is a tax). It should be voted down and a comprehensive plan to address and equitably pay
for affordable workforce housing to meet the needs of Estes Park should be done. The need for
workforce housing applies to every entity of Estes Park; motels, hotels, cabins, restaurants,
stores, entertainment venues, as well as every person who lives in Estes that benefits from the
income generated from tourism.
My husband and I are 68 and 69. My husband grew up coming to Estes with his family for
vacation every summer. His aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins came as well. Before we
were married and afterwards, we came every year, missing 2-3 summers. We have brought
out, touted, and encouraged numerous others to come and experience Estes Park. We've
directly effected having 2 weddings here as well. We've supported restaurants, stores, Our
Lady of the Mountains, the golf courses, and hospital over all of these years. We rented a
motel or cabin until we purchased our house in October 1999 and have always rented it out
when we were not using it. To have been such supporters and promoters of Estes Park to now
be viewed as a group you can throw a tax on indiscriminately angers and saddens us.
Don't bite the hand that has fed you. Work reasonably and equitably to solve the needs of the
community.
Reading our point of view, how do you still justify this assessment? We would appreciate a
response from at least one of you.
Respectfully,
Dwight and Kathy Jepson
785-221-3304
Page 208
From: Granger Scruggs <granger...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:27:26 AM
To: wko...@estes.org <wko...@estes.org>; pmart...@estes.org <pmart...@estes.org>; cba...@estes.org <
cba...@estes.org>; mce...@estes.org <mce...@estes.org>; bmaca...@estes.org <bmaca...@estes.org>; s
webe...@estes.org <swebe...@estes.org>; cyoun...@estes.org <cyoun...@estes.org>
Cc: Becky Robbins <beckyro...@outlook.com>; Jody Scruggs <jop...@swbell.net>; undefined
<williamc...@gmail.com>
Subject: STR Impact Fee/Tax
Dear Estes Park Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am writing to ask you to vote no on the proposed STR Impact Fee. Justification of the STR
Impact Fee based on the "Vacation Home Impact Study" is not warranted for two reasons:
exclusion of other potential variables and lack of statistical significance.
While we all agree that workforce housing is an issue for Estes Park any analysis to understand
the cause must include all potential variables and as the title of the study states it is only
analyzing one variable. Additionally, any analysis regarding the cause of limited workforce
housing availability must include a simultaneous analysis of the income (average and/or
groupings of income) of the workforce as a variable. One can easily understand the
extremes. If the workforce has an average income of $50,000 and all available STR units'
average nightly rate is $1,000, that workforce would never be able to afford that housing even
if it was reallocated for long term rental and as such that specific housing would not be relevant
to the workforce. While the impact study did include the STR average rate it did not include the
average income and thus affordability for the workforce. Isolating a sector of housing (i.e. STR)
as a whole and implicating it as a reason for the lack of LTR without a simultaneous analysis of
workforce income is unfortunately misguided.
Our home was built by our grandfather in the late 1970's as a vacation home. Our families
continue to use it 40 years later as a vacation home coming to Estes multiple times a
year. While we do make it available for STR, it is simply to offset some of our expenses. More
importantly we have never been interested in making it available as a LTR as we ourselves use
the home when we want. If we were to allocate it as a LTR we would not be able to use our
own home. Thus, our STR should not be included in an impact analysis of potential LTR's that
have been converted to STR's. This is an important variable that was not addressed in the
"Vacation Home Impact Study." Not all of the 480 registered STR's in Estes Park were potential
reallocations from LTR to STR. Any STR that is not a potential reallocation from LTR should not
be included in the sample size.
Even if you disregard the argument that the entire 480 registered STR's should not be included
in the analysis, the "Vacation Home Impact Study" itself admits the sample size of Estes Park is
too small. At the bottom of page 12/top of page 13 it states:
Page 209
"Due to the significant reduction in the sample size from the national to the state level, several
of the coefficients in the state model are not statistically significant. However, the fact that in
general the magnitude and direction of the coefficients are in line with the findings of the
academic paper provide evidence that the model is well specified but lacks statistical power
due to the reduction in the number of observations. The Colorado coefficients from the
baseline models on the rental stock, owner stop, and seasonal vacancies, are statistically
significant, as well as the IV estimate for seasonal vacancies. The number of observations is
further reduced when we restrict the sample to zip codes with more tourism driven economies
which makes the variables more prone to measurement error and estimates more imprecise."
I believe this to be the most profound paragraph in the whole analysis as it essentially negates
their conclusions. If the coefficients are not statistically significant because of sample size, then
you cannot make a causal relationship. Just because there is a trend does not mean that it is
correlated. Just because A and B exist and change in the same/opposite manner does not
mean they are correlated.
If the number of observations for Estes Park is too small to apply to the analysis provided by the
referenced academic paper, then any result is meaningless from a statistical standpoint and thus
cannot be accepted as a justification to apply an impact fee/tax to help mitigate the hypothetical
cause of the problem. In simple terms they have not proven that STR's cause a change in
workforce housing availability and thus applying an impact fee/tax would be inappropriate.
Because the impact study did not include an analysis of workforce income along with other
variables and it resulted in a lack of statistical significance because of the small number of STR's
in Estes Park, you must vote NO for the proposed impact fee/tax.
Thank you for your consideration.
Granger Scruggs
Page 210
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
3/21/2022 7:53 PM Ordinance 02-22.Elizabeth Mulhern Against
Dear Trustees
It is my hope that you will see the "bigger plan" to address the workforce housing problem. I appreciated one of
the Trustee's comments when they said in the study session "we are not wanting to punish the short term rental
owners" I hope that all of you feel that way and understand that we do not want to be punished but we want to
be a part of the solution. As Scott Webermeier said during the study session "there are many prongs in the bigger
plan" Please "think big" and do not pass the ordinance 02-22 I encourage you to really listen to all of the
information that community members and vacation rental homeowners will be sharing on the 22nd.
Thank you for serving our community,
Public Comment received by noon on 03-22-2022
Page 211
March 22, 2022
To Whom it May Concern,
Hello, my name is Sarah Reynolds, and I am a current resident of Estes Park. It has
been brought to my attention that the town board is meeting about the effect that short term
rentals have on the workforce and the residents of Estes Park. I have lived in Estes since the
spring of 2011, and have been a full time resident since then. I have worked in town the entire
time, and I know how tourism helps our economy, and where the town receives money. I
understand how the economy works, how short term rentals aid in this, but also how hard
housing is to find. I have bought and sold a house here, have been given housing based on
who I worked for, and have rented from various individuals.
In the last few years, housing has been even more difficult to find here. I understand that it is
not all due to short term rentals, but also they are not helping. I currently live in an apartment
downtown that is affordable and comfortable. I don’t pay much considering the current rental
prices in Estes Park, however I will be losing my apartment by the end of the winter of 2022.
There are about 20 apartments in the complex, and most are turning into Airbnbs. The majority
of the people in this complex work for local restaurants and shops, which means that’s about 20
to 40 people in the local workforce who are losing their housing. We will be given a three to six
month notice of our lease terminating. This is just one instance in town, there are a lot of people
who have been losing their housing due to this, and a lot who leave their jobs and town to start
a life somewhere else.
If you take a walk downtown you will see how many help wanted signs there are. There isn’t a
business here that isn’t struggling for work force, and it isn’t even summer yet. I work for a well
established business in town, and work full time, and I still struggle for housing. I know a lot of
people who have been living here full time for five plus years, and still have not found
permanent housing. These are people who are teaching our children, running the restaurants,
and helping with local community nonprofits. There are not a lot of options here if you are
looking for housing. The housing market is limited, and what is for sale is bought up quickly by
people who are not living here full time. The rental market is increasing daily, and I think in large
part due to the fact that people can make more with short term rentals.
I think putting a cap on the short term rentals would be helpful. While they are not the only
issue here, they do add to it. People can come in and buy up the inventory on the market and
make their money back in a few months of short term renting. I think that is great for them, and I
get it, however it isn’t helping the workforce here in Estes. If you don’t have people to run all of
the amazing shops, restaurants and bars in this town you will not have a need for short term
rentals. There has to be a way to do this so it is beneficial for both the people doing short term
rentals, and for the workforce. It won’t be long until all of the housing is taken up, and you won’t
have employees to help run this town.
Thank you for your time, and attention,
Sarah Reynolds
Page 212
Short term property tax
Greg Starr
8:56 AM (2 hours ago)
The planned tax on people who rent property in Estes Park so the city can create low income
housing to enable local businesses to steal wages their employees deserve is beyond ridiculous. I
cannot even begin to imagine how the city of Estes Park can in good faith support Estes Park
business, many multi-national corporation underpaying workers with taxpayer subsidized housing
that requires the residents to work for businesses in Estes Park. This situation will expose worker to
abuse by Estes Park businesses who know firing and black listing employees means they will be
evicted. Any sane person understands if local businesses are having trouble hiring, they have a few
choices, increase wages, increase benefits, get more efficient, or close up shop. Stealing money
through taxes to enable businesses to steal from employees is not a solution.
Best regards,
Dr Greg Starr
Page 213
Proposed STR assessment
dwight jepson
9:54 AM (1 hour ago)
Dwight and Kathy Jepson 2307 Aspen Knoll Dr
The proposed STR assessment is targeted, completely unfair and inappropriately termed a "fee"
(it is a tax). It should be voted down and a comprehensive plan to address and equitably pay
for affordable workforce housing to meet the needs of Estes Park should be done. The need for
workforce housing applies to every entity of Estes Park; motels, hotels, cabins, restaurants,
stores, entertainment venues, as well as every person who lives in Estes that benefits from the
income generated from tourism.
My husband and I are 68 and 69. My husband grew up coming to Estes with his family for
vacation every summer. His aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins came as well. Before we
were married and afterwards, we came every year, missing 2-3 summers. We have brought
out, touted, and encouraged numerous others to come and experience Estes Park. We've
directly effected having 2 weddings here as well. We've supported restaurants, stores, Our
Lady of the Mountains, the golf courses, and hospital over all of these years. We rented a
motel or cabin until we purchased our house in October 1999 and have always rented it out
when we were not using it. To have been such supporters and promoters of Estes Park to now
be viewed as a group you can throw a tax on indiscriminately angers and saddens us.
Don't bite the hand that has fed you. Work reasonably and equitably to solve the needs of the
community.
Reading our point of view, how do you still justify this assessment? We would appreciate a
response from at least one of you.
Respectfully,
Dwight and Kathy Jepson
785-221-3304
Page 214
From: Granger Scruggs <granger...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:27:26 AM
To: wko...@estes.org <wko...@estes.org>; pmart...@estes.org <pmart...@estes.org>; cba...@estes.org <
cba...@estes.org>; mce...@estes.org <mce...@estes.org>; bmaca...@estes.org <bmaca...@estes.org>; s
webe...@estes.org <swebe...@estes.org>; cyoun...@estes.org <cyoun...@estes.org>
Cc: Becky Robbins <beckyro...@outlook.com>; Jody Scruggs <jop...@swbell.net>; undefined
<williamc...@gmail.com>
Subject: STR Impact Fee/Tax
Dear Estes Park Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am writing to ask you to vote no on the proposed STR Impact Fee. Justification of the STR
Impact Fee based on the "Vacation Home Impact Study" is not warranted for two reasons:
exclusion of other potential variables and lack of statistical significance.
While we all agree that workforce housing is an issue for Estes Park any analysis to understand
the cause must include all potential variables and as the title of the study states it is only
analyzing one variable. Additionally, any analysis regarding the cause of limited workforce
housing availability must include a simultaneous analysis of the income (average and/or
groupings of income) of the workforce as a variable. One can easily understand the
extremes. If the workforce has an average income of $50,000 and all available STR units'
average nightly rate is $1,000, that workforce would never be able to afford that housing even
if it was reallocated for long term rental and as such that specific housing would not be relevant
to the workforce. While the impact study did include the STR average rate it did not include the
average income and thus affordability for the workforce. Isolating a sector of housing (i.e. STR)
as a whole and implicating it as a reason for the lack of LTR without a simultaneous analysis of
workforce income is unfortunately misguided.
Our home was built by our grandfather in the late 1970's as a vacation home. Our families
continue to use it 40 years later as a vacation home coming to Estes multiple times a
year. While we do make it available for STR, it is simply to offset some of our expenses. More
importantly we have never been interested in making it available as a LTR as we ourselves use
the home when we want. If we were to allocate it as a LTR we would not be able to use our
own home. Thus, our STR should not be included in an impact analysis of potential LTR's that
have been converted to STR's. This is an important variable that was not addressed in the
"Vacation Home Impact Study." Not all of the 480 registered STR's in Estes Park were potential
reallocations from LTR to STR. Any STR that is not a potential reallocation from LTR should not
be included in the sample size.
Even if you disregard the argument that the entire 480 registered STR's should not be included
in the analysis, the "Vacation Home Impact Study" itself admits the sample size of Estes Park is
too small. At the bottom of page 12/top of page 13 it states:
Page 215
"Due to the significant reduction in the sample size from the national to the state level, several
of the coefficients in the state model are not statistically significant. However, the fact that in
general the magnitude and direction of the coefficients are in line with the findings of the
academic paper provide evidence that the model is well specified but lacks statistical power
due to the reduction in the number of observations. The Colorado coefficients from the
baseline models on the rental stock, owner stop, and seasonal vacancies, are statistically
significant, as well as the IV estimate for seasonal vacancies. The number of observations is
further reduced when we restrict the sample to zip codes with more tourism driven economies
which makes the variables more prone to measurement error and estimates more imprecise."
I believe this to be the most profound paragraph in the whole analysis as it essentially negates
their conclusions. If the coefficients are not statistically significant because of sample size, then
you cannot make a causal relationship. Just because there is a trend does not mean that it is
correlated. Just because A and B exist and change in the same/opposite manner does not
mean they are correlated.
If the number of observations for Estes Park is too small to apply to the analysis provided by the
referenced academic paper, then any result is meaningless from a statistical standpoint and thus
cannot be accepted as a justification to apply an impact fee/tax to help mitigate the hypothetical
cause of the problem. In simple terms they have not proven that STR's cause a change in
workforce housing availability and thus applying an impact fee/tax would be inappropriate.
Because the impact study did not include an analysis of workforce income along with other
variables and it resulted in a lack of statistical significance because of the small number of STR's
in Estes Park, you must vote NO for the proposed impact fee/tax.
Thank you for your consideration.
Granger Scruggs
Page 216
STR impact fee
Vincent Laurent
2:47 PM (8 hours ago)
Mayor,
I urge you to vote against the impact fee to STR. Adding an fee to STR will not do
anything to help the workforce housing shortage. From the study you had done, the
number of vacation rental properties that might otherwise be available as workforce
housing—less than 40 units—are but a drop in the bucket for the more than 1,700 units
of housing.
I feel it is more land restrictions that impact availability. Estes is like living in a coastal
town. One can not build in to the park. If there is going to be a fee maybe it should be
based on how much land is being used by a property.
If there is someone on 5-10 acres, they are impacting the availability more than my
weekend rental.
I urge you not to rush this to this and vote no.
Vince Laurent
1070 Crestview Court #6
314-541-4755
Page 217
Mar 22 meeting and proposed STR impact fee
Steve Tice
1:48 PM (10 hours ago)
Please reconsider voting tomorrow on the proposed "impact fee" assessed to short term rental property
owners. Instead, please revise the proposed ordinance to be a tax that will require voter approval. To be
clear, I'm only asking that citizens of Estes Park get the opportunity to vote on this issue.
Truly yours,
Steve Tice
655 Park River Pl
Former STR property owner
Page 218
Taxing short term rental
Susan Signs
1:52 PM (9 hours ago)
Wendy
I send a letter last year, but you stated you hadn't heard much about the feeling of the populous
about the proposed tax.
I feel that this is a tax to punish families coming to Estes. My home is normally rented out to families
here to spend time together. The cost will be forwarded to them.
Also, I haven't heard how this tax will be used to create housing for the workers. Is it a punitive
measure? We should be looking at what kind of housing we need and the best way to create it.
I have a few ideas and was coming to the meeting on the 30th, but but it looks like it has been
bumped up.
Susan Signs
261 Big Horn Dr
970-217-5567
Page 219
Impact Fee on STR’s
1:34 PM (10 hours ago)
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees of Estes Park,
I am an owner of a short term rental property located in Estes Park.
I am opposed to the proposed fee being considered by your board to be placed on properties with
the classification of “Short Term Rental”, to generate funds for the shortage of affordable housing.
Please broaden your view of the causes of there being a shortage of said housing and all areas of
the reasons thereof. A little more time spent on finding all the causes and solutions to shortage, I
believe, will bring about a much better resolution.
Respectfully,
Kurt Housinger
Owner
613 Park River Place
Estes Park, Co.
661-917-4071
Page 220
Thoughts on tomorrow's discussion or vote on the proposed
Short annual rental fee
Mark Newman
2:19 PM (9 hours ago)
Patrick,
On the matter of the $1,390 tax/” fee” to be levied on Short Term rentals my wife and I ask that
you do not vote to move forward with this initiative. We agree that affordable local housing is a
concern for Estes and many other mountain communities. We strongly feel that HB22-1117 which is
currently under consideration in Denver is a more effective, equitable and balanced solution to the
affordable housing concern. If just weeks before a Statewide solution could be approved, the Estes
Park town council were to move forward with our own far less equitable, and effective tax/” fee”
measure levied on short-term rentals as a flat tax it would appear irresponsible. The town has
already approved irresponsible spending on a poorly executed study that provides little actionable
hard data or information as to the root cause of housing issues in Estes, already it appears the study
will ultimately prove useless and at a considerable expense to the town.
Please ensure that instead the Estes Park town council works to prepare for the approval of HB22-
1117 by preparing to present local measures to support the additional tax revenues going directly to
housing and childcare in Estes Park. If the town council points our resources toward HS22-1117
instead of moving forward with this flawed tax/” fee” measure levied on short term rentals it will show
that the town council is aware of better solutions, and not afraid to change course. To ignore HB22-
1117 or other more comprehensive and balanced solutions being utilized in other communities will
highlight the town council’s ability to drain town resources. I assure you the $1,390 fee/tax would be
challenged legally, and there will be bickering and fighting amongst members of our community.
Please do the right thing and postpone any discussion or decision on the $1,390 tax/” fee” measure
and support working with HB22-1117. If HB22-117 fails to pass, then the town needs to work on a
united effort to find a solution for affordable housing.
Respectfully
Mark Newman
540 Chapin Lane – 251 West Riverside
Page 221
letter protesting unfair taxation of short term rental owners
Flying Colors Painting, Inc
12:09 PM (11 hours ago)
March 21, 2022
To Whom it may Concern,
We are the proud owners of a house in Estes Park that we use as a second home and a short term
rental. I think most everyone in town recognizes the need to address and improve the current
workforce housing shortage in Estes Park but I feel like putting a disproportionate amount of the burden
on the backs of STR owners is unfair, short-sighted, and frankly, shows concerningly faulty reasoning on
the part of the Town board. I’m very happy to pitch-in financially with some special tax or fee, but
wouldn’t it make more sense to have all business owners, and even all residents share equally? Putting
it all on STR owners makes no more sense than putting it all on Taffy store owners, or T Shirt shop
owners. And I find the term “impact fee” ironic….. Impact? Darn right the renting of our house to out
of town visitors has an impact. It’s a 100% positive impact on the town economy. We used local
contractors to remodel the house, bought dozens of town licenses, paid permit fees, used local suppliers
for materials, use local management, use local workers for cleaning and maintenance, buy supplies from
the local grocery store, and pay piles of sales tax on the rental fees. And obviously, once the tourists are
here they spend good money on any number of local goods and services. Sorry, but in a tourist town,
the folks who house the tourists are not the bad guys.
Equally misguided is the notion that if we could just do away with these pesky short term rentals, by
reducing the number of permits and the transferability of said permits, the workforce housing crisis
would be fixed forever. The renting of our house short-term is no more related to the workforce
housing shortage than it is to the amount of snowfall we get each year, or the crowded trailhead
situation. They are absolutely unrelated. The house rents for too much to be a viable long-term rental,
and we use it too much to lock into a yearly lease. So, if our house was no longer able to be used as a
STR, it would have ZERO positive impact on the long-term rental supply. I would guess the same applies
for the majority of STRs.
Let’s keep trying to come up with ways to remedy this shortage like subsidizing a tiny home community,
or incentivizing development of clean, safe, respectable work-force housing rather than crushing
potential development with the mountains of challenges and hindrances the Town planners are famous
for. Anything but this bad idea.
Yours in good faith,
The Messingers, 240 Fall River Lane
Page 222
"No" to singling out STRs for "Workforce" Fee
Dan and Tonya Derman
1:19 PM (10 hours ago)
Hello. We live in Estes and currently own a commercial condo in RiversPointe that we
rely on AirBnB income to help support our family. We have several friends in the
community who also own and operate STRs that they rely on to be able to pay bills and
live in Estes. We believe strongly that HB22-1117 can have greater benefits for
workforce housing than a fee that singles out STRs. Please vote no on this
discriminatory STR fee idea and focus on HB22-1117 - the much more fair and
reasonable option. Thanks.
Dan and Tonya Derman
612.418.7120
Page 223
Public Comment - Short Term Rental Ordinance
Mayor Koenig, Town Trustees, and Trustee Candidates,
All guests that stay overnight in Estes Park pay their share of taxes to the Town, whether they stay in
a STR, a motel, an RV, or a tent. These guests come to Estes Park and spend their hard-earned
money at our shops, restaurants, and other activities. For many, many years this town has relied very
heavily on the sales tax dollars from people that don’t live here, and those guests still come, still
spend their hard-earned dollars, and enjoy the opportunity to visit our beautiful town.
To say that STRs affect the number of affordable housing units in town enough to implement a “fee”
is inaccurate. In my opinion the fee study made it clear that STRs have a minimal impact on
affordable housing, compared to the number of units needed. The majority of STRs would not be
considered “affordable” to most of Estes Park’s employees, and most of those STRs would not even
be entered into the pool of long-term rentals. It would be interesting to poll each STR owner to find
out if they would rent long-term, even if given a monetary incentive.
Every business in the Estes Valley that has employees contributes to the affordable housing
problem. To levy this “fee” only on STRs is unfair and discriminatory. There is no way this “fee”
would even begin to solve the issue. To go even further and impose a fee on this small minority
before a plan has been created and approved is not an acceptable way for government to do
business.
My recommendation to begin to alleviate the housing crisis is to propose a 0.5% or 1% sales tax
increase to the voters, to be used specifically for affordable housing. This would create a lot more
money in a shorter amount of time than any STR impact fee. As we all know, the majority of the
revenue would come from our visitors, many of whom are only here as day trippers and don’t even
spend the night.
Please do not take this lightly and consider all options before making a decision. The town is years
behind in solving this problem, and thinking that a “fee” on STRs will make a dent in the issue is
unrealistic.
Karen Thompson
714 Sanborn Drive
Estes Park
I reside outside the town limits but own a STR inside the town limits, in the Commercial Downtown
zone district.
Page 224
Short Term Renta Taxation Increases
Robert Prussman
2:22 PM (9 hours ago)
Mayor Koenig:
I would very much appreciate a telephone conversation with you, as soon as possible
about the very controversial issue being rushed or pushed through by you and Trustees of
Estes Park.
As a longtime homeowner, tax and dues payor of the Town of Estes Park, think you and your
staff should represent all of the residence and citizens of the Town of Estes Park.
I would like to know how a tax upon so many for so much, can be left up to so few (1 mayor
and 6 trustees) and with some having obvious conflicts of interest and what was the origins
of placing a tax upon STR (Short Term Rentals)?
I listen to the person who prepared and made the reports presentation, which the citizens of
Estes Park all paid for and had little to no understanding or idea about the major points of her
presentation and therefore what she was addressing, as I found her talking faster than
most reasonable persons could listen or certainly comprehend.
I did not hear her address the disincentives of perpetrating / imposing a burden upon STR
owners and have not found this addressed anywhere, maybe you can and will help
my understanding of this very hurried situation and event too soon to unfold in our Town.
Thank you in advance for your effort and consideration of my requests.
Robert N. Prussman, GRI, CRS, ABR
Real Estate Professional Since 1979
Broker / Owner
PRUSSMAN REAL ESTATE
OFFICE: (970) 484-7151
TEXT: (970) 691-7151
FAXES: 1-866-326-5432 toll free
E-Mail Address: b...@prussman.com
Janell R. Prussman, GRI
Real Estate Professional Since 2001
Broker Associate / 2010 Member RE/MAX International “Hall of Fame”
RE/MAX International Platinum Club Member 2015
RE/MAX Alliance
Page 225
OFFICE: (970) 484-5486
TEXT: (970) 691-1727
FAXES: 1-866-326-5432 toll free
E-Mail Address: jan...@prussman.com
Page 226
STR tax is a VERY BAD IDEA. It's a LOSE LOSE situation.
MOHAN HARIHARA
8:37 PM (3 hours ago)
Hi,
This is a sincere request to you for not increasing any tax liability for STR.
Increasing tax to solve the affordable housing for Estes will not solve the problem but
will cause more financial loss overall to Estes.
Instead, you need to cut wasteful spending programs. Reduce the bureaucracy of the
city/county government which will get you all the finances to build the affordable
housing. Increasing tax is a classic left leaning, large government tactics which has
repeatedly failed.
Increased tax will only cause less short term rentals, which would automatically reduce
the overall revenue from the money spent by the short term renters at Estes. It will
reduce all the STR owner's net income which would impact the financial support the
STR owners do to Estes.
Again, the quickest and usually misguided solution to any financial issue is to increase
taxes, which has repeatedly failed at all levels of government, so please, instead cut
wasteful spending and don't punish STR owners for all the mishap and misuse of funds
by the City.
This is a sincere request to you for not increasing any tax liability for STR.
Sincerely,
Mohan Harihara & Chithra Rajagopalan an STR owner..
www.verifXpress.com
Page 227
Impact Fee for STRs
Sparke LLC
9:18 PM (3 hours ago)
Hello Ms Cenac,
I'm writing to urge you to vote no on assessing the so called "impact fee" on short-term rental
properties. We agree there is a problem with affordable housing for workers in Estes Park. We
also feel strongly that there needs to be a plan with a reasonable probability of success before
targeting a tax on one small portion of the Estes Park tourism industry. We've not talked to
anyone who actually believes this fee alone will even begin to solve the problem. We strongly
encourage devising a plan for success and funding it with a more broad-based tax. The STRs are
not solely responsible for this problem and they cannot and should not be targeted to fund the
solution.
We bought our future retirement home in Estes Park in 2018. We have been able to offset some
of the costs by using it as an STR until we are able to fully retire and become permanent Estes
Park residents. Our home generate significant revenue for the city through sales tax, property tax
and the annual STR license fee. The large number of seasonal residents in Estes Park, whose
homes sit empty much of the year, contribute much less to the city's revenues and are a
significant part of the problem. STRs provide a lodging option that a hotel can't provide which is
a valuable contribution to the Estes Park tourism industry. Please don't vote for a tax that
penalizes only the STRs.
Thanks you for listening.
Tom & Tina Spencer
1660 N. Ridge Lane
Page 228
Hey Patrick!! (Also...A more thought-out solution, please)
Kelly Cordes
Mar 21, 2022, 11:12:57 PM (8 hours ago)
Hey Patrick, how are ya? How’s life in politics treating you? Someone needs to do it, and it’s
wonderful to have people like you involved. Anyway, wanted to make my voice heard here—you’ve
been to my cabin, right next door to Tommy’s old place; I’m no housing mogul. Trying to make it
work, just like many in our community. So here’s my input, thank you for listening:
I’m one of many long-term, year-round resident homeowners (a tiny cabin near the dump; I don’t
make a ton of money) with a STR permit, trying to make ends meet by renting my place for short
periods when I’m not home. This is how the middle class works today. Not everyone with a STR is a
corporate mogul with no interest in our community beyond making a buck—and thus, to draw no
distinction between the two is incredibly short-sighted. My situation is a perfect example, as I most
definitely am not renting my place long-term anyway. Hell, it’s my home, not something on a
corporate ledger.
I very much appreciate the need to address the employee and low-income housing issue in Estes
Park. It’s a complex problem, requiring a multi-tiered, well thought-through approach. Many STR
permit holders are just like me—owning their homes, and renting them while they’re away. It is not
the primary source of the housing shortage—your own study clearly shows this. Adding a
proportional fee could, perhaps, be part of the solution. But not the only solution.
To charge all STRs the entire flat fee of $1,390 (which I understand to be the leading thought, on
which you are voting?? Really?) is totally absurd. Sure, a percentage per night is more work on your
end, but that is the town’s job. Should avoiding that work trump fairness?
What about we year-round residents, those who live in our places but earn a little extra from rentals
when we aren’t home? Jesus, $1,390, I don’t even make that much a year on my place. Talk about
incentivizing the corporate-style soul-suckers who come in and wreck towns. That fee would be
nothing to them. Maybe I should just sell my place to them instead. That part, in particular, is truly
incredible. Sure, charge me a few bucks more a night for my 500 square-foot cabin if it’s part of a
larger effort to help our community. I’m OK with that. Make it proportional. I’ve been on the other side
(I lived in a rundown shack for $65/month the first year I moved here back in 2000). I don’t mind
helping. Other communities have put, for example, a 180-day cap on STR rental days. One example
of myriad possibilities.
But putting this all on people like me in the form of a big yearly flat fee is astoundingly short sighted,
and creates a tremendous degree of ill will among homeowners who, in good faith, supplement their
income with part-time renting. That’s part of how you build a middle class in a place where it’s hard
to get by. Not by penalizing us. If it’s a nightly percentage that’s part of a larger plan, sure—let’s help
our town. This is my home, too. Has been for 22 years. Please consider a more reasonable, multi-
faceted solution, and—at least for now, because this is nowhere close to a reasonable solution—
vote against the proposed STR flat fee. Develop a comprehensive plan that is fair, and you’ve got
my support. But this is not it.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cordes
—
Kelly Cordes
Page 229
PO Box 3521
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-5957
kco...@yahoo.com
FedEx/UPS:
755 Elm Road #12
Page 230
Proposed "Impact Fee" on STR License Holders
Andrew Graham
7:07 AM (1 hour ago)
Dear Mayor Koenig,
My family has rented vacation homes in the Estes Valley for almost the past 40 years, and I
have been a property owner in Estes Park with an STR license for the past 5 years. I write to
encourage you to vote against the proposed ordinance to tax short-term rental property owners
to fund workforce housing.
The proposed "impact fee" of $1,390 per STR property, is actually a tax because it raises
money from a small group of property owners to fund an unrelated government objective—
workforce housing. Assessing a new tax on Estes Park property owners is a serious matter that
should be put before the voters, not rushed to a vote barely two weeks before the upcoming
municipal elections. I am suspicious whenever a divisive proposal is rushed just before an
election, as that frequently can indicate an overwhelming public opposition to such a proposal. I
believe such widespread opposition is the case here.
I am also concerned that the Town Board has not clearly laid out how exactly the money would
be used to address the workforce housing shortage, and the money raised from the short-term
rentals would not even begin to mitigate the very real and serious problem of the workforce
housing shortage. To satisfy the need for an estimated 1,700 workforce housing units, a more
comprehensive solution is required. Estes Park voters should have a role in designing that
solution and the Town Trustees should not deny Estes Park voters their voice as property
owners and taxpayers by rushing to pass this ordinance.
I have also reviewed and concur in the opinions expressed in Howard Hanson’s editorial, STR
Follies, and in Bill Brown's letter Scapegoating Vacation Rentals (Estes Park Trail
Gazette, March 11, 2022), and I likewise believe a preferable solution will become available
when Governor Polis signs HB22-1117, which bill will allow Local Marketing Districts, with the
approval of the voters, to increase the tax on lodging and to use the funds for workforce housing
and childcare. This would benefit our local marketing district, Visit Estes Park, by passing the
cost of workforce housing and childcare on to the tourists who benefit directly from the needed
hospitality and community workforce.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graham
Page 231
March 22, 2022
Dear Mayor and Town Trustees,
Current events surrounding short term rentals future in Estes Park is at stake and in the
hands of the Town Board. Our story over the past six years has taken many paths and incurred
many changes to mee the requirements of the Town Board. Today we are now facing another
change to Short-Term Rentals and how they conduct business. Impact fees are a common
practice used within Colorado municipalities and at times teeter on the line of being a tax.
Tonight, the Board has before them an ordinance that will forever change the landscape
of Short-Term Rentals within this community. Over the years the Town of Estes Park has
navigated several iterations of legislating short-term rentals, each step increasing and/or
changing short-term rental requirements. Given the magnitude of tonight’s agenda I believe it
is only fair to share with the Board perceptions run deep within the community that short term
rentals are under attack with great intent. Real or perceived this belief exists.
If we look at the history of short-term rentals and the history of affordable housing
within the Estes Park community these two had not intersected within the community until
somewhere in the mid 2000’s. So, what was impacting affordable housing before? Second
homeowners, local economics, planning, zoning, low paying jobs, low visitation, home values or
was it something else? The reality is affordable housing has been and will continue to be a real
problem in Estes Park.
We can always differ on what the true impact of STRs is on affordable housing in Estes
Park. What we can all agree we have an affordable housing issue in Estes Park. With that said
what is the right approach?
Within the confines of our community’s current housing shortage, I believe “we as a
community” must assess this subject from a shared approach. This topic is a classic community
issue needing input from all community partners and what they would support. Throughout this
process I do not remember seeing anything about community input on this issue. It seems if we
are looking at an affordable housing shortage with an insurmountable price tag the approach
should be broader in its approach. With the passing of HB 22-1117 the Local Marketing District
can now initiate a ballot to the voters to increase the marketing district tax specifically to
address housing and childcare for tourism communities.
Wouldn’t a tax initiative that is primarily paid for by tourists better serve our community
long term than an impact fee laden with controversy towards homeowners in our community?
Page 232
Regards,
Lowell Richardson
Page 233
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Ord 02-22
1 message
David Bangs <dbangs@trailridgece.com>Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:32 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, cbangs@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, swebermeier@estes.org, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>
Hello Trustees-
I am writing to voice my support for passing Ordinance 02-22. Please consider what is best for the community at large
and rely on the data driven conclusions and leave emotions at the front door. You will undoubtedly be fed a lot of scare
tactics and requests to delay this to the next board at tonight's hearing. That is nothing more than political strategy at its
worst. I implore you to take a vote on this issue tonight. Continuing this item to the next board is irresponsible
governance. No additional information is needed to make an informed decision on this topic regardless of which way you
vote. I have personally witnessed the impacts short term rentals have had not only as a small business owner trying to
retain quality staff in our community but also myself as a young professional trying to raise a family in Estes Park. Please
stand up for the workforce and for families in Estes Park. The STR use is a necessary part of our tourist based economy
but their direct financial impact on our community should absolutely be offset. Please help put the community of Estes
Park first. Many of you were elected due to your stated commitment to do so while serving on this board. Thank you for
considering my comments.
David Bangs
2191 Larkspur Avenue
Page 234
I Town of Estes Park
SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Individuals wishing to be heard during Public Comment proceedings are encouraged to bepreparedandwillgenerallybelimitedto()minutes in order to allow everyone theopportunitytobeheard.Public Comments are expected to be constructive.
Written comments are welcome and should be given to the Town Clerk prior to the start ofthemeeting.
Town Board Meeting March 22,2022
ORDINANCE 02-22
Page 235
C z z C,m F.
j
F)
rs
)
-I 0 0 CD CD 0 1’
3
1’
%
)
F’
)0r%
)
F’
)
I-
,
CD
CD
di
o
3 CD 0 0 -I CD CD 0 0 3 CD 0 0 0 CD CD I 0 I-
,
CD -I 0 D 0 CD
•1 0 0 I-
,
CD 0 0 0 -l
o.
—
0_
<
-0
—
•
I-
,
-
.
,
0
r+
D
o
o
-C
D
O
•
CD
C
D
o
=
3
3
•
CD
CD
C
z fl
•
CD
V0
Xi
0
CD
.3
CD
Z
C
D
Q-
.
CD
O
o
CD
00
C
D
0
D 0
<2
)
•
0C
D
<0
0
<1
CD
-‘0C
D
CD
—0
I-
,
.
CD
C
D
I
C)z I 0 i-
I
-I
-n
o
0h
cm Ow O.
0 mz -I
Page 236
F!’;
Every Town Board since 2000 has declined to be directly involved in
developing,owning or managing housing.Now you wish to establish a Housing
Enterprise fund just 3 weeks after the study session on March 1.
The Town established Estes Park Housing Authority in 1993.Town Board
acted as its Commissioners.In 1995 the Town decided to build 57 units of low-
income housing at Lone Tree across from the fairgrounds.However,following a
citizens’initiative,that decision was reversed.The Town approached Loveland
Housing Authority and it built 57,1-2-and-3 -bedroom units on that site.
The Town Board made the decision to divest itself of the responsibilities of
developing,owning,and managing multi-family housing,so in 2000 the Town
appointed 5 community members to become Commissioners of an independent
Housing Authority.
In 2001 the Authority purchased and rehabilitated a 10 unit building on
Cleave Street.In 2002,44 1-2-and-3-bedroom units at Talons Pointe’s were built
in conjunction with Loveland Housing Authority.At Vista Ridge 59 condos were
built and 30 deed-restricted units sold to low-income households.The Pines was a
48-unit low-income project serving seniors 55 and older.The Town loaned the
Authority $2 Million to purchase all 48 units,the property was subdivided,23 units
were sold at market rate,25 are deeded for senior housing,and the Authority
repaid the Town with interest.
Page 237
48 units were developed at falcon Ridge near Good Sam.The original plan called
for 64 units.The Town reduced that to 48.
The latest project is Peak View Apartments with 26,1-2-and-3-bedroom units
of workforce housing with no income limits.However,tenants are restricted to
working within the school district boundaries year-round.
As you can see about every 3 years since its formation,the Authority has
provided new and diversified housing options for those in need in our community.
Although the Town has provided some fee waivers and one loan since 2000,it has
declined to be involved in the development,ownership,or management in any of
the 7 projects built or acquired by the Estes Park Housing Authority.
The Authority has spent over $33 million through private and public
financing programs to obtain 237 rental and for-purchase units for households
earning 80%or less of Area Median Income.
Please ask yourselves why you want to start all over again and be in the
business of housing development,ownership and management.Do you want to
compete or cooperate with the Estes Park Housing Authority and the private sector
for funding,resources and inventory in the complex business of financing and
maintaining workforce housing?The Authority understands the need,but not the
proposed Housing Enterprise Ordinance.Please reject this initiative.
Eric W.Blackhurst,Ed.D,Chairman,Estes Park Housing Authority
Page 238
To:Estes Park Trustees
From:Suzy Blackhurst
Date:March 22,2022
RE:Enterprise Fund for Lodging
I’m dismayed that,as trustees,you are comfortable even considering establishing an enterprise fund with
money collected from one segment of our town’s tourism industry on a first reading.I understand that the
subject has come before the board several times in the past nine months:the first time as a “I wonder if...”
then the concept that perhaps a fee study related to the impact of vacation rentals on housing availability
was floated,the third time the board actually set aside funds for that study,it took another meeting to
review the scope of the study and then the board saw drafts of the study twice in about the last month.
Other than officially approving the expenditure of funds for the study,all the directives for staff to follow up
came during study sessions.Yet Colorado Courts interpret the Open Meetings Act’s intent is to give
citizens a greater opportunity to meaningfully participate.The public cannot speak during study sessions.
I shouldn’t have to remind you that means the public cannot meaningfully participate during a public
comment period in just one meeting like tonight’s.
I’m really concerned that you are planning to base your fee decision on the Root Study for several
reasons:
The study used Craigslist to determine rental distribution —That’s on Page 4.Craigslist —Really?
Using short term rentals in commercially zoned property to establish a potential income level for the town
is over-reaching at best.A-Accommodations zoning was specifically designed to serve the community for
accommodations use,whether it is short term or not.In addition,there are only 322 short term rental
licenses issued within the Town limits,not 500.
Using Colorado and National-based models for this study doesn’t tell the Estes Park story.And the Root
study admits that.A footnote on page 8 admits that using Estes Park-centric data doesn’t work:“The
model specification uses ZIP code level panel data and since the majority of the Town is covered by a
single ZIP code,there simply aren’t enough observations to yield results.“Another footnote on that same
page specifically says the model used for the study “results in lower statistical significance.“The study
also says that when the statistical models are used,variables are more prone to measurement error and
the estimates are more imprecise.”That’s on page 10.
Page 1
Page 239
So,even though the study admits it provides a less than statistically significant result,that model is used
to draw incredibly significant conclusions.
Given those facts,how can you possibly,with not at least minimum reasonable doubt,believe the study’s
findings on the direct impact of Estes Park Short Term Rentals on Workforce Housing?Those are on
page 10 as well.
Estes Park has a cap on short term rentals.Page 9 talks about how doubling the number of Short Term
Rentals decreases long term rentals.In fact,all the bullet points on page 9 speak to the Root finding that
an increase in Short Term Rentals lowers the general rental market.
I fail to see how that applies here when we cannot increase the pool of Short Term Rentals.
I have just as many concerns about establishing an enterprise zone to collect fees when that hasn’t been
explored using public input,even though the state Supreme Court says it’s not a tax.
I did some calculations about the cost of administering this enterprise fund --using salaries and benefits
typically paid by the town for a director,manager and admin.Combined with costs of equipment,town
technical support fees,supplies and rent,it could cost at minimum,$300,000 of the $695,000,the staff
evaluation anticipates.
Yes,we have extreme housing needs in Estes Park.But I plead with you.Please take more time
understanding all the ramifications of this particular ordinance.
Let individuals have the opportunity to actually study the ordinance so they truly understand what it would
mean to the tourism community —the Town’s primary economic driver.
Talk to general lodging establishment owners.Talk to short term rental managers.Get more input.I know
people affiliated with lodging businesses have conflicts of interest when you’re talking about their
businesses,but they also might be able to provide more insight on the proposition.
The ordinance before you sets 2023 as the time for enacting the ordinance That means you have nine
months to get it tight.
You don’t have to make a decision tonight.
Page 2
Page 240
Support the CITIZENS OF ESTES PARK
Who want a VOICE and Who want a VOTE
Speak Up and Tell the Trustees to VOTE NO!
Ordinance No.02-22 is an Illegal Tax
lithe Trustees pass this Illegal Tax
against Short Term Rental Property Owners
without providing the
CITIZENS OF ESTES PARK a VOICE and a VOTE
THEN YOU’RE NEXT!
•Taxes on Non-Resident Owners
•Taxes on Lodging Accommodations
•Taxes on Businesses with Employees
•Taxes on all other FULLTIME RESIDENTS
Don’t let the Trustees Divide our Town
Tell the Trustees to STOP these Illegal Taxes
Tell Them to VOTE NO!
Page 241
Page 242
RESOLUTION 27-22
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TOWN OF ESTES PARK BALLOT ISSUE 3A TO
ALLOW THE COLLECTION, RETENTION AND EXPENDITURE OF ALL REVENUES
WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has unanimously referred Ballot Issue 3A to
the voters of Estes Park at the April 5, 2022 Town Election; and
WHEREAS, Ballot Issue 3A would, without increasing any tax rate or imposing
any tax, enable the Town to collect, retain, and spend or reserve all revenues it receives
from all lawful sources on services and amenities including, without limitation, police
operations, 911 communications, emergency management, and other government
services; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s ability to fund high-priority community services, including
maintaining current staffing levels, will be significantly limited if Ballot Issue 3A does not
pass; and
WHEREAS, at-risk community services are identified in the biennial National
Community Survey as high-priority services for the community and include police
operations, 911 communication operations, Fire District support funding, workforce
housing initiatives, public communications, childcare initiatives, land-use regulation, and
funding for community organizations; and
WHEREAS, a “Yes” vote on Ballot Issue 3A will allow the Town Board to prioritize
allocation of Town revenues to respond to changing demands for service delivery instead
of being limited to spending a portion of retained revenue on acquiring new capital assets,
maintaining capital assets, and/or replacing capital assets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees hereby supports the passage of Town of Estes Park Ballot
Issue 3A and urges the voters of the Town of Estes Park to vote yes on Town of Estes
Park Ballot Issue 3A.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 243
Page 244
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: 3/22/2022
RE: Utility Lockbox Go Live Notification
Objective:
Provide a simple overview of the utility payment lockbox process scheduled to go live
with the utility bills mailed around March 20, 2022 and due April 5th
Present Situation:
The Finance Department is implementing a new utility billing lockbox with the current
utility billing cycle for bills due April 5th. This is part of the utility billing modernization
effort which began with the online utility billing and payment portal implemented a
couple years ago. Implementation of a lockbox is in the Town Board’s strategic plans
for both 2021 and 2022.
A “lockbox” operation is a specialized service generally offered by banks or payment
processors to receive, image, and process accounts receivable collections. The
lockbox operation deposits the collections into a Town bank account and then prepares
a transaction file that is uploaded by the Town into our utility billing software to post the
payments on the customer accounts. This saves significant staff time, allowing them to
focus on other important needs.
One of these needs is processing the continual increase of net meters for residential
power generation (solar panels, wind turbines) and commercial smart meters which
require manual bill calculations each month. Another of these needs is to develop full
utility billing process redundancy within the 3 member Utility Billing and Collection
Division. Currently, the utility billing backup position is our accounts payable technician
which has a full time job paying the Town bills in addition to other improvement projects
such as electronic invoice approval and purchasing policy revisions. Use of a lockbox
operation will allow the Utility Billing and Collection Division to meet these needs and
balance workloads without adding additional staff.
Proposal:
A lockbox operation is largely transparent to the customer. Most customers are
currently making payments to a lockbox without even realizing it, such as Xcel, Verizon,
AT&T, Comcast, etc. The only change our customers will notice is the new Fort Collins
Page 245
PO Box address on the remittance stub and return envelope. If customers pay online,
pay by autodraft directly out of their bank account, or drop off payments at the drop box
or over the counter, nothing will change at all. Customers mailing in their payments will
simply mail them to the new address indicated on the bill or use the included return
address envelopes. Customers will not have direct contact with the lockbox processing
center and should still contact the Town with any billing or payment inquires just like in
the past. The attached insert will be included with the bills this month to help explain
this change.
The Town advertised for lockbox banking service proposals in June 2021, receiving 7
proposals. Town staff then evaluated the proposals and ultimately awarded the contract
to First National Bank of Omaha. Their lockbox processing center is in Fort Collins and
they have extensive experience working with utility lockboxes, including utility lockboxes
for the City of Fort Collins, City of Louisville, and the City of Loveland. Lockbox
processing centers for all other proposals, including the proposal from Bank of
Colorado, were either in Denver or out of state processing centers.
Advantages:
Use of lockbox services will allow staff to focus on other unmet needs, such as
customer service, delinquency collection efforts, meter processing improvements, cross
training and other internal and external needs.
Disadvantages:
A disadvantage of a lockbox service is the monthly lockbox fee but this is still cheaper
than hiring another staff member which would be needed otherwise.
Action Recommended:
No action is necessary. This agenda item is for informational purposes only.
Finance/Resource Impact:
502-6401-550-22-10 $ 30,000
503-6400-550-22-10 $ 10,000
$40,000 has been budgeted in 2022 to pay for the monthly lockbox service fees.
Current estimates are between $3,000 and $4,000 a month, depending on the volume
of payments going through the lockbox.
Level of Public Interest
We have received no comments from the general public or customers. Customers may
be curious about the address change when they receive their bill but otherwise, this will
not impact them.
Attachments:
1. Lockbox Utility Insert
Page 246
Notice to customers on payment processing
No action required
With the March, 2022 billing cycle, the Town
of Estes Park will begin to use a lockbox
service to process mailed water and electric
payments.Customers do not need to take
any action.Customers who mail their
payments to the Town of Estes Park will
notice a new address on the return
envelope.
All existing payment methods are still
acceptable, including the online portal at
www.estes.org/onlinepayments, and paying
at the service counter at Town Hall, 170
Macgregor Ave.
Lockbox service is:
● A secure, automated banking solution
utilized by organizations with a large
accounts receivable customer base, like
the Town of Estes Park.
● A way to reduce the need for additional
staffing, allowing existing staff to redirect
their efforts to other important needs.
● A way to increase efficiency and
effectiveness in both customer service and
operations.
Please contact the Utility Billing Division at
970-577-4800 with any questions.
March 1, 2022
Attachment 1
Page 247
Page 248