Comments regarding proposed Code amendments affecting vacation homes
Andrew Graham
Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, and Trustees Brown, Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund,
I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code affecting vacation homes.
Hosted Vacation Homes
Allowing a primary resident to be present during a short-term rental seems like an elegant solution that will benefit many Estes Park residents and homeowners. This also simplifies the code by merging hosted and unhosted vacation homes into a single vacation home license, thus eliminating a second license type. Well done.
Lottery/waitlist
I note the overwhelming support evidenced at the October 14 Study Session, although this still seems unnecessarily complicated to me. However, I believe the 14-day deadline mentioned in section 5.20.110(b)(1)(c) is far too short, as a person going on vacation and being out of normal communication for two weeks would likely not have an opportunity to respond with an application that is “complete, valid, and timely, which includes all required fees and deposits.”
Transferability
During the October 14 meeting there seemed to be general support for the concept of limited transferability of non-transferable post-2021 licenses to preserve family or legacy properties. I am therefore disappointed this was removed from these amendments.
In the proposed amendments a natural person must be named as the licensee in the initial application, and there is no provision for replacing that person with a successor licensee. As proposed, you can never replace that person, even if the property ownership never changes. This will create situations that are far more limiting than the existing code. For example, if the license holder dies, becomes incapacitated, or just no longer wants to serve in that role, you cannot name a replacement.
As an example, a group of siblings might own a vacation home; one is named as the license holder for 5 years but then moves to Bora Bora and cannot devote time and attention to the property. But none of the other siblings is allowed to become the license holder. This is a huge change from the current regulations that affects an existing entity with no change in ownership, and particularly one that is not attempting to evade transfer restrictions. This seems totally unfair.
However, you can transfer the ownership so long as the original license holder still has an ownership interest in the property post-transfer. Since you can never change the license holder, this seems likely to give rise to some perverse arrangements, such as naming two 20-year-old 0.5% property owners as the license holders and hoping like crazy that at least one of them lives a long time in order to preserve the vacation home license. Never mind that they don't have the experience, maturity, or responsibility of their 50-year-old family member 99% co-owner.
Instead, providing a reasonable opportunity for naming a successor licensee would largely eliminate such unfair situations and any motivation for such perverse arrangements.
Enforcement
For all of the concerns expressed about wanting a natural person to hold the license so the Town can enforce violations against a specific person, the "Enforcement" section 5.20.110(f) is still replete with references to "property owners and local representatives" and no references to a licensee. I believe this omission shows the difficulty of creating two classes of licenses, where the older licenses are still held by property owners (the "business owners") and the newer ones are held by a natural person who merely has a "ownership interest" in the property. It seems to me that the enforcement section has not been updated to accomplish your stated goals.
Suspension
Several violations of the Code will result in a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn being ineligible to receive a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn license for a long period of time (see section 5.20.110(f)(7) for a five-year example). I believe eligibility should be restored if the property is sold and a new property owner seeks such a license, without having to wait out the penalty period due to a prior owner’s actions.
General Comment
I believe that there are several new provisions that seem unnecessarily harsh and almost punitive. I don’t think that is the attitude the Town should exhibit in dealing with its residents and businesses. Most examples are phrased similar to "such and such is due in very few days after licensee is made aware, and if such response is imperfect or incomplete in any way, it is therefore defective, ineffective, and your license expires." I submit that a reasonable opportunity to cure a minor defect in an otherwise good-faith attempt at a complete submission should be afforded. It is the right thing to do.
I respectfully request that you revise the amendments to the Code to address these issues, and defer adoption until such changes can be implemented.
Very truly yours,
Andrew Graham, President
Estes Valley Short-Term Rental Alliance
Frank Lancaster
Becky Robbins
Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, and Trustees Brown, Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund,
Just a short note to let you know that I fully support the thoughtful and well-reasoned comments submitted by Andrew Graham on behalf of the Estes Valley Short-Term Rental Alliance. His points reflect the concerns of many in our community who value both responsible regulation and fairness for property owners.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the Mayor, Trustees, and staff for the significant time and care devoted to this complex issue. Your efforts to balance community interests are deeply appreciated.
Becky Robbins, Board Member of the Estes Valley Short-Term Rental Alliance
Realtor®
Re/Max Mountain Brokers
1200 Graves Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Cell: 281-989-5587
Gary Hall
Becky Robbins
Thank you, Mayor!
Becky Robbins