HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.077-25RESOLUTION #077
SERIES OF 2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING POLICIES
AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE RELATED TO SECTION
26.104.100 - DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 26.530 - SHORT-TERM RENTAL
REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required to initiate
the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.104.100, Definitions; Section 26.530, Short-term Rental
Regulations; and other sections of the Land Use Code, as necessary, will be proposed for
amendments; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), during a regular City Council meeting
on December 14, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance #026, Series of 2021, by a unanimous
affirmative vote placing, a moratorium on the issuance of new short-term rental (STR) permits
until September 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 22, 2022, City Council adopted Policy
Resolution #043, Series of 2022, directing staff to develop regulations for STRs related to zoning,
good neighbor policies, operational standards, life safety standards, permitting, financials, and
enforcement; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 28, 2022, City Council approved Ordinance
#09, Series of 2022 at Second Reading by a unanimous affirmative vote, establishing a robust set
of regulations governing the licensing, permitting, capping, inspecting, enforcing, and creation of
a new fee structure for services performed for STRs; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 became effective on July 29, 2022, and at the
expiration of the moratorium created by Ordinance #026, Series of 2022, the City began issuing
new STR permits on October 1, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, during a Work Session on February 24, 2025, staff updated City Council on
the STR program, and during that meeting received majority direction from City Council to
proceed with exploring policy updates for administrative topics and future policy related topics
related to streamlining STR permit application requirements, increasing compliance with existing
regulations, providing exemptions for unique circumstances unaccounted for in the current STR
regulations, and the R/MF Zone District permit cap number; and,
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code as described below will ensure the ongoing
effectiveness, coordination, and viability of the regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use
Code; and,
Resolution #077, Series of 2025
Land Use Code Amendments
Policy Resolution
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department, following approval of this Policy Resolution, will conduct a limited public outreach
effort to inform the public, STR program participants, the Historic Planning Commission, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of the STR Technical Advisory Committee of
the proposed updates; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on June 24, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution #077, Series of 2025, by a five to zero (5-0)
vote, requesting a code amendment to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction
to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
City Council approves the following objectives for possible code amendments:
1. Streamline the STR permit application process and provide increased clarity and
detail around application requirements.
a. Modify the public notice requirements for new STR permit applications
when the property is in a Zone District that does not have a cap on the number
of available STR permits. Updated requirements would remove the mailing
notice and require a poster notice only (Section 26.530.040 - Permit Procedures
and Standards).
b. Eliminate the requirement for a signed letter from a property's
Homeowner's Association (HOA) on annual STR permit renewal applications
(Section 26.530.040 - Permit Procedures and Standards).
c. Add language to specify that STR permit renewal applications must be
complete to be accepted by the City (Section 26.530.040 - Permit Procedures
and Standards). Add language stating that falsification of information on STR
permit applications is against municipal law (Section 26.530.060 -
Enforcement).
2. Provide exemptions for unique circumstances that are not accounted for in current
STR regulations.
a. Modify the tax filing requirement to provide a one-time exemption for
permittees with active building permits. Provide an additional exemption to the
tax filing requirement for "act of nature" emergencies. (Section 26.530.040 -
Permit Procedures and Standards).
Resolution #077, Series of 2025
Land Use Code Amendments
Policy Resolution
Page 2 of 4
b. Modify the non -transferability clause to provide an exemption in the case
of permittee death, whereby a deceased's STR permit may be transferred to a
person designated on the permittee's estate planning documents (26.530.030 -
Permitting Requirements and 26.530.040 - Permit Procedures and Standards).
c. Create a fourth Short-term Rental Temporary (STR-T) permit type that
allows a new property owner to honor STR booking agreements made by the
previous property owner for a period of not more than three (3) months after
the sale of the property has occurred (26.530.030 - Permitting Requirements,
26.530.040 - Permit Procedures and Standards, 26.530.050 - Occupancy and
Operational Standards).
3. Increase compliance with and provide additional avenues for enforcement of
existing STR advertising requirements.
a. Add definition for "Vacation Rental Service" (26.104.100 -Definitions).
b. Add language requiring Vacation Rental Services to take down
advertisements of STRs located within the City of Aspen that do not comply
with the City's STR advertising requirements (26.530.050 - Occupancy and
Operational Standards).
c. Add language requiring Vacation Rental Services to enable a mandatory
permit number field on STR advertising templates for properties in the City of
Aspen, where applicable (26.530.050 - Occupancy and Operational
Standards).
d. Create a new code subsection that clearly outlines existing permittee
advertising requirements in addition to Vacation Rental Service advertising
requirements (26.530.050 - Occupancy and Operational Standards).
e. Correct the misspelling of "complaint" (26.530.060 - Enforcement).
4. Allow for future amendments related to the R/MF Zone District.
Section 2•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 24th day of J�ne,
Rachael ichards, Mayor
Resolution #077, Series of 2025
Land Use Code Amendments
Policy Resolution
Page 3 of 4
ATTESY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Nicole Henning, City Clerk K harme Joh City Attorney
Resolution #077, Series of 2025
Land Use Code Amendments
Policy Resolution
Page 4 of 4
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
MEMO DATE:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
Emmy Oliver, Lodging and Commercial Core Program Manager
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
February 18, 2025
February 24, 2025
City Council Work Session
Review of the Short-term Rental (STR) Program
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this work session is to review Short-term Rental (STR) Program data, respond to
Council's questions about the STR Program, and to introduce policy topics for which Council may
wish to explore Land Use Code (LUC) changes. Staff requests consensus Council direction for
any STR program changes the Council desires for staff to pursue.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In December of 2021, following an unprecedented expansion of the Aspen STR market during
Covid-19, City Council passed Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, which instated a moratorium on
the issuance of new STR permits (Exhibit A, Ordinance #26, Series of 2021). The moratorium
was a direct response to escalated community concerns about the proliferation of STRs. Lasting
approximately ten months, the moratorium provided space for staff to closely engage with the
community and Council in the development of new regulations governing STRs in Aspen.
At the beginning of the moratorium, five "problem statements" were identified by Council
(Memo _Second Reading of Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). These problem statements guided
staff's work in developing the new STR policy:
1) STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use regulations
do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and community
impacts which our current system fails to address.
2) Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation and other
infrastructure and service demands.
3) The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and safety
standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related to property
management and guest behavior standards.
4) The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important aspects of
neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just beginning to understand.
It is clear that some STRs are operating as commercial uses in dedicated residential zone
districts.
5) STRs, particularly in multi -family developments, have accelerated the transition of many
housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge
units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs
have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge.
On June 28, 2022, Council adopted the new set of STR regulations in Ordinance #09, Series of
2022 (Exhibit C, Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). Ordinance #09 established definitions for STRs,
a three -permit system, caps on STR-C permit availability, permitting requirements and fee
structure, occupancy and operational standards, active enforcement, and a non -transferability
clause. Staff began operating under the new regulations on October 1, 2022.
In addition to the new land use regulations, City of Aspen voters approved excise taxes on STR
revenue as codified in Resolution #106, Series of 2022 (Exhibit D, Resolution #106, Series of
2022). The following excise tax rates became effective for all STR stays commencing on or after
May 1, 2023:
• STR-C (investment properties): 10% excise tax
• STR-00 and STR-LE (primary resident and lodge properties): 5% excise tax
Council requested periodic updates about program functionality. Up to now, staff have provided
those updates in the form of information -only memos. This will be the first Council Work Session
to discuss performance and policy topics since the launch of the program.
Essential Program Data
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$4,8531907
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,084,035
$2,383,903
$z,000,000-
$15009,668
$1,000,000
$0
STR-C STR-00 & LE
2023 1,12024
Figure A. Annual STR Excise Tax Revenue by Permit Type
Figure A shows STR excise tax revenue collected in 2023 and 2024. It is important to note that
that 2023 figures only reflect eight (8) months of collections, and that December 2024 figures
reflect unaudited collections and are still subject to change. STR-00 and STR-LE figures are
combined because the tax rate is 5% for each of those permit types.
STR excise tax revenue collected in 2023 totals $3,393,571. STR excise tax revenue collected
in 2024 totals $6,937,942. STR excise tax revenue collected to date totals $10,331,513.
2
Housing
Development
Fund
$7,232,059
Asset
Management
Plan Fund
$25324,590
Iqk
General Fund
$774,864
Figure E. Allocation of STR Excise Tax Revenue (2023-2024 combined)
Aspen voters approved at least 70% of the STR excise tax revenue to be allocated to affordable
housing development, and the remaining 30% to be allocated to environmental initiatives and
infrastructure maintenance and repair. Of the remaining 30% of revenue, 75% is allocated to the
Asset Management Plan Fund and 25% to the General Fund. Figure B illustrates the allocation
of combined tax revenue from 2023 and 2024 to these City funds to date.
$500,000
$4225120
$400,000 $3775698 --
$300,000
$2007000
$1007000
$0
2023 2024
Figure C. Annual Administrative Fee Revenue
Figure C illustrates the administrative fee totals collected in 2023 and 2024. Administrative fees
are paid by the applicant at the time a STR permit application is submitted.
3
City
Attorney's
Office
$142, 648
Community
Development
Department
$451,031 Finance
Department
$206,139
Figure D. Allocation of STR Administrative Fee Revenue (2023-2024 combined)
Figure D shows how the administrative fees are allocated within the City organization. Revenue
is split between Community Development, Finance, and the City Attorneys for staff labor.
Administrative fees also offset the cost of the permitting and tax collection software utilized by
customers and staff.
800 740
700 698 658
600
500
400 392 385 379
300
200
100 76 72 63
Not
STR-C STR-LE STR-00
[12023 i 12024 2025
Figure E. Number of STR Units from 2023-Present
Figure E depicts the number of STR unit types from 2023 to present. A slight decline in all property
types can be seen from 2023-2025, culminating in an 89% renewal rate for Classic properties, a
97% renewal rate for Lodging Exempt properties, and an 83% renewal rate for Owner Occupied
properties. Overall, there has been an 8.9% decline in the total number of STRs since 2023. The
decline can be attributed to some of the following factors:
• Switch to long-term rentals,
• Forfeiture of permits due to property sales,
• Attrition of permits in capped zones, and
• Decisions to stop renting on a short-term basis.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
During a November 2024 Council meeting, Councilors posed a series of questions to staff about
the STR program. Answers to those questions follow.
Question 1: In response to the Frias Properties representative's public comments about
the HOA signoff required for annual permit renewal, is there a way to simplify that process?
Language requiring HOA approval was adopted in Ordinance #09, Series of 2022: "Permit
applications for residential properties which are in a Homeowners Association (HOA) must include
HOA approval for the applicant to operate an STR in the form of a signed letter, including
telephone and email contact information for the HOA, with the permit application." (Exhibit C,
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022)
Currently, a signature from an HOA representative is required with each new permit application,
and updated signatures are required for annual permit renewal. Annual HOA signoffs are required
by staff because HOAs have been known to change their STR permissions from year to year.
Certainly, if Council directs staff to adjust the HOA signoff for renewal applications, staff could
explore paths to ease the burden on HOA managers and simplify the permit renewal process.
Question 2: Regarding outstanding applicants in the different zone districts, help us better
understand what the STR market and those seeking permits that aren't able to get them
mean? Review the caps and outstanding applicants in different zones. What happens to
people who apply but permits are unavailable?
Ordinance #09 established limits on the maximum number of STR-C permits available in 14 of
Aspen's residential -serving zone districts (Exhibit C, Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). The purpose
of the limits (AKA "caps") is to curtail neighborhood impacts of STRs, limit conversion of long-term
and owner -occupied housing to STRs, and distribute STR uses within appropriate zones
throughout the community. Caps do not apply to STR-00 or STR-LE permits.
200
180 _ ■■
160
140
120 ■■-
100 _ �■ _.n
80
60 6-
40 _ - --
20 ��
0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
AH MU NC R/MF R/MFA R-15 R-15A R-15B R-3 R-30 R-6 RR SCI SKI
Permit Cap
# Active Permits i ► # Applications on Waitlist
Figure F: Permit Cap Analysis (as of 2/14/25)
5
Figure F illustrates the numbers of active and waitlisted STR-C accounts in all 14 (fourteen)
capped zones, alongside the cap for each zone. There are currently waitlists for STR-C permits
in 4 (four) of the fourteen (14) capped zones. Waitlist totals are shown by the numbers along the
horizontal axis in Figure F.
In 6 (six) of the 14 (fourteen) capped zones, the number of active permits is equal to the permit
cap. When an STR-C permit application is received for a property in these zones, it is placed on
a waitlist for the next available permit, which would be issued when an existing permit is
relinquished by the owner. In 5 (five) of the fourteen (14) of capped zones, the number of active
permits is less than the permit cap. STR-C permits are currently available to applicants without
a waitlist in these zones.
In 3 (three) out of fourteen (14) zones, the number of active permits is greater than the cap. In
these zones (R/MF, R-30, and SCI), permits that predate the moratorium have not yet been
reduced to the caps through attrition. Applications for STR-C permits are placed on waitlists in
these zones, and new permits will be available once the number of active permits falls below the
caps.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
IN
4000
0
Oct-22 Jan-23 Apr-23 Jul-23 Oct-23 Jan-24 Apr-24 Jul-24 Oct-24 Jan-25
R-6 R-15 , R-15B R-30 --, R/M F
Figure G. STR-C Waitlist Sizes, 2022-2025
Figure G illustrates the fluctuations in waitlists for STR-C permits. The R/MF waitlist, indicated by
the line climbing steadily at the top half of Figure G, is the obvious outlier. Staff received twenty-
two (22) applications for STR-C permits in R/MF zone within the first two (2) months of the
program, and the waitlist has increased to forty-six (46) applications since 2022. The R-30 waitlist
has also only increased in size since 2022; there are four (4) applicants on this waitlist currently.
Due to the slow rates of permit attrition in these zones, no new permits have been issued in R-30
or R/MF since 2022.
Dips in the lines, as shown for R-6, R-15, and R-15B zones, indicate reductions in the waitlist size
at points when permits became available to applicants in the top positions for those zones.
Question 3: Regarding STR violations, how many have been issued, what are the nature of
the violations, where were they located, and were they licensed?
Staff follows the City's policy of progressive enforcement in responding to STR issues. In
alignment with this policy, staff must first validate any alleged compliance issue before proceeding
through enforcement steps. When an issue is validated, staff works with owners to educate them
about how to come into compliance through a series of courtesy contacts and, if necessary, formal
warnings. If the issue is not corrected after outreach and a formal warning, only then will a Notice
of Violation (NOV) be issued to the property owner. The NOV is the last step in the enforcement
process before a summons to court, fines, and/or jail time is imposed.
60
50
40
30
20
10
_ x 1
•lam.
,*3
J ,,,,,,;;,,l...
# Issues
# Courtesy # Warnings # Notices of
Identified
Outreach Issued Violation
Contacts Issued
Figure H. STR Compliance Summary, 2022-2025
The purpose of progressive enforcement is to encourage compliance through education rather
than to impose punitive measures. As shown in Figure H, only 6% of alleged compliance issues
at STR properties have resulted in NOVs. A total of three (3) NOVs have been issued to property
owners for STR issues. While all the subject properties have subsequently come into compliance,
details of those NOVs are as follows:
• Two (2) for unpermitted STR use (R-6 and R/MF zones), and
• One (1) for improper waste disposal that resulted in a wildlife intrusion at an STR-
permitted property (R-6 zone).
7
Nuisance
No Permit -
i
Wildlife Intrusion
Lighting
Renter Complaint
Waste Container
HOA Approval
Snow Removal
Figure I. Number of STR Compliance Issues Reported, 2022-2025
The public can report STR issues directly to City staff through the Aspen 311 Connect app. Staff
also utilize active measures, such as reviewing internet advertisements, to detect issues at STR
properties. As shown in Figure I, of the fifty-three (53) total compliance issues identified since
2022, 26% of those issues were nuisance -related (noise and smoke).
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
0
AH R-6 L R/MF MU R-15 R-15B R-30
Figure J. STR Compliance Issues by Zone District, 2022-2025
Figure J depicts the number of compliance issues reported per zone district. 81 % of all issues
were reported to have occurred in zones that are capped for STR-C permits. The majority of
issues were reported for properties in the AH zone, however it should be noted that reports in AH
were primarily for lighting- and nuisance -related issues at free-market properties.
Question 4: How do STR tax collections compare to 2022 estimates?
As mentioned previously, Aspen voters approved the STR excise tax in 2022 (Exhibit D,
Resolution #106, Series of 2022). While estimating potential revenue for the first full year of the
proposed tax, staff in 2022 were required to 'make many assumptions of the 2024 pool of STR
permits, including:
The average nightly rental rate in 2024,
• The distribution of STR-LE, STR-00, and STR-C permits,
• The number of permits in uncapped zones,
• The pace of permit attrition in capped zones, and
• The economic conditions that would exist in 2024.
Staff added a buffer to the estimate of revenue to reflect these and other unknown factors, as well
as to limit the need to seek additional direction from voters if collections surpassed an estimate
that was too low.
The 2022 estimate of 2024 STIR excise tax collections combined from all three permit types was
$9,140,000. The 2024 actual STIR excise tax collections totaled $6,937,942.
Question 5: Should we have an equal tax rate across all rentals of less than 30 days? Could
the program be more successful if we rethought some initial assumptions about tax rates?
Council considered the following factors when landing on differential tax rates for the three types
of STIR permits:
• Community sentiment,
• Delta in property taxation between residential and commercial properties, and
• Delta in housing mitigation fees paid at time of development of commercial lodge
properties.
Prior to the 2022 STIR tax ballot question, Frederick Polls conducted voter polling to understand
voter acceptance of a new tax, the preferred taxation rate(s), and possible supported uses for the
revenue. Of the 322 registered voters polled, 65% wanted investor -owned rentals (STR-C
permits) to be taxed at a higher rate, while 35% of respondents wanted all STIR permits to be
taxed at the same rate.
This community sentiment aligned with staff and consultant recommendations for STR-LE
properties, which were historically used as lodge properties and had already paid affordable
housing mitigation, to be taxed at a lower rate than properties with STR-C permits. STR-00
permits, which are intended for full time residents as an occasional source of supplemental
income, also fell into the lower tax category since their community impacts would be less than
those of the STR-C permits.
Question 6: What are we learning about what's falling through the cracks? There's a way
to create 31-day lease; is there any way to evaluate how much of that is happening? What
are people doing to get around our regs?
Short-term rentals are differentiated from long-term rentals by the length of stay. STRs are defined
by stays of 29 days (or less) at a time, while rentals of 30 days (or more) at a time constitute long-
term rentals. Long-term rental income is tax exempt, and while the City requests that long-term
rental income is reported, the number of rental days per year is not a requirement for reporting.
Long-term rental business licenses have increased overall in recent years, however it is difficult
to assess whether the increase is due to an increase in long-term activity, an increase in reporting
frequency, or an increase in compliance with licensing requirements. It should also be noted that
some STIR accounts hold long-term rental business licenses and STIR permits at the same time.
For these reasons, it is difficult to conclude that owners are scheduling long-term rentals in lieu of
STRs.
0
Staff have received reports from members ofthe public about properties being rented osSTRa
without permits, however without definitive evidence that an 8TR is occurring (such as an
advertisement for rental of less than 30 days), staff is unable to successfully pursue enforcement
in those instances. As mentioned previously, staff have validated two instances of STRs occurring
without permit. Those two properties were issued NOVs and have since come into compliance.
Question 7:&s theme empirical data to show how the program is preserving or generating
housing for primary residents? It was an initial goal of the program. Can we demonstrate
any results?
In many communities pursuing STR regulation, the clearly stated desire has been to try to protect
housing for locals. Due to the nature of Aspen's real estate and residential markets, it was clearly
understood at the time Ordinance #09 was passed that the intentions were not to preserve actual
housing units, but instead to reduce and mitigate the impacts ofthe STRoaagrowing land use
type on the community. From problem statement 5,
"STRo /n developments, have accelerated a/nano�i»n of many
housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de too/o lodge
units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs
have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge."
Data to understand correlation from problem statement number 5 is hard to draw conclusions
from, however staff would reference the |ovv number ofenforcement cases against STHa as
evidence that community impacts are being mitigated. Though the program does not directly
preserve or generate housing for locals, 70% of STR excise tax revenue is allocated to funding
affordable housing for locals ($7,232,059 to date). These funds are direct contributions to the cost
of housing stock for primary residents.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR DIRECTION
Over the last two years of program operation, staff have identified several recurring and potentially
problematic themes within the 8TR regulations. The following topics are the primary sources of
concern for program participants (and in some cases, staff). Staff requests Council majority
direction as to Counoi|'m desire to explore code updates for the following topics.
Non -Transferability Language
STR permits may only be issued to one individual owner with at least 10% interest in the STR
property. Permits are non -transferable toother individuals or properties and are terminated and
revoked upon a property sale. Non -transferability provisions support the attrition of permits in
capped zones and subsequent movement of applications on waitlists, and they give new property
owners a chance to obtain a permit where they may otherwise be monopolized if transfers were
allowed between owners.
Non -transferability ofpermits hsomajor oonoernforpennktees engaged inestate planning. Many
married couples rely heavily on income from STR properties, and if a spouse who is named on
on STR permit passes away, the surviving spouse must apply to obtain an entirely new permit
and could be subject towaiting periods for such permit. Staff have received frequent requests for
the ability to transfer an Sl[R permit to the surviving spouse in the event of the death of a
permittee.
Question I for Council: Does Council desire to update non-transferabifity language so that
a permit may be transferred tomspouse in the event of death of the permit holder?
Permit Cap in R/MF Zone
The R/MF zone has the largest waitlist of any capped zone (see Figure G). Due to the slow rate
of permit attrition in R/MF, staff estimates it may take up to two more years until a STR-C permit
becomes available to the first applicant on the waiting list for permits in R/MF.
Staff often receive questions from real estate professionals and potential buyers about whether
the limits on the number of STR-C permits will be raised or eliminated altogether in the R/MF zone
due to the slow rate of attrition and related large waitlist size.
Question 2 for Council: Does Council wish to adjust or eliminate the cap on STR-C permits
in the R/MF zone district?
Permit Application Requirements: Public Notice and HOA Affidavit
To help mitigate the impacts of STRs on surrounding properties, all new STIR properties must
complete a public notice prior to approval of the permit. Notices are posted on STIR properties
and mailed to surrounding neighbors.
Staff has received feedback that the mailing of notices produces excessive paper waste, and that
notices should be sent virtually instead of through paper mail (though virtual notice is not permitted
by the land use code). Property owners receiving notices in uncapped zones, where STIR activity
is heavily concentrated, have indicated that notices are entirely unnecessary because STIR
activity is both assumed and widespread. STIR code does not delineate between sending notices
in some but not all zone districts.
Question 3 for Council: Does Council desire to revise the public notice requirement to
exempt properties in zones where caps on STR-C permits do not exist?
An HOA affidavit is a required submission with any STIR permit application. The affidavit notifies
an HOA that an owner is applying for STIR permit, and it absolves the City of interpreting or
applying HOA rules. If a property is subject to an HOA, the signature of an HOA member is
required on the affidavit. Staff and Council have heard requests that this requirement be adjusted
or removed altogether as it produces a significant burden on managers of large HOAs during the
annual permit renewal process.
Question 4 for Council: Does Council wish to eliminate the need for the signature of an
HOA member on STR permit renewal applications?
Tax Filing Requirement
STIR owners must demonstrate that they have utilized their STIR permit at least once per calendar
year to be able to renew their permit for the following year. Permit use is verified via an account's
tax filings when an owner applies to renew the permit, and accounts with $0 in tax filings are
ineligible to renew the permit. This policy encourages owners to obtain permits only when
necessary, and helps ensure that attrition of permits occurs in zones where permits are limited,
and waitlists may be in effect.
Some STIR owners have expressed frustration at the inability to utilize their permits while their
property is under construction for renovation. These owners have requested exemptions from this
rule, so they do not forfeit a permit due to upgrading the property and being unable to take rentals
during that time. The STIR code does not provide any exemptions for tax filing requirements.
11
Question 5 for Council: Would Council like to revise the tax filing requirement to exempt
permitted properties that are under construction and unable to engage in short-term
rentals for an entire calendar year?
Advertising Platform Accountability
The majority of staff's active enforcement work involves the attempt to identify illegal STRs in the
community. To achieve this, advertisements on internet rental platforms are reviewed to verify
that the properties are permitted. To aid in the identification of permitted properties, STR operators
are required to post STR permit numbers in all ads of the property.
STR permit numbers are absent from approximately 40% of online STR advertisements in Aspen.
Also absent from many of the same ads is identifying information for the property owner or
address, which makes verification of the legality of the STR extremely difficult. Even though the
property owner is responsible for compliance with these requirements, in many cases, staff cannot
identify the owner to hold them accountable.
A handful of Colorado municipalities are combatting this issue by holding advertising platforms
accountable for publishing only compliant advertisements on their websites. In these instances,
when a municipality finds an STR ad that is out of compliance with its regulations, staff contact
the website directly to request that the ad is either brought into compliance or removed from the
site. Staff are confident that the overall compliance of internet advertisements (and illegal STR
advertisements) would increase dramatically if Aspen adopted a similar approach.
Question 6 for Council: Is Council open to revising Aspen's requirements to hold STR
booking platforms accountable for posting only ads that clearly show valid STR permit
numbers for the STR property?
"Run Out" Period for STR Bookings
Non -transferability language in Ordinance #09 states that STR permits are forfeited upon the sale
of a property and may not be transferred to a new owner when a property transaction occurs. One
issue noted consistently by the rental community is that when a STR property sells, and the seller
has pre-existing binding contracts for rentals that begin after the sale of the property, there is no
mechanism for the new property owner to honor the contracts made by the previous owner. Rental
professionals have often asked for a "run -out" period or permit type to allow new property owners
to honor contracts from the old owners.
Potential consequences of these situations for the seller and new buyer include financial liability
to their customers, damage to the reputation of rental agencies involved, and compliance issues
for new property owners choosing to honor the existing rentals before a permit is rightfully
obtained.
This topic was presented during a Council Work Session in 2022 at the request of the lodging
community (Exhibit F, Memo _STR Run -out Work Session). A Council majority decided that the
City should not be the arbiter of such situations involving property transactions and contracts
that the City is not a party to. Staff continues to believe that regulating these "run -out" instances
puts the City in a difficult situation to evaluate the unique circumstances of each situation, and
that offering a "run -out" period for each permit would raise equity issues for applications that
have been on waitlists for permits.
Due to the frequency with which these "run -out" questions are received, staff is noting this issue
purely for Council's awareness.
12
POLICY / REGULATORY TOPICS IN SUMMARY:
Staff desires a Council majority position on each of these topics for further staff exploration and
possible future code amendments:
1. Does Council desire to update non -transferability language so that a permit may be
transferred to a spouse in the event of death of the permit holder?
2. Does Council wish to ad'lust or eliminate the cap on STR-C permits in the R/MF zone
district?
3. Would Council like to revise the public notice requirement to exempt properties in
zones where caps on STR-C permits do not exist?
4. Does Council desire to eliminate the need for the signature of an HOA member on
STR permit renewal applications?
5. Would Council like to revise the tax filing requirement to exempt properties that are
under construction and unable to engage in short-term rentals for an entire calendar
year?
6. Is Council open to revising compliance requirements to hold STR booking platforms
accountable for posting only compliant ads that show permit numbers for the STR
property?
Are there any other topics not listed here that a Council majority would like to explore further?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A — Ordinance #26, Series of 2021
Exhibit B — Memo _Second Reading of Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit C - Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit D - Resolution #106, Series of 2022
Exhibit E — Memo—STR Tax Polling Results and Next Steps
Exhibit F — Memo STR Run -out Work Session
13