As mentioned in Part One, a citizen-led ‘STR Study Group’ made a presentation to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners on February 27, recommending an extension of the current moratorium on new Short Term Rental (vacation rental) permits until the BOCC can make a definite decision on possible new land use policies.
The policy recommendations resulted from conversations involving 24 local citizens, who have been participating in discussions in-person and online since December.
Disclosure: I have been acting as facilitator for this citizen-led study group.
Reportedly, a County-appointed task force that has been meeting behind closed doors since September will present its own STR policy recommendations at a special BOCC meeting on Tuesday, March 14 at 1:30pm at the County Administration Building.
Yesterday in Part One, I shared an image from the independent citizens STR Study Group report, shared with the BOCC last week, The chart is related to recommended ‘density caps’ that could prevent subdivision neighborhoods from getting overrun with vacation rentals… in the future…
The recommended caps are 10% in subdivision neighborhoods… 15% in condos and town homes… no caps in rural AE and AR zoning and “owner-occupied” properties… and no permits allowed in multi-family apartments.
The group recommended that all existing permits be “grandfathered” — but if an already-permitted STR is purchased by new owners, the property would then have to apply for a new permit and meet the County’s new regulations.
The STR Study Group also made recommendations concerning STR-to-STR set-backs. Within the Town of Pagosa Springs, the Town Council requires 250 feet of distance between permitted STRs, but this type of “distance based” set-back would not work well in the unincorporated county subdivisions, when some parcels measure 1/8 acre, and some measure 10 acres.
Instead of a set “distance” between permitted STRs, the Study Group recommended that new STRs can be permitted anywhere, so long as none of the surrounding properties will be ‘adjacent’ to (share a property line with, or be directly across the street from) more than one permitted STR. This recommendation would help address the need for “Breathing Room” as proposed by the County Planning Department last summer.
As we can see in this image, below — from the AirDNA website — the density of STRs varies widely from one neighborhood to the next. This image shows the neighborhoods located between Highway 160 (bottom right) and Village Lake (top left).
As noted in Part One, the citizens group began their deliberations based on three “Agreed Upon Priorities” developed by the BOCC and the County Planning Department last year. The “Agreed Upon Priorities appeared in a 23-page summary of “Vacation Rental Policy Options” distributed in June, 2022.
The “Agreed Upon Priorities”:
- It is a priority to support tourism as a key contributor to economy and jobs in the County.
- It is a priority to preserve the small town, rural, quality of life for residents of the County.
- It is a priority to move the needle regarding affordable workforce housing availability in the County.
The citizen group has been meeting publicly at the Ruby Sisson Memorial Library. The group’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14 at noon at the library. Anyone interested in the future of STR regulations in Archuleta County is welcome to attend and offer their ideas. The group intends to explore potential County policies related to additional fees and taxes at their next few meetings.
More about fees and taxes in a moment…
One interesting aspect to proposed density caps and STR-to-STR set-backs: if current STRs are ‘grandfathered’, then a limit placed on new STRs would theoretically benefit existing STRs by reducing the amount of industry competition. Such policies could potentially increased the bookings for the existing STRs, by preventing the industry from becoming ‘diluted’ with too many STRs.
The segments of the local economy, that might conceivably find new and more limiting County policies unattractive, would be the Pagosa real estate industry, and STR management companies.
One group that could conceivably argue in favor of density cap and set-backs would be our local motel and hotel owners. But that economic sector has been curiously silent during conversations about STR regulations.
Perhaps the most pressing decision facing the BOCC, at the moment, is whether to extend the moratorium on new STR permits, which was put in place last summer, and which — according to my reckoning — expired on March 1. The moratorium was deemed necessary to allow the commissioners to “hear from the community” about how STRs were affecting our tourism industry; our small town, rural, quality of life; and workforce housing availability.
According to information I’ve received from members of a separate STR task force — the task force organized by County Manager Derek Woodman at the request of the BOCC — the commissioners might be receiving a recommendation that the moratorium be allowed to expire.
At its meeting on December 6, 2022, the Pagosa Springs Town Council received a report from Root Policy Research on the short term rental ‘nexus’ study results. Based on the results, the annual supply and demand side impacts of short term rentals were quantified by the consultants at $2,687 per unit, per year — based upon 2020 numbers.
The Town Council will be discussing the possibility of implementing an impact fee on STRs at their meeting tonight, Tuesday March 7, at Town Hall at 5pm. The Town staff is recommending — if the Council wants to impose a ‘supply and demand’ based fee — that the fee apply equally to ‘owner-occupied’ and ‘investor-owned’ units. The staff is also recommending the fee be the same no matter how many bedrooms the unit contains.
You can download that report here.
A ‘fee’ can (theoretically) be imposed by the Council without voter participation, while a ‘tax’ would require voter approval A majority of the town voters, last April, approved a $150-per-bedroom-per-month fee. But a lawsuit filed by a number of downtown STR owners last summer resulted in that fee being invalidated.
Some of the data in the Root Policy report were from 2020 and 2021, so if the Council wanted to build an inflation factor into their fee…?
Another question. If the Town Council were to approve a fee of, say, $2,687… and generate a revenue stream of perhaps $300,000 a year… might that influence the BOCC’s future deliberations?