HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202204111
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 11, 2022
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2554 672 8188
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2554 672 8188
Enter Password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Housing - Council Goal: Burlingame III - Affordable Housing Unit Sales
I.B.Moratorium - Short Term Rental Policy
1
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director
MEMO DATE: April 8, 2022
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2022
RE: Income Distribution and Sales Process for Burlingame Ranch Phase
3 Affordable Housing Development
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approval of the recommended income
category distribution for 79 new for-sale affordable housing units at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3
as well as the general approach to the lottery/sales process.
BACKGROUND: In 2019, Council directed staff to move forward with community outreach and
design for the Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 affordable housing development. Building permit
applications were sought in fall of 2020, and construction began in early 2021. Construction is
approximately 65% complete.
DISCUSSION: During the October 25, 2021 City Council budget work session, staff described
the 2022 work plan highlights for the Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 affordable housing project as
follows:
• Determine Income Category Distribution
• Define Lottery/Sales Process
• Complete Construction & Procure CO’s
• Establish New Condominium Association
• Facilitate Sales & Occupancy, Begin 2-Year Warranty Period
• Operate New Condo Association During Declarant Control
The first two items on the list are discussed below.
Income Category Distribution:
The actual ‘as sold’ income category distribution for the 82 affordable ownership units at
Burlingame Ranch Phase 2 from 2014 and 2015 is shown below:
2
Page 2 of 5
Over the past 5 years, APCHA has conducted about 220 for sale affordable housing lotteries for
unit types which are applicable to Burlingame Ranch Phase 3. Analysis of the aggregated
applicant data for these lotteries shows the following trends for unit types which are applicable to
Burlingame Ranch Phase 3:
• Highest bidding for 1-bedroom units in Category 3 and 4
• Heavy bidding for 1-bedroom units in Category 2
• Heavy bidding for 2- and 3-bedroom units in Category 4
• Strong bidding for 2-bedroom units in Category 2
• Strong bidding for 3-bedroom units in Category 3
• Notable bidding for 2-bedroom units in Category 3
• Notable bidding for 3-bedroom units in Category 2
• Notable bidding all units in Category 5
One issue that has been noted over the years, as it relates to using APCHA lottery bid data as an
indicator of demand for housing type and income level, has been that one can only analyze bid
data for types of housing which have been available for sales or resales. Lack of resales, due in
part to strong desirability or otherwise lack of supply, creates the possibility that we could miss
important areas of demand if we were to rely solely on APCHA lottery bid data as an indicator of
demand.
That said, and since in this case we are additionally utilizing the accompanying information
described below to further support the recommendations, the use of APCHA lottery bid data can
be an instrumental tool in supporting our understanding of the intensity of demand for certain
affordable housing types and income levels.
Additionally, and based specifically on the recent EPS Lumberyard demand study, we are also
aware of the general market trends listed below. The EPS Lumberyard demand study contains
additional detail which accompanies these general market trends:
• There has been a decline in lower income households throughout the Roaring Fork Valley
• Job growth in Pitkin County has been primarily in APCHA Cat. 3, followed by Cat. 2
• The project program mix should account for both of those
3
Page 3 of 5
Finally, in the APCHA Affordable Housing Development Policy, the APCHA board has prioritized
production of 1- and 2-bedroom units in Categories 2 and 3 and 3-bedroom units in Categories 3
and 4 for public affordable housing development projects. Those areas are highlighted in orange
boxes in the table below, which shows the existing APCHA inventory of ownership affordable
housing units.
Balancing all information sources described above (and to be clear, this is not an empirical
exercise and more a subjective balancing), staff is recommending the following income
distribution for the 79 new units to be sold at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3:
4
Page 4 of 5
The estimated subsidy per FTE is higher for Phase 3 as compared to the actual subsidy per FTE
for Phase 2. This is most simply explained by noting the fact that annual escalation of construction
costs tends to significantly outpace annual escalation of unit sales prices, which are intentionally
kept affordable.
Sales Process:
City housing development staff together with APCHA staff are recommending that the APCHA
lottery process be utilized for the sale of the units at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3. Below is a list
of related details:
• Lottery applicants will be required to satisfy eligibility requirements in the APCHA Regulations,
• Including 2021 federal and state tax returns, W-2s and/or 1099s, as applicable.
• Typical fees for qualification and bidding will apply per the APCHA Regulations.
• Unit sales prices will be based on maximum unit sales prices per the APCHA Regulations.
• Applicants will be required to submit a prequalification letter from a mortgage lender.
• Closing fees will include a capital reserve contribution at the time of sale.
Refinements are expected, but staff tentatively recommends three stages of marketing
communications for the sales process:
• Initial advertising will prompt people to submit their qualification application and get prequalified
for a mortgage
• Second round of advertising will begin to let people know when to expect the bidding to begin
• Specific lottery advertising will provide notice of any available model open houses, actual
lottery bid due dates and lottery dates
In-Complex Bidding:
Staff occasionally hears questions about in-complex bidding for Burlingame 3. The APCHA
Regulations state, “The in-complex priority does not exist for newly constructed affordable
housing units (resales only).” Since the APCHA Regulations clearly address this policy, staff plans
to maintain this direction, unless directed otherwise by Council.
Project Schedule Update:
Staff’s prior Information Only Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 Project Update memo stated:
“As shown in the attached report, the project schedule has slipped by 4
weeks from the original plan. The project team will work toward making this
time up in an effort to begin the sales process in September 2022 as planned.
Winter conditions and other factors heading into the first few months of 2022
will play a role in whether the time can be regained, and staff will report on
such progress as we move forward in 2022.”
As we’ve seen with other regional and statewide projects, impacts due to Covid and related supply
chain impacts have impacted the Burlingame 3 construction schedule. Impacts to the project
schedule due to Covid-driven labor shortages at the modular factory in Boise began last summer
5
Page 5 of 5
and started slow. Optimism led the project team to believe that it would be possible to make up
the time, but the ongoing impacts throughout the fourth quarter of 2021 continued to get worse,
not better. The balance of the factory-built modular housing units were originally scheduled to be
on site by early December 2021, but were finally delivered and set on site during the week of
February 28-March 4, 2022.
Also, Aspen received some 60+ inches of snow over a short period of time in late December,
2021. Although snow is to be expected in Aspen in December, for the buildings that were already
in place on the project site, excessive snow over a short time slowed on-site construction of roof
structures and building appurtenances. This slowed some of the anticipated on-site construction
progress as well.
The combination of in-factory Covid-related delays together with the on-site construction delays
described above has caused the 4-week overall schedule slippage described in the Dec 14 memo
to compound into a building-by-building completion staggering effect. This has caused the team
to now be considering a staggered completion and occupancy schedule, potentially with
occupancy of buildings 8-11 (36 units) in October 2022 and with the balance of buildings 12-15
(43 units) available in early 2023.
Staff has been trying to avoid a staggered occupancy and has been planning to make all 79 of
the units available for lotteries as one large group of units. This approach has been sought
primarily to avoid having to perform a staggered construction of the roadway, curb & gutter,
flatwork (concrete walkways) and landscape and a staggering of certificates of occupancy from
the building department.
Past City housing projects have utilized a staggered occupancy without major issues, and staff is
still in the process of developing the staggered completion plan. Staff will need to provide Council
with an update when the staggered completion and occupancy plan is finalized.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the recommended income category
distribution for 79 new for-sale affordable housing units at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 as well as
the general approach to the lottery/sales process.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Despite the schedule impacts, the project remains on budget. And
although material cost escalations are being sought by both the modular factory and the on-site
general contractor, the project team has to this point been able to contain such material cost
escalations within the existing budget. Project subsidy information related to unit income
distribution is included above.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Work session presentation slides
6
Burlingame Ranch Phase 3
Affordable Housing Development
April 11, 2022 7
During the City Council budget work session on October 25, 2021, staff
described the 2022 work plan highlights for the Burlingame Ranch
Phase 3 affordable housing project as follows:
•Determine Income Category Distribution
•Define Lottery/Sales Process
•Complete Construction & Procure CO’s
•Establish New Condominium Association
•Facilitate Sales & Occupancy, Begin 2-Year Warranty Period
•Operate New Condo Association During Declarant Control
Agenda
2 8
Income Category Distribution
3
Burlingame Ranch Phase 2
“As Sold” Income Category
Distribution in 2014 & 2015
9
Past 5 years APCHA lottery bid data
219 for sale affordable housing lotteries, 1-3 Bedroom Units
Income Category Distribution
4
Caution: Data only exists for types of housing which have been
available for sales or resales.
10
Income Category Distribution
5
EPS Lumberyard Market Study
• Job growth in Pitkin County mostly APCHA Cat. 3, followed by Cat. 2
• Decline in lower income households in Roaring Fork Valley
11
Income Category Distribution
6
Existing Inventory
APCHA Development Policy
APCHA board, for public affordable housing development projects, has prioritized:
•1-and 2-bedroom units in Categories 2 and 3
•3-bedroom units in Categories 3 and 4
12
Income Category Distribution
7
Burlingame Ranch Phase 3
Recommended Income Category
Distribution 2022-2023
Council Questions, Comments,
Discussion, Direction 13
2019 Community outreach and design
2020 Building permit applications submitted
2021 Construction began
March 2021
2022 Construction is
about 65% complete
2022 Unit sales planned
September 2022 ***
Schedule Update
8
***Given the schedule impacts described, staff is now considering a
staggered occupancy and will need to provide Council with a schedule
update about what may be achievable within the existing budget.14
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
Haley Hart, Planner
MEMO DATE:April 7, 2022
MEETING DATE:April 11, 2022
RE:Short-Term Rental Regulatory Framework Development
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council provide direction on specific questions
related to the regulation of short-term rentals (STRs) in Aspen. This direction will guide
staff in the development of an ordinance for Council review prior to the expiration of the
STR permit moratorium.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In response to the moratorium, staff continues to develop code amendments to further
regulate STRs in the community. At the last work session on the topic on March 1, 2022,
Council directed staff to develop regulations in each of the seven categories identified in
best practices research: zoning, good neighbor policies, operational standards, life safety
standards, permitting, financials, and enforcement. That work is ongoing.
To support the development of new regulations, staff has meet bi-weekly with a Technical
Advisory Committee of local industry professionals, residents, and advocates.
Community engagement has included online surveys, an open house, focus group
meetings, one-on-one interviews, and public meetings. Staff work is relied heavily on
input gleaned from the engagement process to develop our work product. Staff is
preparing a community engagement summary that will be presented to Council in the
work session on 5/3, along with an outline of staff recommendations for new STR
regulations.
In addition to engagement, staff has relied heavily on Colorado Association of Ski Towns
(CAST) STR studies and our own research to support the development of Aspen-specific
regulations for STRs. The CAST reports have been included in previous work session
packets to Council. Included in this memo as Exhibit A is a Case Studies Report
developed by Community Development staff over the last two months. The report
includes information derived from interviews, ordinances, memos, and program
information from inter-mountain west communities. The interviews, in particular, have
provided ComDev staff with detailed, on-the-ground information and perspective from
communities further down the STR regulation road than Aspen. The report includes key
findings, many of which have informed staff’s work on new regulations.
15
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 2 of 7
STAFF DISCUSSION:
At this point in the process, staff seeks direction from Council on a handful of specific
regulatory choices. These choices are outlined below. Included are several exhibits to
support Council considerations of the questions posed in this memo. Council’s
preferences on each of the options outlined below will shape the final set of
recommendations staff presents to Council in the next work session.
These questions are complex, and each is one component of a larger system of
regulation. The answer to one will likely rely upon or effect the answer to another. Staff
recognizes the challenge of thinking about them in isolation and in a linear fashion.
Despite that challenge, it is essential for staff to get Council direction on these questions
before a staff proposal can be further developed. The staff presentation will provide
opportunity for Council to ask clarifying questions and understand how one particular
question (e.g. should there be three STR permit types) effects other elements of the
regulatory framework (e.g. how are permits allocated).
Policy Question #1
Should there be three types of STR permits: owner-occupied short-term rental, short-term
rental, and lodging exempt short-term rental?
Owner-occupied permits would be available to homeowners able to demonstrate that the
property in question is their primary residence. There would be a limit on the number of
months per year or days per year the property could be short-termed.
Short-term rental permits would be available to non-owner-occupied properties where the
owner is not the primary resident (e.g.. second home). There would be no limit to the
number or duration of rentals per year.
Lodging exempt STR permits would be available to lodge and condo-hotel properties.
Such properties would have to meet certain eligibility criteria. The permit would cover all
units within the property.
Policy Outcomes:
Allow for locals to occasionally short-term their homes.
Distinguish between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied properties.
Support traditional lodging properties with condominiumized ownership.
Alternatives:
Continue the current system of one STR permit type.
Distinguish between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied. Require lodge
properties to file as non-owner-occupied.
Staff Recommendation:
16
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 3 of 7
Use three permit types to support Council’s stated policy desires around owner-occupied
properties and lodging properties while regulating non-owner-occupied properties
differently.
Policy Question #2
Should a cap be placed on the number of non-owner-occupied STR permits in residential
zone districts? Based on the maps provided, what does Council feel is the appropriate
number?
Caps are a widely used tool for limiting the number of STRs in a community or
neighborhood. When caps are instituted, a higher level of program administration is
required, as permits numbers and a wait list must be managed. Exhibit B shows the
number of existing STRs by zone district. Exhibits C and D show the R-6 and R-15 zone
districts respectively in different scenarios – existing STRs and STRs capped at different
numbers below the existing STR count. These maps are meant to illustrate the effect on
the density of STRs in a neighborhood by different cap sizes. In each map, the distribution
throughout the neighborhood of STRs under the different cap sizes is illustrative only.
Policy Outcomes:
Limit the density and intensity of STRs in lower-density zones and traditional
neighborhoods.
Control the number of permits available over time.
Alternatives:
Use the existing number of STRs in each zone as the cap, grandfathering
existing permits. This avoids the complexity of establishing the “right” number
of STRs in a zone.
Use radius buffers between permitted properties to limit the number in each
zone without setting a cap.
Staff Recommendation:
Grandfather existing permits and use that number as the cap for each zone. Institute
non-transferability rules, whereby STR permits may not be transferred from one owner of
a property to the next upon the sale of that property. A waitlist is managed to assign
abandoned permits to those seeking a permit. This system would only be for non-owner-
occupied permits.
Policy Question #3
If a cap below the existing number is instituted, how should non-owner-occupied permits
be allocated? By lottery? Or by grandfathering and attrition over time?
If a cap on the number of permits is established, then there must be a system for assigning
those permits for the upcoming permit year and for assigning permits as they are
abandoned over time. A lottery system would require all existing non-owner-occupied
permits to be revoked and for all eligible and interest properties to register for a lottery.
17
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 4 of 7
Once the lottery is conducted, non-transferability regulations would be instituted and the
number of permits is reduced over time as properties sell and permits are abandoned.
Alternatively, communities grandfather existing permits, using non-transferability
regulations and tracking of enforcement violations to reduce the number of permits over
time as properties sell and permits are abandoned.
Policy Outcomes:
Establish an equitable means of arriving at a capped number of STRs.
Provide clarity to property owners about how permits are allocated.
Alternatives:
If no cap is established, then the system for assigning permits would not be necessary.
If a cap is established, then one of the two systems described above is necessary. Staff
research has not found alternatives.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends grandfathering existing permits and, if a cap is established, using
attrition (non-transferability of permits and enforcement violations) to reduce the number
of permits over time.
Policy Question #4
If a cap is established, should commercial, mixed-use, and lodging zones be exempted
from cap limitations?
The specific zones in question are Commercial Core, Commercial, Mixed-Use, Lodge,
and Commercial Lodge. Staff has received input from the public and technical advisors
that STRs in these zones are different in their operation and community impacts than
those in residential neighborhoods. Exhibit E shows the number and location of STRs in
these zones. (Note that this map includes the RMF zone, which is a question addressed
later in this memo.) Exhibit F is a table showing the number of STRs by zone, and another
table with Condo-Hotel properties removed from the totals.
Properties in these zones are close to goods and services, close to transit and recreation
infrastructure, and adjacent to traditional lodging. They are typically smaller in size, and
many are governed by HOAs which may have rules regarding STRs. Exempting STRs
in these zones from caps, while requiring them to be permitted and adhere to all relevant
STR regulations, could meet several policy objectives.
Policy Outcomes:
Protect more traditional lodging and maintain a diverse bed base.
Focus tourist accommodations in appropriate areas.
Ensure STRs operate safely and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Distinguish between residential and non-residential neighborhoods in the
administration of STR regulations.
18
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 5 of 7
Alternatives:
Institute caps for these zones and regulate them in the same way as residential
neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends exempting STRs in these zones, not capping the number. STRs in
these zones would still require permits and full regulatory compliance. Permit type
distinctions (owner-occupied, non-owner-occupied, and lodging exempt) would apply.
Policy Question #5
If caps in residential zones are established, and commercial and lodge zones are
exempted, how should the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone be regulated?
RMF is a higher-density residential neighborhood adjacent to commercial and residential
zones. Presently, it has the highest number of active STRs (254) of any residential zone.
(See Exhibit F.) Alongside single-family and duplex homes are several condo properties
(“The Chateaus” as many are known), some of which have had significant STR activity
for decades. RMF has also traditionally been home to some medium density affordable
housing developments and condo buildings which house long-term rentals. The eclectic
development pattern of RMF makes is challenging to regulate when it comes to STRs.
Additionally, the zoning allowances of RMF, and the scale of some of the existing multi-
family buildings, make it important for the potential development of future infill affordable
housing development. RMF allows higher density development and has existing higher
density properties. These circumstances dictate that RMF is an important zone district
for the future development of infill affordable housing. Research shows that the ability to
short-term a property increased the potential resale value by 9% to 11%.1 So the ability
to short-term in the RMF may make the financials of promoting affordable housing
development there more challenging.
In summary, the existing and past use of multi-family properties in the RFM justifies
thinking about it as a lodging-appropriate zone. This is in tension with the current and
future use of the zone for affordable multi-family housing. A cap could be established,
treating it like residential zones (should Council choose to implement caps). Or it could
be exempted like lodging and commercial zones (should Council choose to exempt those
zones).
Policy Outcomes:
A cap in the RMF would limit further market effect of STRs on property values
and support Council goals around affordable housing, lived in community, and
limiting impacts from STR activity.
1 David Wyman, Chris Mothorpe & Brumby McLeod (2020): Airbnb and VRBO:
the impact of short-term tourist rentals on residential property pricing, Current Issues in Tourism,
DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1711027
19
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 6 of 7
No cap would allow for the zone to continue to support the tourist
accommodation bed base.
Alternatives:
Council can choose to treat the RMF as a commercial and lodging zone or a residential
zone with respect to how it chooses to institute a cap or not.
Staff Recommendation:
Treat RMF as a residential zone. Grandfather existing permits and use that number as
the cap for the RMF zone. Institute non-transferability rules, whereby STR permits may
not be transferred from one owner of a property to the next. A waitlist is managed to
assign abandoned permits to those seeking a permit. This system would only be for non-
owner-occupied permits.
Policy Question #6
Should staff begin the process of developing a STR-specific tax for the 2022 ballot?
At the March 1 work session, Council supported permit fees, impact fees, and taxes on
STRs. In subsequent research and work with our consultants, advisors, and the public,
staff believes that impact fees are not an appropriate tool for mitigating community
impacts from STRs. Permits fees to directly off-set program administration and service
provision costs are widely used by comparable communities. Taxes, as opposed to
impact fees, are preferable to addressing broader community costs from STRs. Taxes
scale well to the impacts from STRs – the more nights a property is booked, and the
higher value the booking, the higher the tax remittance. The combination of permit fee
and tax is not only the preferred option from most respondents staff has spoken with, it is
also the most common set of tools used in other communities.
Policy Outcomes:
A STR tax would assess a cost on the impacts to the community generated by
STR activities.
A STR tax would generate revenue which could be dedicated to specific uses
in support of City policy.
Alternatives:
Council can choose to delay consideration of a tax to the 2023 ballot year. Council may
also choose to implement a permit fee and determine later whether additional financial
tools are required.
Staff Recommendation:
Should Council desire for staff to being the process of developing a tax ballot question for
2022, Council should direct staff to schedule a work session on the topic as soon as
possible.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
20
Staff Memo, Short-term Rental Regulations
April 11, 2022
Page 7 of 7
The next work session on short-term rentals is scheduled for 5/3. At that meeting, staff
will present to Council the short-term rentals public engagement summary report and a
summary of the regulations to be included in the ordinance for Council consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:N/A.
ALTERNATIVES:N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends Council consider each of the questions
posed in the memo and direct staff as to their preferred response to each.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – STR Case Studies Report
Exhibit B – Existing STRs by Zone District
Exhibit C – STRs and Density in R-6
Exhibit D – STRs and Density in R-15
Exhibit E – STRs in Non-residential Zones
Exhibit F – STRs by Zone with and without Condo-hotels
Exhibit G – Case Studies Report Regulatory Matrix
21
Page 1 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies
Prepared by:
City of Aspen Community Development
Haley Hart, AICP
Phillip Supino, AICP
April, 2022
22
Page 2 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
Introduction
The use of private residential properties in Aspen as short-term rentals (STRs) is a
practice that goes back to the early days of the mountain town’s evolutions from a 19th
Century extraction economy to 20th century tourist economy. As Aspen grew up from the
Quiet Years into a high-profile destination resort community, residential properties served
a small and important role in supplementing the lodging bed base, diversifying lodging
options, and supplementing incomes of year-round residents and second homeowners.
The early model operated by word of mouth, personal relationships, a small number of
property managers, and signs on the front of houses. In the context of the myriad of
pressures placed on the community by the magnetic pull of the tourist economy – traffic,
housing, social inclusivity, commercial mix – private short-term rentals were a regulatory
non-issue.
As the tourist economy and community evolved, so too have STRs. They have emerged
as a significant economic interest, representing 34% of taxable lodging sales in Aspen in
2021. STRs have become a popular lodging option for visitors. Supporting their needs,
and serving the needs of the STR owners, has become a significant new subset of the
tourist economy. Before STRs were popularized, service economy workers worked in
hotels, restaurants, rental shops, day spas, and the like. This shift has had unintended
and unmeasured consequences for how visitors stay in and enjoy Aspen. It has also
driven changes in the services and experiences demanded by those visitors. These
deviations in industry have driven changes in regional real estate dynamics, job
generation, and economics.1 Economic analysis is needed to fully measure and
contextualize these new dynamics and their impact on the community.
Airbnb was founded in 2008 – a period in the evolution of the internet that saw an
exponential proliferation of social and ‘sharing economy’ technology start-ups (e.g. Uber,
Venmo, Instagram). Airbnb entered a nascent market of more established private short-
term rental brokerages, like Vacation Rental By Owner (VRBO, founded in 1995), with an
online platform and business model that fundamentally changed how private residences
could be marketed as accommodations – monetizing unused time in residential
structures. Homeowners and representatives could market their homes directly to
consumers across the country or the world. As the popularity grew, so did the financial
incentive for owners to get in the STR market and monetize their unused time. The
economics of vacation home ownership changed, as STR income could be factored into
1 STR Technical Advisory Committee Interviews, March 3, 2022
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
23
Page 3 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
the decision to buy and the cost of ownership.2 In the 14 years since this evolution began,
destination communities with high-value real estate and strong tourist demands
experienced many unintended consequences. The Colorado Association of Ski Towns
“Mountains Migration Report” and related studies of short-term rentals in mountain
communities have documented some of these dynamics. This report is intended to
illustrate for the City of Aspen how other destination communities have addressed these
unintended consequences through the regulation of a new industry and land use. The
report was developed to inform how Aspen might develop its own responses.
Background
In 2011, City Council amended the Land Use Code (LUC) to expand the availability of
STRs. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2011, expanded the number of zones in which STRs
could operate from commercial and lodge zones to include most zone districts. It also
lifted a restriction on the number of “stays” or bookings per year that STRs in residential
zones were allowed from two to an unlimited amount. The ordinance also imposed the
current permitting system. With the exception of the changes instituted by this Council in
2019 related to tax compliance, the regulations imposed by Ordinance No. 34 are still in
effect.
The discussion in 2011 focused on the relationship between STRs and larger community
concerns around the erosion of affordable and smaller lodging in town. At the time,
private STRs were conceived of as diversifying the bed base at a time when smaller,
older, and sometimes more affordable lodges were being sold, demolished, or converted
to other uses. Supporting the actions by Council were Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP) policies related to this dynamic and the need to maintain an adequate,
economically approachable bed base to support the tourist economy.
In the intervening 11 years, the STR situation in Aspen, as in comparable communities
around the intermountain west, has fundamentally changed. While City STR permit
records prior to 2020 are inaccurate, Council minutes from 2011 indicate there were 14
STRs in residential areas with businesses licenses. In 2021, there were 1,319, slightly
fewer than 1,000 times that many. Looked at strictly as a land use matter, adding 100
new businesses of a certain type each year for 10 years to a community of our size is a
massive shift in economic dynamics. It is also noteworthy that each of those businesses
is located in a housing unit that may have been used previously as an owner-occupied
home, vacant home, or long-term rental. In a small community, these are significant
changes in economics, lodging, and housing in a relatively short amount of time.
2 STR Technical Advisory Committee Interviews, February 17, 2022
24
Page 4 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
Council and the community did not yet understand the pace of scale of changes to come
as they deliberated the relationship between STRs, lodging, and neighborhood character.
Such examples include unmitigated financial impacts to services, infrastructure use, and
employee generation, and oversight of basic health, safety, and visitor experience
standards.
In the years since Council first took up this issue, the presence of STR use in Aspen, its
influence on the economy and community, and its unmitigated impacts have increased
exponentially. In 2019, City Council directed staff to implement a new system, MuniRevs,
to track short-term rentals (STRs) in Aspen and use the data to ensure compliance with
municipal tax regulations. There was growing concern and evidence that the number of
STRs in the community had grown exponentially in recent years. It was likely that tax,
permitting, and licensing compliance had not kept up. City staff lacked the data to
accurately measure the extent of the use in the community, its unmeasured and
unmitigated impacts, and whether the use met its minimal regulatory obligations.
MuniRevs was implemented to help close those gaps by first collecting data.
Council’s decision to implement MuniRevs was a step in the direction that destination
communities around the west have taken in recent years – analyzing and regulating the
use of private residential properties as STRs. Since then, staff has had better data to
assess the extent of the use in the City. This report is intended to compliment the data
gleaned from the last two years of permitting and tax filings. Council and staff can use
best practices and key findings of comparable communities to develop localized
responses to STR regulations.
Aspen Area Community Plan
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is the guiding policy document for the City. It
describes in detail the community’s vision for itself and how policy should translate into
regulations and programs to support that community vision. The AACP does not address
STRs specifically. It has sections that are directly related to STRs as a land use in Aspen
including “Managing Growth for Community and Economic Sustainability”, “Housing”, and
“Environmental Stewardship”. Since the conversation about STRs began at the Council
table in 2019, Council has made a clear connect between the proliferation of STRs and
growth and development dynamics in the real estate economy. That policy direction
underpins staff work on new regulations, and it is supported by language in the AACP:
In the last 20 years, our economy has been eclipsed and surpassed by
development-driven industries. Development has played a positive role in the
community, but at times we have seen growth that is inconsistent with the history,
scale, density, and context of our built environment; the social diversity of our
residents and visitors; the provision of local-serving business; the outdoor lifestyle;
25
Page 5 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
and small-town character. The intensity of construction during booming economic
periods has made us more aware of the shortcomings of our existing land use
tools. Since the early 1970s, the Aspen Area has taken the position that managed
growth is essential in order to maintain quality of life for residents and visitors to
the community. We feel that the time is fast approaching where we will be at the
maximum in economy, physical space, and quality of life.
Therefore, one of the broad themes of this plan is to manage future development
so that it contributes to the long-term viability of a sustainable, demographically
diverse visitor-based economy and a vital year-round community.
Taken together, this commentary about growth, development, and maintaining a
balanced community along with policy statements from relevant sections paint a clear
picture of what outcomes the community ought to look for as it explores further regulation
of STRs in the community.
Some relevant AACP statements include:
VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process; and,
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity; and,
We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character; and
I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability
of our community and diverse visitor-based economy; and,
We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character; and,
IV.1 Minimize further loss of lodging inventory; and,
IV.4. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is
compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to:
Create certainty in land development.
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
Protect our existing lodges.
Protect our small-town community character and historical heritage.
Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs.
Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion
and demand for affordable housing.
VII.1 Study and quantify all impacts that are directly related to all types of
development; and
VII.2 Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable,
directly related impacts.
The AACP forms the basis for City Council’s emergency declaration in Ordinance No. 6,
2022, which placed a moratorium on certain residential development activities. AACP
statement also informed Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2021, pausing
26
Page 6 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
the issuance of new STR permits while new regulations are considered. The
development and STR moratoriums are important tools for Council and the Community
to assess the relationship between residential development dynamics, STRs, and
concerns about community character, sustainability, and the sufficiency of current
regulations. If land use regulations are misaligned with the policies they are intended to
support, then amendments are needed to achieve alignment. This report identifies best
practices from comparable communities to support Council’s consideration of new
regulations for Aspen’s STR market.
Problem Statements
On January 11, 2022, City Council met to identify those issues they sought to address
through Land Use Code amendments during the moratorium. The recitals in Ordinance
No. 6, Series of 2022 identified four topic areas driving dynamics in the built environment.
The sum of these topics’ impacts results in the community failing to achieve its policy
objectives and vision as described in the AACP – affordable housing, short-term rentals,
growth management, and development review procedures. For each, staff crafted
problem statements to support Council’s discussion, and direct staff work to respond.
The problem statements supported by Council for short-term rentals were:
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.
Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation
and other infrastructure and service demands.
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.
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.
STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a 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.
These statements reflect those areas where the current scale and operation of the Aspen
STR market is misaligned with AACP policies. For example, an STR in a single-family
residence may operate as a lodging property for a significant portion of the year. Yet at
the time of its development, the residence mitigated for impacts to affordable housing,
transportation, parking, utilities infrastructure, and other public services as a residential,
not lodge, property. This misalignment places negative externalities, such as increased
traffic and housing demand, on community infrastructure. Those costs are born by the
27
Page 7 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
community. Council’s effort to further regulate the STR market is, in part, an
acknowledgement of the need to better align the STR market with City policy to correct
this dynamic.
Staff has used these problem statements and best practices research to identify six
categories of regulations for STRs: zoning, operational standards, life safety, permitting,
financials, and enforcement. Staff believes that these six guiding categories can help
create a comprehensive set of policy regulations to better support the demands generated
by STRs. Best practices from Aspen’s comparable mountain west communities can help
shape Council’s new regulatory framework. The case studies in this document focus on
each community’s approach to STR regulation in those six categories.
To inform the development of different regulations for STRs in the City of Aspen,
Community Development staff analyzed the approach taken by a dozen mountain west
communities and compiled this report. While there are communities throughout the
country taking progressive approaches to STR regulations, staff research found that
mountain west communities are most like Aspen’s circumstances, and the most
instructive in terms of potential steps Aspen could take.
In researching comparable communities, staff focused on the unique social, economic,
demographic, and environmental conditions of destination communities in the west. Some
central features and conditions which staff accounted for, and which support a strong
basis for comparison include:
• significant, seasonal tourist visitation,
• recreation, arts, and culture tourist amenities,
• robust lodging sector,
• high value real estate market,
• affordable housing shortage,
• geographically constrained (topography and public lands),
• strong planning and land use controls, and
• recent experience with STRs as a land use concern.
Staff researched ordinances, studies, memos, and related materials from these
communities to learn from their experience and glean findings. In most cases, staff
conducted interviews with staff from each community to hear first-hand how the
community approached the issue of STR regulations, gauge effectiveness, and learn
where their conversation stands now. While many communities were reviewed, not all
CASE STUDIES
28
Page 8 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
provide clear direction on this issue or have other community characteristics that are let
relevant to Aspen. This report focuses on the most relevant examples for Aspen.
Town of Breckenridge, CO
source: www.gobreck.com
On June 13, 2017, Breckenridge Town Council adopted its first ordinance related to
STRs, requiring any advertisement of STR units to list their Town License Number in all
advertisements.3 Breckenridge recognizes the value of STRs to their economy and
community, and the need to provide lodging due to its tourist-based economy. Yet the
town identified three problems that have helped shaped the need for greater oversite on
STRs: reduction in workforce housing, change of community character, and problems
with the operation of some STR units.4 This led to updates to STR regulations in 2021.
Breckenridge’s LUC defines what is considered exempt and non-exempt to distinguish
between STRs and other lodging properties. Exempt units are within properties that have
historically allowed STRs - they are in either a condominium, condo-hotel, hotel, lodge,
or inn. They have an on-site, twenty-four-hour, staffed front desk and telephone system,
monitored by a person. Exempt STRs also have twenty-four-hour private security
capable of responding to complaints involving the property’s accommodation units. These
properties take substantially less Town staff time to monitor and regulate than do non-
exempt units (STRs that are located in a residential unit). The distinction between exempt
and non-exempt may be a helpful tool for the City of Aspen when considering how to
permit and regulate STRs by type, location, and operational profile.
3 Town of Breckenridge: https://www.townofbreckenridge.com/your-government/finance/short-term-rentals
4 Ordinance No. 29, Series 2021
29
Page 9 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
In an eight-year period from 2012 to 2020, the total number of non-exempt STRs in
Breckenridge increased by 30.6%. In 2021, the town experienced a record amount of
4,200 STR licenses, with 2,476 non-exempt units, for a town with approximately 7,000
residential units. Using the total number of non-exempt STRs in town, the Town Council
passed Ordinance No. 35, Series 2021 and Ordinance No. 29, Series 2021 which capped
the number of annual non-exempt STRs and set new regulatory fees for STRs.5
The town capped the total amount of non-exempt STRs at 2,200 hoping to achieve a
11.15% reduction. Through attrition, the town plans to decrease the number of non-
exempt STRs over time. STR licenses are nontransferable, so as properties sell or
permits are abandoned, the reduction will occur over time. There are clearly defined
exempted title transfers in Ordinance No. 29, which outlines when a STR license can be
transferred with the property. The Breckenridge staff anticipates that this might take up
to 15 years, especially those STRs in residentially zoned districts, but they are also
confident that this is an equitable method for reducing and regulating the market for STRs.
A unique fee that Breckenridge passed in 2021 is a STR fee to directly support workforce
housing programs. A gap analysis, identifying what workers earn versus the cost of
housing, and, what the calculated difference between the impact of an STR unit and a
unit occupied by full time locals is, resulted in the recommended fee of $756 per STR
bedroom per year. This additional fee intent is to create a dependable annual revenue
stream for housing programs for the Town of Breckenridge. Permit fees also defray the
cost to the community for managing the STR program.
Occupancy restrictions are a key tool for managing the impacts of STRs in Breckenridge.
There is a two (2) person per bedroom occupancy limit. STRs cannot advertise for more
than what the occupancy maximum is and must display this number on all
advertisements. Through the financial regulatory tool LODGINGRevs the city is able to
exercise oversight and enforce these restrictions.
For financial accounting, the town levies a separate lodging tax of 3.4%, with 1.4% going
toward a Marketing Fund and 2% toward an Excise Fund. Tax remittance is compulsory
and is self-collected. Airbnb started collecting and remitting all short-term rental taxes on
bookings after October 1st, 2019, and homeowners are responsible for the short-term
rental tax for accommodations booked on AirBnB prior to October 1st, 2019. Those
bookings are subject to 5.9% tax (2.5% sales tax and 3.4% accommodations tax). There
is a $200 first time fee for a STR permit with the cost of $150 to renew that permit annually.
Key Findings:
5 Del Valle, Bela, Interview by Haley Hart on March 18, 2022
30
Page 10 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
• Distinguish the difference between non-exempt units and exempt units. This helps
clarify what should be regulated, especially within residential neighborhoods.
• Cap via attrition is a fair way to decrease total permits over time. Having clear
nontransferable licenses defined will also decrease economic inequities for units with
STRs trying to sell.
• Occupancy restrictions have been a highly effective means for enforcement for the
town.
• Charge an annual fee on each STR bedroom that directly benefits housing programs.
Town of Crested Butte, CO
source: Wikimedia commons
In 2017 the Town of
Crested Butte passed
Ordinance No. 12, Series
2016 and Ordinance No. 6,
Series 2017 creating
regulations for vacation
rental licenses. There was
a robust process including
a community-led taskforce
that created policy
recommendations.
Additionally, The City
Council held outreach
opportunities where the
feedback from active
residents and property owners helped guide what policy should be implemented.
Eventually the outreach led back to the taskforce’s recommendations, which put a 30%
cap on the total number of free market residential units in town that could be used as
STRs. At the time of the ordinance, every STR owner, which was roughly 280 units, was
allowed to keep their permit. Through attrition from nontransferable licenses, STRs have
decreased to 194 today. With 1,244 total residential units, 15% of total residential units
permitted as STRs seems to be an appropriate percentage for Crested Butte.6 There are
typically no more than five properties on the STR waitlist, and with the high amount of
home sales in the town, the turnaround for receiving a license is a few weeks.
6 MacDonald, Dara, Interview by Haley Hart on March 24, 2022
31
Page 11 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
The taskforce also determined that an important local matter to consider was STRs and
their relationship to full-time residents. Like Aspen, there were many STRs held by full-
time locals who used the additional income from periodic rentals to supplement their
income. Crested Butte included a provision that vacation rentals beyond the 30% limit
could be issued if the vacation rental also serves as a primary residence of the vested
title property owner.
It is important to create clear definitions when considering a ‘locals’ policy’. In the case of
Crested Butte, primary residence means a “residence which is the usual place of return
for housing as documented by the vested title property owner of record signing an affidavit
to that affect and providing at least two of the following: motor vehicle registration, driver's
license, Colorado state identification card, voter registration, or tax documents. A person
can have only one primary residence”.7 This Primary Residence License for locals is valid
for up to 60 night per year, and the Town believes this was a good relief value for local
citizens.
Crested Butte uses public noticing prior to issuing a new license. At least 14 days prior to
issuing or renewing a STR license, the Town is required to notify all owners of real
property within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the vacation rental license.
This gives neighbors opportunity to make comment on the neighborhood impacts of the
use of the property as a vacation rental.8 Staff then uses public comment feedback to
inform the decision on the new STR permit. There is one full-time staff within the Building
Department that is responsible for this public process, residential inspections of STRs,
and for administering licensees and license compliance. If this individual finds an STR
that is unlicensed, the town assumes it has been rented for five years and will ask for
actual income from rentals and taxes paid. If the owner does not comply the town will
issue a lien on the home.
For financial accounting, the town does not levy a separate lodging tax, but there is a
7.5% excise tax. All 7.5% goes towards affordable housing. The property owner or
authorized agent is responsible for collecting and remitting taxes through the Town's
online licensing and sales tax software program. There is a $750 first time fee and an
annual business license is $100. The fee for the Primary Residence License is $200 per
year. It is noteworthy that Crested Butte is currently in a 12-month STR moratorium as
well to look at how STRs are impacting the housing crisis. With the cap and moratorium,
Crested Butte still saw 40% growth in STR excise tax revenue in 2021.
Key Findings:
7 Ordinance No. 6, Series 2017
8 Ordinance No. 12, Series 2016
32
Page 12 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
• Having a primary resident option for STRs that is available outside of any cap or
overlay will help create equality for those who depend on income of STRs and are
also full-time residents.
• City staff dedicated to STRs will help ensure correct oversight and compliance is
being met.
• Issuing liens on properties that are non-compliant can help incentivize compliance.
City of Durango, CO
source: Wikimedia commons
The City of Durango’s
Land Use and
Development Code
(LUDC) has allowed
and regulated ‘Tourist
Homes’ in certain parts
of the city since 1989.9
The creation of
regulatory LUC
language was
necessary to prevent
unreasonable burdens
on services and
impacts on residential
neighborhoods posed
by STRs, with a specific
focus on neighborhood preservation, quality of life, and housing preservation. In
response, Durango has created a highly regulated STR market.
Vacation rentals are only permitted in certain zones. These include the Central Business
zone, Mixed-Use zones, select Planned Development zones, and Established
Neighborhoods (EN) 1 & 2. Zoning only allows for STR permits in two of the six total
residential zones. There is a cap on the number of available permits in the EN zones, with
a total of 22 vacation rentals allowed in EN-1 and 17 in EN-2. A second vacation rental is
not allowed on the same street segment as an existing permitted vacation rental without
the approval of the Planning Commission or if the rental is the primary residence for the
property owner and the rental is used part-time. In the other zones where vacation rentals
are permitted, caps are applied on a development-specific basis, so that only a certain
number of residential units may be permitted as vacation rentals within a certain building
9 Durangogov.org
33
Page 13 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
or development.10 There are currently 125 permitted STRs and caps have been reached
in most cases, meaning properties must be placed on a waitlist before being eligible to
apply.
The City of Durango has a well-developed system for showing both the current vacation
rental permits, which includes the permit number, applicant, zone, address, business
license number, and property manager, as well as a public document of the waiting list
for a vacation rental permit by zone district. The current waiting list has 45 addresses with
37 located within the capped EN-1 and EN-2 districts. A permit may be revoked due to
improper display of the permit number and business license number on any
advertisement. Permits are nontransferable and a STR permit will automatically terminate
upon the sale of the property or change of ownership. The City of Durango views
timeshare and factional ownership such as Pacaso Second Homes, differently than
STRs. These units and homes are allowed as a conditional use in the CB zone and may
be allowed as a limited use in the MU-A zone but are not allowed within any residentially
zoned neighborhood.
Durango does a thorough job of detailing the process a new STR applicant must follow
to determine if they will receive a permit or not. Within five days of receiving a complete
application, City staff will post a notice on the property for fourteen days and mail notices
to property owners within 300 feet of the potential STR property to inform them of the
request and ask for comments. During this public comment period, staff will review the
proposal in accordance with the requirements of the LUDC. Staff may schedule a site visit
with the applicant to confirm that property conditions align with statements made in the
application materials. Following the completion of the public comment period, staff will
pass along any comments received to the applicant and conduct a final review of the
request. Staff will consider any comments and within 30 calendar days of the date that
the application is filed, staff will approve, refer to the Planning Commission if there are
comments that need further consideration, or deny the permit request.
For financial accounting, the town levies a separate lodging tax of 5.25% with 55% of that
tax going toward Sustainable Tourism Marketing, 20% to Transportation & Transit
Services, 14% for Arts & Cultural Events, Programs, and Facilities, and 11% allocated at
City Council’s discretion, with the general requirement that the purpose is related to
tourism or tourism impacts. Lodging taxes for STRs are collected either by the listing
agency or remitted by the property owner/manager. There is a $750 first time STR fee
and an annual business license is $100.
Key Findings:
10 Sec. 2-2-3-4 Standards for Transient Residential Land Uses and Overnight Accommodations
34
Page 14 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
• Publishing the waiting list of STRs and active STRs with addresses, owners, and
business license, this allows for concerned neighbors to find STRs in their
neighborhoods and ensure they are legal and give those on the waiting list a live
update on the spot in line.
• A public noticing period allows for neighbor comments to give city staff information
and comments about the property owner and location to determine if the proposed
STR is appropriate for that location.
City of Glenwood Springs, CO
source: Wikimedia commons
The City of Glenwood
Springs has been
regulating STRs since
2012, but until 2018 the
market was not highly
regulated and the number
of STR permits were
increasing without
oversight. The City
Council saw a change in
neighborhood character
due to a high
concentration of STRs in
downtown. Many
downtown blocks were
made up completely of STRs, and in response, Community Development staff proceeded
with a moratorium and an extensive community engagement period to find consensus in
regulating STRs.
The largest concerns, STR density and residential neighborhood character, were met with
a new regulation that set a 250-foot buffer around STRs, meaning no STR is allowed to
be within 250-foot radius of another STR. STR licenses are nontransferable, so the
number of licenses decreased from 140 in 2018 to 88 in 2022 through sales of homes
and voluntary removal.11 Additionally, the city placed caps on the number of STRs per
zone district, but staff has found the buffer has served as a highly successful tool for
attrition of licenses and reducing density in downtown, rendering the caps unnecessary.
STRs operate and are taxed the same as any other hotel and lodging use. As part of the
STR license, there is a condition for renewal that owners show they remitted lodging tax
11 Klausman, Hannah, Interviewed by Haley Hart on March 23, 2022
35
Page 15 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
which helps the administrator ensure they are utilizing the permits. If STR license holders
do not show they have remitted tax, they can lose their permit. Other methods for the
successful attrition are if a property address receives three code violations within the
permit cycle of two years.
For financial accounting, the town levies a separate lodging tax of 2.5% with 85% of that
going towards the Tourism Budget and the remaining 15% towards the General Fund.
The 85% is managed by a contract with the Glenwood Springs Chamber, and it includes
marketing for the city and salaries for the Director of Tourism and the Tourism Project
Manager. The remaining 15% goes to the General Fund, which is split between grants
managed by the Financial Advisory Board and a reserve that addresses the impacts of
Tourism on the city. From the amount that goes to the Financial Advisory Board, $50,000
funds major events such as the Fourth of July celebration. Lodging taxes for STRs are
collected by the listing agent who collects taxes through the state system. Individual STR
owners must report this information to City. There is a $500 first time permit fee and a
renewal fee of $300 for STRs.
Key Findings:
• Creating buffers to decrease STR density in neighborhoods is highly effective in
dispersing STRs.
• Having STR owners show they are remitting lodging tax as one of the conditions
for renewal can help ensure all STR owners who operate through third-party sites
are held to the same financial accountability.
Town of Jackson, WY
source: Wikimedia commons
The Town of Jackson, WY first set
standards for residential STR licenses in
2016. When Jackson first looked at
regulating STRs, it led to an extensive
community debate and two court cases.
The court case questioned if STRs should
be in a zone district that makes up most of
downtown, eventually choosing to allow
them.12 In Jackson, individuals wishing to
operate STRs must apply for a basic use
permit, then a STR license. To be eligible
for a STR license, the property must be
12 Shur, Alexander; Jackson Hole News and Guide, ‘Nowhere to Live’, July 7, 2021
36
Page 16 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
within the Lodging Overlay or Snow King Resort District. There is no cap on the number
of permits allowed in these districts. If a STR was operating outside of these districts prior
to the enforcement of the 2016 ordinance, the city allowed those property owners to keep
their units if they could show through tax documents that they had been consistently
renting since 1993.13 STRs are not allowed in any residential zone districts.
If a property owner wishes to apply for a new STR license, there is a noticing process for
all owners within 300 feet of neighboring parcels. Additionally, any advertising, including
but not limited to newspaper, radio, print, digital, or voice advertising of residential STR
units must include the valid permit number issued to the unit and for digital advertising,
an effective internet link to the Town of Jackson’s short-term rental law.14
One of the major issues the city is presently dealing with is determining future policy
around the number of days that defines a STR. Like the majority of towns and cities staff
analyzed, Jackson considers a STR to be 30 days or less. Because of this number, they
are beginning to experience many property managers taking advantage of a self-made
loophole. Many high-end STR locations that can make a greater income from the property
as a STR rather than a long-term rental will allow for customers to rent for 31 days, so not
to be considered a short-term rental. But the customers will only stay for a weekend to a
week. In essence, this leaves the home unoccupied for the majority of the year, while the
rental avoids paying STR taxes. The city is considering moving the 30-day period to 60
or 90 days in effort to not have as many vacant homes year-round.
For financial accounting, the town levies a separate lodging tax of 5% that is collected by
the state. Of that, 3% is kept by the state and the remaining 2% is distributed back to local
communities where it is allocated by population between Teton County (55%) and the
Town of Jackson (45%). Of the share that comes to the Town (e.g., 45% of the 2%), 60%
goes to Travel and Tourism Board for promotion, 30% can be used to offset the impacts
of tourism, and 10% goes to general fund as unrestricted money. All lodging taxes
collected by the State of Wyoming and businesses remit lodging taxes directly to the state
on a monthly basis. The only STR fee is $100 for the permit.
Key Findings:
• The definition of STR as being 30 days or less, with 31 or more days classified as
a long-term rental, creates a tax and permitting compliance loophole.
• Regulating STRs in commercial and lodge zones differently from residential zones
can help support policy goals related to lodging and community character.
13 Anthony, Paul, Interviewed by Haley Hart on March 17, 2022
14 Jackson Municipal Code, Title 5 – Business Licenses and Regulations
37
Page 17 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
City of Ketchum, ID
source: Wikimedia commons
Ketchum, ID, a resort town
adjacent to Sun Valley, is
like Aspen in that it has not
had stringent STR
regulations in place, and
prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 1230, only had a
permitting system in place
for STR oversight. In 2021
Ketchum adopted its first
STR regulations. Many of
the concerns that led to
Ketchum’s ordinance were
around the belief that STRs
were the root cause of the
area’s housing crisis. In
2021, there was an online petition with more than 400 signatures to limit the number of
non-owner occupied STRs.15
In December of 2021, prior to the passing of Ketchum’s first ordinance, there were
roughly 700 STRs, with only 65% complying with licensing requirements. Yet, according
to Idaho Statute §67-6539 67-6539, passed in 2017, counties and cities are not allowed
to “enact or enforce any ordinance” that prohibits short-term rentals in a county or city.
However, a county or city may implement regulations “necessary to safeguard the
public health, safety, and general welfare to protect the integrity of residential
neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate”. This left
Ketchum with limited options on how to regulate STRs.
There are no overlay or zone district prohibitions and there are no caps set in place, but
the ordinance does have an acute focus on life safety due to the limitations of state law.
As a condition of the permit, the City may require that property owners and/or residents
within 200 feet of the dwelling be provided with the name and telephone number of the
owner or the local representative. STRs also must comply with fire code regulations for
smoke alarms, carbon detectors, and fire extinguishers. These life-safety requirements
are part of every community studied in this research, yet Ketchum is limited with how
15 Cohen, Rachel, Boise State Public Radio, ‘Ketchum mulls regulations for short-term rentals, but won't limit
them’, December 7, 2021. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2021-12-07/ketchum-regulations-short-
term-rentals
38
Page 18 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
much they can do as a city to further regulate the number, location and character through
zoning and permitting.
For financial accounting, the town does levy a separate Local Option Tax - 3% on room
sales which includes STRs of less than 30 days. 1% of this tax goes towards the Air
Service Board, which is made up of the City of Hailey and City of Sun Valley and funds
promotion of tourism, with the remaining 2% going towards city specific items such as
transportation, open space acquisition, recreation, capital improvements, emergency
services, city promotion, visitor information and special events, property tax relief, and
direct costs for enforcement. All taxes are collected by the listing agency and remitted
directly to the city. The application fee is $527, and the fee reimburses the city for
expenses related to the permitting process.
The City of Ketchum is currently developing a Housing Action Plan because of their dire
need for workforce housing – a need driven in part by STRs.16 Part of that plan includes
adding housing as an authorized use of their Local Option Tax (LOT) funds, which will go
to voters on May 17, 2022. Additionally, the question asks if the categories the LOT is
collected on should be raised. An additional 2% is proposed on hotels and STRs. The
program to monitor and manage the city’s STRs will help to ensure they are collecting tax
from all rentals, which will better provide for implementation of the Housing Action Plan,
if the voters choose to support.
Key Findings:
• Life-safety compliance can create elevated requirements for entry into the STR
market, ensuring professionalism from operations and a safe product for
consumers.
• Consider how STR and lodging taxes might help mitigate employee generation
and support affordable housing development.
Park City, UT
Like Ketchum, Park City has limiting regulations on its oversight of STRs due to state
statutes. Park City still sees STRs as an opportunity to regulate or cool down the housing
market and stabilize housing for locals – only 32.6% of all housing units (10,440 total) in
Park City are occupied. Vacant seasonal and recreational housing units have nearly
doubled since 2000 to 6,750 units, and Park City is the only city in Utah where the number
of jobs (11,000) out numbers the population (8,500).
16 Enourato, Lisa, Email with Haley Hart on March 24, 2022
39
Page 19 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
The lack of affordable housing has led to policies around other means of addressing this
issue that are exclusive of STR regulations due to the limitations of state law. Instead of
regulating ‘short term rentals’ the Park City Council voted to make it easier for
homeowners to build accessory apartments on their property. Accessory apartments are
defined as units that contain a kitchen, sleeping area, and bathroom and are additions to
a single-family home or garage, and any new accessory apartment must be rented for at
least 90 days at a time through a deed restriction, eliminating their use as nightly rentals.17
This is in direct response to loss of housing due to increase in STRs.
source: Wikimedia commons
Because of state regulations, Park City is not allowed to set caps on STRs and is only
allowed one “restriction zone” due to the geographical restrains and hazards of that area.
In that one zone district there are 12 total permits. This zone requires a Conditional Use
permit, otherwise there is an unlimited amount of STRs in the rest of the zones. A $75
business license is required for all STRs.
Key Findings:
• State law can have a harmful impact on local policies and the ability of communities
to effectively address their specific issues. To avoid having local control limited by
state legislature, be present and vocal in state regulations on STRs.
17 Higgins, Sean, KPCW, ‘Park City Council approves new apartment regulations, hears concerns about nightly
rentals’, December 17, 2021. https://www.kpcw.org/featured/2021-12-17/park-city-council-approves-new-
apartment-regulations-hears-concerns-about-nightly-rentals
40
Page 20 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
• Zoning regulations and affordable housing policies can help mitigate some of the
impacts of STRs on housing and other community policies.
City of Salida, CO
source: Wikimedia commons
The City of Salida began
regulating STRs in 2016.
Since 2016, the percentage
of STRs in commercial and
industrial zones has risen
from 9% of the residential
stock to approximately
30%.18 A majority of this
increase has occurred in
the Historic Downtown
District and immediate
surrounding area, where
50% of existing units are
STRs. The city believes this
rapid rise signifies a reduction in the number of potential long-term housing options. The
profitability of STRs has had a direct impact on the quickly rising sales price of residential
units. In response, a temporary 90-day emergency moratorium was issued July 20, 2021,
via Ordinance 2021-11.
On November 16, 2021, the Salida City Council adopted new regulations for STRs. One
of the defining aspects of the new set of regulations was a cap on the number of STRs in
non-residential areas. The maximum number of STRs in the residential zones, which was
set in place prior to the moratorium, cannot exceed 75 dwelling units. This is capped at
3.5% of total units in those zones.19 The new caps for non-residential areas cannot
exceed 232 STRs, which are permitted by specific zones.
New STR permit applicants must also be Chaffee County Residents. A ‘bona fide
resident’ means the applicant must show two of the following: a valid driver’s license or
Colorado identification card, current voter registration, valid motor vehicle registration, or
a document designating a primary residence for income tax purposes. If there is a
corporate owner of the property, the person controlling the corporate owner must
18 City of Salida. https://www.cityofsalida.com/commdev/page/salida-seeks-short-term-rental-policy-solutions-
help-address-workforce-housing-crisis
19 City of Salida, Planning Commission Staff Report, September 27, 2021
41
Page 21 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
establish bona fide residency in Chaffee County. These documents must be submitted to
the city annually to renew the STR license.
For locations that are at the cap, the Clerk’s Office keeps a waiting list for people who are
interested in a new STR license. New STR permits become available only through
attrition, which typically happens when a property sells as licenses are nontransferable.
Salida levies an occupational lodging tax that applies to both STRs and hotels at $3.66
per room per night. The proceeds of the occupational lodging tax, together other revenue
are used primarily for capital improvements and operations expenses for parks and
recreation and arts facilities in the city. City staff noted that a per room per night fee
approach is not recommend since it is a logical fee for the hotel owners but not for STR
holders. STRs in Salida typically have fewer bedrooms than traditional lodging and hotels
and the fee doesn’t cover the cost of maintaining the home and employees for that single
residential up-keep in the same capacity that it does for hotels. There is a $470 New
Residential/Industrial License fee, a $270 for New Commercial License fee, and after the
first year for both types of licenses, the fee remains at $270.
Key Findings:
• Consider only granting new permits to ‘bona fide residents’ or their designated
agents.
• Having a per bed per night fee is not a highly effective means for collecting
monetary remittance, instead an annual fee or tax is more equitable.
• If there is a corporate owner of the property, the person controlling the corporate
owner must establish bona fide residency in Chaffee County. These documents
must be submitted to the city annually to renew the STR license.
City of Santa Fe, NM
42
Page 22 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
source: Wikimedia commons
Santa Fe began oversight of STRs in 2016, but made significant updates to process,
enforcement, and financials in 2021. In 2019, 15% percent of single-family homes listed
on Santa Fe County’s tax rolls had owners who resided outside New Mexico. In central
Santa Fe the percentage of absentee owners exceeds 20%.20 Additionally, 80% of hosts
listed only one STR property, over 100 Santa Fe hosts had listed two or more entire
homes, and the city’s top 15 hosts accounted for 381 active STRs, over one-quarter of
the Santa Fe market. At the time, only 60% of Santa Fe’s 1,444 active whole-unit STRs
were registered with the city, which cost the city $1.6 million each year in missed revenue.
But on average, city research demonstrated that the owners of STRs were making over
$80,000 per host per year. These discrepancies motivated the community to further
regulate STRs in 2021.
To counter the 40% of STR owners who were non-compliant prior to the adoption of the
2021 ordinance, non-compliant hosts are subject to a fine of $100 per day for a first
violation, increasing up to $500 per day for further offenses.21 Additionally, to help create
balance on ownership of STRs, only one vacation rental permit is allowed per person in
residential zones and a new 1,000 citywide limit on STRs was enacted. No more than 12
permits will be issued for a single multi-unit dwelling, and there is no limit on the number
of registrations that can be issued for non-residentially zoned properties. Additionally,
proximity rules require vacation rental homes to have a 50-foot buffer from each other.
The new law specifies that permits can only be issued to people, not to business entities,
20 O’Donnell, Kelly, ‘Short Term Rentals and Access to Housing in Santa Fe’, June 2019.
https://homewise.org/wp-content/uploads/page/Short-Term-Rentals-Report-JUN_19.pdf
21 Sokolowsky, Jennifer, ‘New Santa Fe law allows only one short-term rental permit per person’, December 22,
2020. https://www.avalara.com/mylodgetax/en/blog/2020/12/new-santa-fe-law-allows-only-one-short-term-
rental-permit-per-person.html
43
Page 23 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
and that permit numbers must be included in all advertisements. Short-term rental
platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo must remove listings with invalid permit numbers.
Under the recently adopted measure, STRs must have a local operator who can arrive at
the rental within an hour to respond to issues, and hosts are required to keep records for
three years that the city can view upon request. Notification of neighbors must occur by
mail when a permit is approved within 10 days for all properties within 200 feet of the
subject property. Vacation rental units may be rented only once every seven days, but
this rule doesn’t apply from November 15 to January 15.
The application fee for a new permit and registration is $100; there is no fee for renewal
applications. Permits and registrations are also subject to an annual business license fee
of $35 and a permit or registration fee of $290. The total cost to properly permit or register
a STR is $425 for the initial year and $325 for subsequent years.
Key Findings:
• Create an enforcement process and fine system for STRs that are noncompliant.
• Consider limiting STRs within multi-family units to help ensure available and
affordable residential units for locals.
• Institute duration limitations to reduce neighborhood impacts.
Key Findings
While researching best practices in comparable communities, staff identified certain
practices and approaches which deserve highlighting in this report. These key findings
may be considered by Council as the right approach for Aspen is defined.
Distinguish between nonexempt and exempt STRs (e.g. should there be separate
permits for a residential STR versus a condo-hotel; do the condo-hotels have less
regulatory oversight?). This helps clarify what we want to regulate, especially within
residential neighborhoods. (Breckenridge)
Reducing via attrition the number of STRs to align with an adopted cap is a fair way
to decrease total permits over time. Having nontransferable licenses defined
decreases economic inequities for units with a STR permit trying to sell versus those
without a STR permit. (Breckenridge)
Occupancy restrictions are a highly effective means for ensuring life-safety in units.
(Breckenridge)
KEY FINDINGS
44
Page 24 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
Assess annual permit fees per bedroom. This aligns the fee with the value of the
STR operation and charges fees proportionally to the impacts from the unit based on
size and guests. (Breckenridge)
Make available to the public the permit waiting list of STRs, as well as active STRs
with address, owner, and business license. This allows for concerned neighbors to
find STRs in their neighborhoods and ensure they are legal and give those on the
waiting list information about the lottery position. (Durango)
A public noticing period within a 300’ buffer of a STR permit application allows for
neighbor comments. This gives city staff localized information to determine if the
proposed STR is appropriate for that location or if there are details about the
property City staff should understand prior to issuing the permit. (Durango)
Creating buffers is a highly effective means to disperse the density of STRs in
neighborhoods. (Glenwood Springs)
Require STR owners to prove they are remitting lodging tax as one of the conditions
for permit renewal. This approach can help ensure all STR owners who operate
through third-party sites are financial accountable. It also ensures that permit
holders are using their permits. (Glenwood Springs)
Consider changing the definition of STR to be 60 or 90 days, not 30. 30 days can
incentivize bookings for 30-plus days to avoid taxes. (Jackson)
STRs are not allowed in any residential districts, only a lodging overlay to maintain
community character. (Jackson)
Consider permit and impact fees as well as lodging and excise taxes to support the
creation of affordable housing goals, cover program administration costs, and
support complimentary community policies. (Ketchum)
Have an owner-occupied permit option available outside of caps or other permit
types to help create equality for those who depend on income of STRs and are also
full-time community members. (Crested Butte)
Staff the STR management program to ensure the program delivers on the
community’s policy and regulatory objectives. (Crested Butte)
Revoke permits and issue liens on properties that are non-compliant can help
incentivize compliance. (Crested Butte)
Be present and vocal in future state legislative discussions on STRs. Ensure that
Aspen takes an active voice at the state level on policy matters including taxation,
regulation, and the definition of long versus short-term rental. (Park City)
If there is a corporate owner of the property, the person controlling the corporate
owner must establish bona fide residency in Chaffee County. These documents
must be submitted to the city annually to renew the STR license.
45
Page 25 of 25
Aspen Short-term Rental Regulations
Case Studies Report
Implement an annual fee or tax, rather than a per bed per night fee which is not a
highly effective means for collecting monetary remittance. (Salida)
Create an enforcement process and fine system for STRs that are noncompliant.
(Santa Fe)
Consider limiting STRs within multi-family units to help ensure a diversity of housing
unit types and sizes remain out of the STR pool and occupied by full-time and part-
time residents. (Santa Fe)
The central finding from staff research is that regulations must be tailored to meet
community need and respond to localized economic and social conditions. There are a
handful of tools employed by most comparable communities: caps, spacing, noticing,
permit requirements, taxes and fees, and enforcement. The details of those regulations
and how they are designed and implemented is where the community customization
comes into play.
Aspen is a luxury tourist destination and housing market. STRs are an important
component of Aspen’s community profile and have been part of Aspen’s lodging base for
decades. Aspen is also a vibrant, year-round, lived-in community that values its unique
character. Those characteristics support the quality of its tourists and real estate
economies in a mutually beneficial way. As such, striking the appropriate balance on the
future of STR regulation is essential to support, not undermine, these equally important
aspects of our community and economy. The findings in this report are intended to inform
and support that community dialogue and Council’s consideration of how best to enhance
STR regulations.
CONCLUSION
46
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals by Zoning District
STRs by Zoning District
Zoning District
Affordable Housing (12)
Commercial (23)
Commercial Core (45)
Commercial Lodge (132)
Lodge (314)
Mixed Use (90)
Neighborhood Commercial (1)
Public (11)
Moderate Density Residential (184)
Moderate Density Residential - A (10)
Moderate Density Residential - B (16)
High Density Residential (1)
Low Density Residential (13)
Medium Density Residential (109)
Residential Multi-Family (254)
Residential Multi-Family - A (15)
Rural Residential (2)
Service/Commercial/Industrial (3)
Ski Area Base (2)
Not Zoned (2)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.3 0.60.15 Mi
±
47
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAExisting Short-Term Rentals in R-6
Legend
Short-Term Rentals in R-6 (109)
Short-Term Rentals (1134)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
R/MFA
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neightborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Preservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
48
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals with R-6 Restricted to 75 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentals in R-6 (75)
Short Term Rentals (1134)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
R/MFA
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neightborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Preservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
49
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals with R-6 Restricted to 50 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentals in R-6 (50)
Short-Term Rentals (1134)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
R/MFA
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neightborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Preservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
50
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals with R-6 Restricted to 25 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentals in R-6 (25)
Short-Term Rentals (1134)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
R/MFA
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neightborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Preservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
51
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAExisting Short-Term Rentals in R-15
Legend
Short-Term Rentials in R-15 (210)
Short-Term Rentals (1036)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
Residential Multi-Family A
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Ski Area Base
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Reservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
52
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals in R-15 Restricted to 25 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentials in R-15 (25)
Short-Term Rentals (1036)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
Residential Multi-Family A
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Ski Area Base
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Reservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
53
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals in R-15 Restricted to 75 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentials in R-15 (75)
Short-Term Rentals (1036)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
Residential Multi-Family A
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Ski Area Base
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Reservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
54
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals in R-15 Restricted to 150 STRs
Legend
Short-Term Rentials in R-15 (150)
Short-Term Rentals (1036)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.25 0.50.13 Mi
±
Zoning Districts
High Density Residential
Affordable Housing
Residential Multi-Family
Residential Multi-Family A
Medium Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential - A
Moderate Density Residential - B
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Lodge
Commercial Lodge
Commercial Core
Commercial
Service/Commercial/Industrial
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed Use
Ski Area Base
Conservation
Open Space
Park
Wildlife Reservation
Academic
Public
Not Zoned
55
County of Pitkin & City of Aspen, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDAShort-Term Rentals Excluding Residential Districts
STRs by Zoning District
Zoning District
Affordable Housing (12)
Commercial (23)
Commercial Core (45)
Commercial Lodge (132)
Lodge (314)
Mixed Use (90)
Neighborhood Commercial (1)
Residential Multi-Family (254)
Residential Multi-Family - A (15)
Service/Commercial/Industrial (3)
Ski Area Base (2)
Aspen City Limits
0 0.3 0.60.15 Mi
±
56
57
City
Does your City/Town levy a separate lodging
(30 days or less) tax?Lodging Tax Rate Specific Purpose?How are these taxes collected?
Have you passed legislation
requiring marketplace facilitators
to collect and remit the tax?
Have your tax collections increased
as a result of this legislation?Is there an Overlay/ Zoning District?Do STRs require noticing?License Required # of Listings:Is there a cap?How does the lottery for permits get determined? Transfer of license STR Website & Links
Breckenridge
Yes 3.40%
Marketing Fund - 1.40%;
Excise Fund - 2.00%Self collected Yes Difficult to determine
Not yet, but its coming. Have a drafted map - have 3 zones 1. Tourism
overlay district (this has multiple uses) - Zone 1 (green) over 75% of all
residential units in this zone are already STRs - this zone captures 50%
of all STRs. 24 front desk/ 24 security hard wired phone line = condo
hotel these are exempt. Zone 2 is historical district; 45% can have STRs;
Zone 3 want to aim for 11% of all residential units to have STRs (blue).
Used current ratios of residential units to STR units to come up wtih the
2200 and then the % within each zone (trying to aim to early 2000s -
this time period, local workers were able to find local housing - trying to
retreat back to this time). Blue Zone is mostly residential - lowest
percentage for where STRs will be allowed. Goal to preserve residential
feel of these neighborhoods. No Yes
Currently there are 4,200 total STR liscences. There are 7,000
units total in Breck (ie 60% of all units are STRs or have a
liscnece). 1,600 of the 4,200 are condo-hotels In November of 2021, capped the amount of STRs at 2,200.
Through attrition. Breckenridge has a wait list of 34
currently waiting for an STR license. They understand
that this may take 5 to 15 years to decrease from
4,200 to 2,200.Licenses do not transfer with the property sale.
FAQ:
https://www.townofbreckenridge.com/home/showpub
lisheddocument/20704/637697413616900000
STR Overview:
https://www.townofbreckenridge.com/your-
government/finance/short-term-rentals
Online Waitlist:
https://www.townofbreckenridge.com/home/showpub
lisheddocument/21242/637830440581470000
Town News Article on STR Ordinance:
https://www.townofbreckenridge.com/Home/Compon
ents/News/News/2093/
Crested Butte
No NA NA Self collected via Munirevs No NA
Restricted to permitted zones. Not allowed in deed restricted housing
or accessory dwelling units that are required to be long term rentals.
The number of unlimited vacation rental licenses is limited to 30% of
the total number of freemarket residential units in town located in the
permitted zone districts.Yes, 100 ft radius.
Vacation Rental License & Town of Crested Butte Business License are
both required.209 unlimited licences and 17 primary residence licenses.
Yes, a 30% cap on all free market residential unit. Crested Butte
included a provision that vacation rentals beyond the 30% limit
can be issued if the vacation rental also serves as a primary
residence of the vested title property owner defining 'primary
residence' as: a residence which is the usual place of return for
housing as documented by the vested title property owner of
record signing an affidavit to that affect and providing at least
two of the following: motor vehicle registration, driver's license,
Colorado state identification card, voter registration, or tax
documents. There is a 60 night max on primary residence
license. When ordinance was set in place there were 280 STRs.
When an application for an unlimited license is denied
due to cap limit, the applicant will automatically be
placed on the waiting list in the order in which the
application is received via the Town’s online sales tax
and licensing software platform. Everyone on waiting
list is typically satisfied with a permit within five weeks.
A vacation rental license attaches only to the property
for which it is issued and is nontransferrable upon sale
or other transfer of ownership of the property. Upon
such transfer of ownership, the new owner of the
property shall apply for a vacation rental license if the
individual wishes to continue the use of the property as
a vacation rental.
Vacation Rental License Information:
https://www.crestedbutte-
co.gov/index.asp?SEC=0DA56E89-36E1-4A3A-8001-
5F16483DEFCD&Type=B_BASIC
Ordinance #12: https://www.crestedbutte-
co.gov/vertical/sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-B42F-
B476F794BE07%7D/uploads/Ordinance_No._12_Series
_2016-
_New_Regulations_in_Lecensing_of_Vacation_Rentals_
and_Defining_Vacation_Rentals.pdf
Ordinance #6: https://www.crestedbutte-
co.gov/vertical/sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-B42F-
B476F794BE07%7D/uploads/Ordinance_No._06_Series
_2017-Amending_Definition_of_Vacation_Rental-
Regulations.pdf
Vacation Rentals and Existing Zoning:
https://www.crestedbutte-
co.gov/vertical/sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-
B42FB476F794BE07%7D/uploads/Short_Term_Rentals
_with_Owner_Contact_Information_-
_Jan_10_2022.pdf
FAQ: https://www.crestedbutte-
co.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-B42F-
B476F794BE07%7D/uploads/VRL_FAQ_07-27-
2017.pdf
Durango
Yes
The Lodging Tax rate was
increased from 2% to 5.25% in
2021
55% towards Sustainable Tourism
Marketing
20% to Transportation & Transit
Services
14% for Arts & Cultural Events,
Programs, and Facilities
11% allocated at City Council’s
discretion, with the general requirement
that the purpose is related to tourism or
tourism impacts
If not remitted by the listing agency,
owner/operators of short-term rentals
submit lodger’s taxes to our Finance Dept.
We do have the ability to audit STRs, but I
don’t know if this has ever been necessary. I
can put you in contact with someone from
Finance if you need more details on this.
No. The City has provided feedback
in the past suggesting state
legislation to require listing agencies
to collect and remit taxes and
provide audits to municipalities that
would indicate the location of short
term rentals. Durango has not
explored pursuing this through local
ordinances. NA
Yes. Limits are included by zone, block face, or by development
depending on the location. Permitted in 2 of 6 single-family zones and
in all 3 mixed use zones. Recent code amendments have eliminated the
use from multifamily zones. Vacation rentals are only permitted in
certain zones. These include the Central Business zone, the Mixed-Use
zones, a few select Planned Development zones, and Established
Neighborhoods (EN) 1 & 2.
Yes, 300 ft radius. Within five days of receiving a complete application,
City staff will post a notice on the property for fourteen days and mail
notices to property owners within 300 feet to inform them of the
request and ask for comments. During this public comment period, staff
will review the proposal in accordance with the requirements of the
LUDC. Staff may schedule a site visit with the applicant to confirm that
property conditions align with statements made in the application
materials. Following the completion of the public comment period, staff
will pass along any comments received to the applicant and conduct a
final review of the request. Within 30 calendar days of the date that the
application is filed, staff will approve, refer to the Planning Commission,
or deny the permit request Yes.
125 permitted short
term rentals; 8900 total units in 2020 census - 1.5% of all units
are rentals.
Yes, limits are included by zone, block face, or by development
depending on the location. There is a cap on the number of
available permits in the EN zones, with a total of 22 vacation
rentals in EN-1 and 17 in EN-2. In the other zones where
vacation rentals are permitted, Central Business and Mixed-Use,
caps are applied on a development-specific basis. This means
that a set number of residential units may be permitted as
vacation rentals within a certain building or development. There
is a 500 ft buffer between all STRs.
In most cases, caps have been reached, and properties
must be placed on a wait list before being eligible to
apply.
Vaction Rental permits are not transferable to any other
person or legal entity. Any VR permit will automatically
terminate upon the sale or change of ownership of the
property.
STR Guidebook:
https://www.durangogov.org/DocumentCenter/View/1
31/Vacation-Rental-Checklist?bidId=
Municode: http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/durango-
co/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=449#secid-273STR
Webpage:
https://www.durangogov.org/vacationrentals#Current
%20Regulations%20for%20VR ;
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a6xGTTsSJP
V-mqDTFTghqAaY9AYq5Y7OoXLbkJn-_uM/edit#gid=0
Vacation Rental Map:
https://www.durangogov.org/797/Vacation-Rentals-
Map
Glenwood Springs
Yes 2.50%
Tourism Budget (85%) and to the
General Fund. The 85% is managed by a
contract with our Chamber, and it
includes marketing for the city and
salaries for the Director of Tourism and
the Tourism Project Manager. The other
15% goes to the General Fund, which is
split between grants managed by our
Financial Advisory Board and a reserve
that is set back for addressing the
impacts of Tourism on the City. From the
amount that goes to the Financial
Advisory Board, $50,000 funds major
events such as the Fourth of July
celebration.
We have a mix of companies that pay
through our local Munirevs system and the
state sales and use tax system (which remits
to us). No. NA
No unless prohibited by PUD. Concentration limit is 250' distance
between STR permit, citywide cap (ie: 250' buffer between STRs)Yes all neighbors within 250 feet.
Yes, there are two types available: Short Term Rental (STR) and Accessory
Tourist Rental (ATR). The City's Accessory Tourist Rental regulations allow
a home owner to rent a single bedroom in their home to paying guests for
stays of less than 30 consecutive days.
Currently, there are 88 STRs. This number decreased from 140 in
2018.
Yes, by zone and there is also a 250 ft buffer in place between all
STRs. Glenwood Springs believes the buffer rather than the cap
has helped decrease density.
Some have left voluntarily; most are due to selling
property. It is a condition for renewal that owners
show they remitted lodging tax and if a STR holder
cannot show they have remitted tax they can lose their
permit. Additionally, if a property address received
three code violations within the permit cycle of two
years, they can lose their permit.Nontransferable.
STR Guide and Municode:
https://www.cogs.us/DocumentCenter/View/469/Shor
t-term-rental-guide--application?bidId= Council Packet
from 2019 changes:
https://glenwoodspringsco.civicclerk.com/web/player.a
spx?id=40
Jackson Hole
Yes
The State of Wyoming imposes a
5% lodging tax statewide that is
collected by the state (not the
town). Of that 5%, 3% is kept by
the state and the other 2% is
distributed back to local
communities where it is
allocated/split by population
between, in our case, Teton
County (55%) and the Town of
Jackson (45%).
Of the share that comes to the Town
(i.e., 45% of the 2%), 60% goes to our
Travel and Tourism Board for
promotion, 30% can be used to offset
the impacts of tourism, and 10% goes to
general fund as unrestricted money.
Hope that wasn’t too complicated.
Businesses remit lodging taxes directly to
State on a monthly basis. No local collection No NA
There is an approved Lodging Overlay (Lodining/ Snow King Resort
District Overlay) that the STR must be within.Yes, notice to neighbors within 300 ft of neighboring parcels.Yes, a permit.210
No cap, only limit STRs to their lodging overlay which is a
relatively small commerical area of the Town.NA Nontransferable.
STR Online Overview:
https://www.jacksonwy.gov/335/Short-Term-Rentals
License Application/Permit:
https://www.jacksonwy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37
6/Short-Term-Rental-License-Application-PDF?bidId=
Ordinance:
https://www.jacksonwy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/63
3/Ordinance-Regarding-Residential-Short-Term-Rental-
Permits-PDF
Ketchum
Yes, have local option tax
Currently 3% on rooms sales -
includes STRs of less than 30
days. In May looking to raise tax
(take a potion to go to
community housing needs). Want
to add .75% so if it passes it
would be 2.75% for retail;
additional 2% for STRs so 5%;
liquor by the drink additional 2%
so would be 5%.
Currently 1% of this tax goes towards air
service board (City of Hailey and City of
Sun Valley) - board gets together across
these three cities together use this
funding towards promoting tourism; the
remaning 2% goes towards city specific
items municipal transportation, open
space aquasition and recreation, capital
improvements, emergency services, city
promotion, visitor information and
special events, and property tax relief,
and direct costs for enforcement
Self collected - Airbnb collects on behalf of
the owner; if advertises on outside Airbnb
website, owner is responsible No NA
No, State Legislature pre-empted local
control of STR's, but they are not permitted in the light industiral (LI)
zones
The City may require that property owners and/or residents within two
hundred feet (200') of the dwelling be provided with the name and
telephone number of the owner or the local representative. The permit
holder shall provide documentation to the City of this notification and list
of the owners and/or residents contacted
Yes, a business license and STR permit beginning June 1, 2022, to
implement regulations to safeguard public health, safety and welfare.
Technically none are legally permitted right now, no one has
applied for an application becaue there is not an application (will
begin in June).
No, State of Idaho forbids local jurisdictions from being able to
regulate STRs, therefore they are not going to be putting a cap
on STRs, just need approval from life-saftey standpoint (ie: need
to pass fire code). NA NA
STR Online Overview:
https://www.ketchumidaho.org/administration/page/s
hort-term-rentals
Ordinance:
https://www.ketchumidaho.org/sites/default/files/filea
ttachments/ordinance/47594/ordinance_1230_-
short term rentals.pdf
Park City
NA NA NA Fees for permits are Self-collected No No
Because of state regulations, Park City is not allowed to set caps on
STRs, and is only allowed one “restriction zone” (where STRs are not
allowed). In that one zone district there is a cap of 12 total permit, and
there are currently 10 permitted. This zone requires a Conditional Use
permit, otherwise there is an unlimited amount of STRs in the rest of
the zones. No.Yes, annual buisness license.369
No caps, lottery or limitations due to state regulation. Local
governments are not allowed to stop short-term rental
operators from listing properties on short-term rental websites NA Nontransferable.
GIS Map of where STRs are allowed:
https://parkcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/InformationLoo
kup/index.html?appid=3314197a18c542b6a39ff908dd
c3cc30
STR Overview:
https://www.parkcity.org/departments/finance-
accounting/apply-for-a-business-licenses/nightly-rental-
license
Salida
Yes. We do levy an occupational lodging tax
that applies to both Short Term Rentals and
Hotels (the specific language says that it levys
a tax on the business of leasing or renting of
rooms or accomodations within the City of
Salida for less than 30 consecutive days). $3.66 per room per night
The proceeds of the occupational
lodging tax, together with investment
earnings thereon, shall be used primarily
for capital improvements and operations
expenses for parks and recreation and
arts facilities in the City, including,
without limitation, the Aquatic Center
and the SteamPlant Theater.
We recently switched over to Munirevs to
collect our taxes. License holders and
property managers can pay their quarterly
occupational lodging taxes online which
makes our system a lot more efficient.No, we have not.NA
The regulations have imposed caps on the numbers of Short-Term
Rental Licenses in four non-Residential areas and maintained the cap in
our Residential area:
No Yes.200
Yes, by zone. The maximum number of STRs in the residential
zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4) shall not exceed 75 dwelling units.
In non-residential areas cannot exceed 232 STRs, which are
permitted by specific zones.
Have a waiting list that the Clerk’s Office keeps for
people who are interested in a new STR license. Get off
waiting list typically through attrition through sale of a
property. Nontransferable.
Website:
https://www.cityofsalida.com/clerk/page/short-term-
rentals
Santa Fe
NA NA NA NA No Fees are paid at permit issuance
the City will not issue a new permit for a short-term rental unit if the
subject property is located within a fifty (50)-foot radius of a
residentially zoned property that has a permitted short-term rental
unit.
Notification of neighbors by mail when a permit is approved within 10
days for all properties within 200 ft of the subject property (this mailer
will include thepermit number and property owner and operator who
will be available 24/7).
All short-term rentals are required to obtain a Business Registration
(Business License) and a Short Term Rental Permit.970 residential and ~300 non-residential.
City regulations cap the number of short term rentals at 1,000
units in residential zoning districts, and limit short term rental
units to no more than than two adjacent houses on residential
streets. A short-term rental unit cannot be within 50 feet of an
existing short-term rental unit. There is no limit on the number
of registrations that can be isued for non-residentially zoned
properties. Waitlist by application date. Nontransferable.
STR Website:
https://www.santafenm.gov/short_term_rentals/
FAQ:
https://www.santafenm.gov/media/files/STRFAQs12-
10-2020.pdf
Ordinance: file:///C:/Users/haleyh/Downloads/2020-
351.pdf
58