No, the photo above is not Pagosa Springs, although there have been moments, this summer, when the traffic felt a little bit like this.
I don’t recall our town feeling this way, ten years ago.
Of course, it’s not only traffic that’s different in Archuleta County this summer. Tax revenues collected by our local governments over the past year have been pretty much through the ceiling. But even our local elected leaders are starting to wonder if too much of a good thing is not a good thing.
Too much money, for one thing, coming into a small community, can drive real estate prices up, beyond a reasonable limit.
Last month, the non-profit group known as Pagosa Housing Partners (PHP) finished gathering responses from a new ‘Residential Housing Survey’ of Archuleta County residents, to help paint a picture of our housing situation in the summer of 2021. We’ve all heard anecdotal stories about the situation, but some of our community leaders are more comfortable with survey data.
Volunteer PHP Board member Joanne Whitney had run an analysis of the collected data and presented some of the numbers to the Pagosa Springs Town Council last Thursday, August 19.
PHP conducted a similar survey in the summer of 2018, and ran a similar analysis — removing the retirees from the analysis so that PHP could focus on our local workforce. The 2021 analytics also had the retirees removed.
In 2018, 414 working families or individuals had responded to the survey. For 2021, the number was 553.
Government and non-profit entities that study or provide housing — entities like HUD, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, and many regional and local entities — assert that a family should not pay more that 30% of its monthly income for housing expenses, including rent or mortgage and utilities. A family paying more than 30% is considered to be “cost burdened.” A family paying over 50% of its monthly income for housing is considered to be “severely cost burdened.”
When I ran a mortgage calculator at the Fidelity Bank website, it appears that this particular bank uses the same basic math — capping a qualified mortgage payment at about 30% of monthly income, even for a family with “Good Credit” — and capping it at less than 30%, for “Medium Credit”.
When Pagosa Housing Partners surveyed working families in 2018, about 54% of Archuleta County respondents were “cost burdened”.
When the numbers were calculated for 2021, PHP found 79% — almost 4 out of 5 surveyed families in Archuleta County — to be cost burdened.
The Town Council was shown some other numbers that were, perhaps, even more disturbing to consider. We can touch on those numbers tomorrow.
But two other fairly important discussions took place at the August 19 meeting, that may have some bearing on how Pagosa Springs thrives — or fails to thrive — in the coming years.
The first discussion concerned the first reading of Ordinance 958. “AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PAGOSA SPRINGS AMENDING THE PAGOSA SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS”
From the ordinance:
WHEREAS, over the last five to ten years, the advent and increasing popularity of individuals and companies purchasing, advertising, and renting out residential properties as short-term rentals has resulted in approximately 16% of Pagosa Springs’ housing stock being utilized as short-term vacation rentals; and
WHEREAS, Town Council hereby finds that the use of residential property as a short-term vacation rental impacts the Town and its residents in various ways, including but not limited to increased utilization of public services and increased noise, parking, trash complaints, and the transient nature of the occupants, which may have a negative effect on the residential character of a neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, Town Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary to add a new Section 6.7.12, to Article 7, Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code with respect to the eligibility and density of short-term vacation rentals in Pagosa Springs’ residential zones; and
WHEREAS, Town Council hereby finds and determines that regulation of allowance and density of short-term vacation rentals within the Town is appropriate and necessary to the function and operation of the Town…
The amendments to the Municipal Code proposed by Ordinance 958 — which passed unanimously on the first reading, include the following:
1. The eligibility and density restrictions do not apply to any properties located in the commercial-zoned areas of town, nor do they apply to properties in residential-zoned areas which were already licensed prior to the passage of Ordinance 958. However, the conditional use permits in residential zones are non-transferable, so a person purchasing such a property would need to apply for a new license, if allowable.
2. Going forward, the Town will not issue a vacation rental license unless the property owner “can demonstrate ownership of the subject dwelling unit of the property for at least two (2) years prior to the date of the application. In the case of a vacant property, the Licensing Officer shall not accept applications under Section 6.7.5 of this Chapter until the applicant for a short-term vacation rental license requiring a conditional use permit has held a certificate of occupancy for at least two (2) years prior to the date of application. Applicant must submit an acknowledgment, signed by both property owner and the local agent (if different) that they have read and understand all other requirements of this Chapter.”
3. Only one vacation rental license is allowed per residential property. A home with an accessory dwelling unit will be able to short-term-rent one unit or the other, but not both.
4. No more than 10% of the single-family residential units in each residential-zoned district will be eligible for vacation rental licenses. “Once the Licensing Officer has determined that the limit has been reached in any district, no further licenses shall be issued in that district. This limitation shall not apply to short-term vacation properties which are occupied year-round by the owner thereof.”
At the meeting, Town Planning Director James Dickhoff stated that vacation rental licenses in every residential-zoned district already exceed 10%, which suggests that no new licenses can currently be issued.
5. No more than one unit or ten percent 10% of the dwelling units (whichever number is greater) contained in a multi-family or townhome development will be eligible for vacation rentals.
6. A vacation property may not be located within two-hundred and fifty feet (250 ft.) of, or be adjacent to, another vacation rental property. This limitation doesn’t apply to multi-family or townhome short-term vacation properties located in the same multi-family or townhome development — and also doesn’t apply to short-term vacation properties which are occupied year-round by the owner.
Several members of the community testified for or against the ordinance. Taking that testimony into account, the Council unanimously approved the first reading of Ordinance 958.