The Future of Short Term Rentals in Clear Creek County

Not in favor. During these tough economic times in which many are affected by lay-offs, STRs have been and still may become the primary source of income these folks, so that they do not lose their homes.

No I am not in favor of this. I purchased a property in the Saint Marys Subdiviion and invested my life savings into a cabin up there. We renovated the whole cabin, installed a hottub and sauna and it would be detrimental to now have the rules/regulations change. It is bad enough i need to wait on a list to secure my license. Please do not make anymore restrictive changes that affect STRs. Any changes would absolutely crush my financial position and i am sure many more around us. We love the area and believe allowing outsiders to experience the area is only going to allow future growth and opportunity for our community. Please do not punish us for buying in Clear Creek County.

Clear Creek county is a rural county and the homes that are being short-term rented are definitely not affordable nor would they be appropriate for first time buyers. Our county needs the tourism dollars and I'm sure Clear Creek county needs the tax dollar so I fully support short-term rentals and Clear Creek county without any moratorium or further restrictions.

No, I am not in favor of this. We are looking to purchase property in Clear Creek County near Empire. The long-term intent is to have a family getaway to enjoy the mountains and small towns along the i70 corridor rather than investing in over-developed Summit county. We love the proximity to our house in Denver, but would not be able to invest in the county and build a new home if we aren't also able to rent it out when we are not using it. Allow property individual municipalities/town to do what they must to accommodate in-town housing for workers and locals, but do not limit land-owners to be "primary residence only" for STR. The focus should be on proper enforcement of the rules rather than preventing families like ours from being able to rent out our home when it is not in use. It brings tax dollars to the county and helps build a more vibrant tourist encomony. Otherwise, everyone will continue to bypass the area to Summit County, and (selfishly) we will not be able to build a legacy for our family and will just go elsewhere in the state.

No, I am not in favor of this. First, how do you plan to define a "primary homeowner"? My partner bought our first home in the St. Mary's neighborhood in 2020, we lived there 15 months before taking off to travel in our camper van. This is still our "primary" home... we do not own another home. How often would we need to go back and stay in our house to meet the criteria for primary residents? These rules would be confusing and arbitrary.

Second, many homes, especially mountain homes, are not duplexes and do not lend themselves to renting out a private space that is separate from the dwelling area of the owner. We have no choice but to rent out our entire house as it is open concept. This alone would essentially rob most homeowners of the ability to rent their home; we are not trying to run bed and breakfasts. People come to the mountains to seek solitude in a beautiful home; not spend a weekend in a stranger's home with them.

Third, although not stated in this prompt, many of the meetings have thrown around issues of guests being disruptive and the owner not being present to deal with issues as a reason for the owner-occupied proposal. If this is indeed a major concern, then why not ramp up enforcement around this issue? We hired a local and reputable property manager to ensure that all issues were addressed right away, guests are given adequate warnings about parking allowance, not being able to have parties, that 4WD is required, that they must be respectful of neighbors, etc. I think a warning system and ability to revoke a permit would spark most STR operators to make sure they’re taking care of their issues – possibly even prompt them to hire a local property manager to keep things in line.

Lastly, I wanted to address the issue of “out of town” homebuyers. I understand that Clear Creek County wants to make sure that they are protecting the existing community and fostering growth of that community. However, I do not understand how only allowing owner-occupied rentals is the best method to achieving that goal. This would, in effect, devastate many locals, such as ourselves, who are still very much a part of our community. This would eradicate an industry that is bringing life and money back into said community, including maintaining homes and numerous jobs that have become intertwined with the short-term rental market. We all want to maintain community, but this proposal is not the answer and will have drastic repercussions that need to be thoroughly examined before making such a consequential decision is made.

No I am not in the St Marys Glacier area since we are very remote and provide several jobs for the locals and a great place to stay for visitors coming to the area. Families visiting on vacation need a whole house.

In Idaho Springs and Georgetown there are 218 businesses so restricting STRs there makes sense in it only has 1/2 of 1% effect on the economy

In unincorporated Clear Creek County and St Marys Glacier STRs is the only real business and economy. So eliminating or restricting STR’s‘s in unincorporated Adams County would have a 100% impact on the economy in those areas and decimate any and all growth that has taken place in the last 20 years

No, I would not be in favor of limiting STR's to primary residences. Unfortunately, the issues that most people are mentioning are not solved by these properties being primary residences of the owners. If I leave the country, state or even city for a few nights to rent out my home, I am still not there to handle noise complaints - isn't that what police are for? Even as a primary residence, you do not guarantee the owner to be nearby enough during bookings to handle issues. Of course, all STR's in the area should be compliant with rules/regulations/permits, etc. If our second home was not permitted to be a STR, not only would that hurt us financially, but it really does hurt the local economy. Not only would local businesses suffer, but the sales tax that STR's bring in would change the city and county budget.

Yes. I have 2 duplexes on my block that are STRs and the people are always out of state and never here to deal with issues.

yes, we need the owner to be around for any issue and respond. At Silver Lake we have many STR apartments. None of the owners reside in the building. Often we have to contact them via email to report loud and noisy guests they have. I prefer the owner od SRT reside in the same building.

Yes I would be in favor of limiting STRs to homes of primary residents only and with strict enforcement of appropriate permitting and taxation measures. There are at least 5 full time STR homes in my vicinity all of which are non-compliant. There should be appropriate enforcement staff hired. These STRs regularly cause issue as the guests are not monitored and often act in direct violation of County Directives. This causes concerning safety issues for primary residents. Much like the national parks are restricting and registering visitors we need to engage better management of the STRs. At high elevations in rural parts of the county, Clear Creek lacks the infrastructure for an abundance of unmanaged STRs with regard to Road and Bridge, Fire, and other Emergency Management Services. Most of the STR users in my area purchase supplies "down the hill" and do not contribute any financial benefit to Clear Creek County. If these homes were available as long term rentals I expect there would be a clear benefit to the County financially as well as offer a reasonably priced dwelling for a worker that could otherwise not afford to purchase a home to come to Clear Creek County. There is an obvious increase of "homeless" persons dwelling in cars and tents in rural Clear Creek County and these persons being availed of appropriately priced LTRs would benefit the Clear Creek County Community as a whole and provide a needed increase in local workforce.

I rent my home 50% of the year and live and work here when it's not rented. It's my primary residence. Having STR's Improves the neighborhood. I believe that buyers, investors and builders, with the intention of making it a STR should be allowed to do so. Limited to 6% of the number of residences in the district.

The problem is not STRs it's not have enough lower income housing is it is in all mountain towns..

If the goal is to make STRs into long term rentals it won't work-most workers would not be able to afford the monthly cost.

As someone said in the meeting last night-I agree that the town should set aside land to develop low income housing and apartments. Buying up the run down motels and converting them to three or four story apartments..

I'd like to participate with the design and construction of those..

Best,

William Wunderlich

Wunderlich Design

No. Let alone that governments should not be overly restrictive to the use of private property, my honest question would be "why?".

Reading Bob and Linda's comment upsets me that the county may be collecting fees and not actually enforcing any of the regulations. It would be disheartening not to have direct contact with your neighbor in such instances. If memory serves, one of the regulations addresses this; where direct neighbors are supposed to be informed and supplied with the contact information of the manager of the STR. Residents should be encouraged to contact the homeowner/property manager when experiencing problems with guests of the homeowner.

If STRs are too noisy, enforce the regulations around noise and write regulations around punitive measures if homeowners ignore repeated attempts to control the premise. Up to and including forfeiture of a permit.
If STRs are driving home costs higher or increasing demand, this is good for the county and its residents (especially other homeowners!). Anyone under the employ of the county would also surely benefit from a pay raise given that there would be more money from taxation.
If STRs attract folks from out-of-town, then there are more people spending more money in our county. If STRs attract new builds, then our county is growing and this is good. Right?
If STR managers are unresponsive to repeated attempts to comply with regulations, then we should regulate some punitive measures that can be taken in equal response.
If STRs spoil the plans of corporate hospitality management companies, this is competitive capitalism at its finest in my opinion. Giving consumers the choice on how to spend their money.

If there are more reasons that this should be considered, then I think we should also hear those so they can be directly considered. Don't forget that STRs generate income for folks other than the STR owner.

No. This is a trojan horse for people that want to rid their neighborhoods of Short Term rentals. I personally do not stay in any short-term rental where the owner of the property is in the next room or upstairs. I would rather stay in a hotel if that was going to be the case. I like to stay in unique properties that I would not normally get to stay in. There are very few short term rentals where the homeowners "live" on the property as a primary residence.

Counties that have enforced this were trying to find ways of eliminating STR by people who are misinformed about STR and choose to ban them rather than enforce sensible limitations to them.

People who come from out of state and buy vacation homes and rent them out not only pay the same amount in property taxes as the person living there but actually pay more in lodging tax. Income is claimed on tax returns and Federal, State and local income tax applies. Occupants of these short-term rentals spend money locally as well. STR are a win, win, win for everyone except the hotel lobby and crumungeon, angry neighbors.

Personally, I would absolutely not be in favor of this, and it would be devastating for families who already purchased second homes in the area. We own a second home in Clear Creek County, and we purchased it to frequently enjoy the mountains as a family with young children and be a member of the community, until a point when we have the ability to move to the area full-time. We use it as often as we can, and the main reason it is viable is because we can rent it while not in use; however, it is not a "for-profit" operation by any means. I support and follow all applicable laws and regulations, pay for my permit, and we are boosting the local economy every time we rent it out since those people are often eating local, buying local goods, and paying for activities in the local community. It would be certain that, if this were implemented, I would NOT rent it long-term. It would simply sit idle while we were not using it and bring in no money to the local economy; it would put significant financial strain on us, but we would do it because we love being in the area. I would bet this is a common case with owners of STRs in this county, since it’s not necessarily as “touristy” as Summit, Eagle, Grand, or others; we didn’t buy this home to make profit off tourism rentals. A potential option may be to limit the number of homes a single individual or entity could get STR permits for, essentially restricting a larger "for-profit" business from owning and operating more than a few rentals. At a minimum, current owners who are not full-time residents should be grandfathered in, if the intention is to discourage further people from purchasing a home strictly for STR. That being said, I think getting rid of STRs other than residents’ homes would be a significant negative impact to the local tourism economy as tourists would simply find STRs in nearby places like Summit County or Grand County instead; many people don't want to stay in a hotel and are looking for a different experience that only a STR can provide, especially considering COVID and the future of tourism from its effects.

No I would not be in favor. It would drastically lower property values and hurt local businesses and tourism.

We are completely in favor of this idea as a start. The owner of the short term rental next door to us lives in Florida and uses this property exclusively for a rental. We have asked the County several times to verify if he is in compliance with the County regulations regarding having the proper inspections and paying for the proper permits or paying sales taxes. We have never heard back and we believe that our County has many more STR's that are in operation that the county doesn't know about that are not regulated. Even though our preference would be to not allow STRs at all we urge the County to at least do a better job in enforcing the regulations on the ones that do exist.