JOINT INFORMATION MEETING
AGENDA DOCUMENTATION
PREPARATION DATE: July 30, 2014
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2014
SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT: Town & County Planning
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: Tyler Sinclair
PRESENTER: Alex Norton
SUBJECT: Short-Term Rental Planning Policy
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to provide Staff with planning policy direction on the allowed term of rental of
residential units outside of the Lodging Overlay, Planned Resorts, and designated PUDs.
BACKGROUND
• 1994: Town and County classify short-term rental of a residential unit as a commercial
use and limit lodging and short-term rental to the Lodging Overlay and Planned
Resort Districts, and certain grandfathered PUDs. “No residential unit shall be
rented for less than 30 days.”
• 2007: County Planning Director decides not to enforce “No residential unit shall be
rented for less than 30 days,” in situations where only 1 rental occurs every 30
days.
• July 2013: At the regular JIM, the BCC directs Staff to continue to enforce residential rental
limit on a complaint basis. Council directs Staff to research a licensing program
and more actively enforce the residential rental limit. No discussion was had on
the County Planning Director’s enforcement policy.
• Fall 2013: Dan Baker, a County resident, applies for a Text Amendment to add requirements
to the LDRs that would prohibit the 2007 County Planning Director enforcement
policy.
• February 18, 2014: BCC denies Mr. Baker’s amendment application. BCC directs County Staff that
the County Planning Director’s 2007 enforcement policy is inconsistent with the
plain language of the LDRs that, “no residential unit shall be rented for less than
30 days,” and directs that Staff should strictly interpret the plain language of the
LDRs. The BCC expressed interest in discussing with the Town continuation of
the policy of prohibiting short-term rental of residential units.
• May 12, 2014: At the regular JIM, Staff presented its recommendation regarding short-term rental
policy moving forward. No direction was given to Staff.
• June 2, 2014: At the regular JIM, the Council and BCC expressed interest in a policy of
allowing 1 rental, of any period of occupancy, every 31 days; however, Staff
needs clearer direction.
The first direction on this issue came in February from the BCC to County Staff. The BCC was
unanimous in its determination that allowing 1 rental, of any period of occupancy, every 30 days is
inconsistent with the letter and intent of the current LDRs that, “no residential unit shall be rented for less
than 30 days.” The BCC was undecided in February as to whether the LDRs should be amended in the
future to change the policy, but clear as to the meaning of the existing regulation.
In June, the Council and BCC took steps toward direction that the LDRs should be amended to allow 1
rental, of any period of occupancy, every 31 days. Some members of the Council believe this is what the
regulation currently allows. Given the BCC’s February direction, the conclusion of the June JIM would
require amendment of the County LDRs to allow 1 rental, of any period of occupancy every 31 days.
The below table compares the current LDRs under the BCC’s February direction with Staff’s
understanding of the conclusion from the June JIM as they would relate to seven possible residential unit
rental scenarios.
Scenarios
1. House swap
2. Multiple short-term rentals per 31-days
3. Overlapping 31-day rentals
4. 1 short-term rental per 31-days
5. 31-day lease, contract limits occupancy
6. 31-day lease, renter voluntarily leaves early, owner moves back in
7. 31-day lease, renter is the only occupant
Current LDRs
(BCC 2/18/14)
Silent
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Allowed
June JIM
Allow
Prohibit
Prohibit
Allow
Allow
Allow
Allow
Before Staff takes steps to update the LDRs or modify enforcement policy to align with the conclusions
reached at the June JIM, Staff is requesting final policy direction on the rental of residential units outside
the Lodging Overlay, Planned Resorts, and designated PUDs.
ANALYSIS
Since 1994, lodging and short-term rental have been limited to the Lodging Overlay, Planned Resorts, and
designated PUDs. The purpose for this limit is to protect residential neighborhoods, balance community
and resort character, and consolidate visitors to limit impacts while increasing economic activity. The
purposes of the Lodging Overlay and Planned Resort span the Town and the County. Not all impacts from
short-term rental apply in all areas of the community, but as a whole they work together to protect our
overall community character. For example, impacts to neighborhood character and workforce housing that
are present in Town and other complete neighborhoods, may not be present on large rural parcels.
Conversely, impacts to wildlife and natural resources from allowing short-term rental in rural areas of the
County are not an issue in Town.
− Protection of residential neighborhoods from the impacts of lodging use.
While the community welcomes visitors as the basis of its economy, a visitor has a different
interaction with a neighborhood than a resident. Visitors and residents have different schedules
that can come into conflict. Residents will see each other again and have a neighborly respect that
is not built with guests who are only here for a short period of time. Visitors do not maintain their
own accommodations, and while some residents hire maintenance help, most do at least some
maintenance themselves. The principle of “community first, resort second” is predicated on the
observation of peer communities that a visitor-occupied neighborhood has a different character
than a resident-occupied neighborhood. Mr. Baker’s 2013 proposed amendment to the LDRs, and
the public comment over the last 6 months, indicate that the neighborhood impact of short-term
rentals is felt from just one or two rentals a year, in many areas of the Town and County.
On large properties in rural areas, the distance between neighbors may dissipate typical
neighborhood impacts. However, short-term rental of large rural properties still impacts the intent
of concentrating lodging uses in areas with visitor services (see below).
− Balance of lodging with other commercial and residential uses.
The community has adopted interrelated ecosystem stewardship, growth management, and quality
of life principles. In order to implement all of the policies, a comprehensive balance between
residential, commercial and lodging uses is needed. The largest impact to this balance of allowing
short-term rental of residential units, even 1 short-term rental per month, is on workforce housing.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies two potential sources of workforce housing demand. The first
is employee generation from new development and has been studied and mitigated by the
community since 1994. The second is a newly identified threat: the loss, also termed “leakage”, of
existing workforce housing stock. Allowing short-term rental of residential units will contribute to
the first source of demand by generating more housekeeping and other employees to maintain the
units than would be generated by residential use of the units. Many such service sector employees
make low wages and have the lease ability to find affordable housing in the community.
Yet, it is this second source of demand on which short-term rental has the greatest impact. A quick
comparison of www.vrbo.com and the current long-term rental market shows that a unit can be
rented for 1 week for about 150% of what a comparable unit can be rented for monthly. In other
words, an investment buyer makes the same rental income renting a unit for a year to a member of
the workforce as she/he would renting the unit 8 weeks of the year to visitors while retaining the
ability to occupy the unit her/himself the other 44 weeks of the year. Even allowing 1 short-term
rental per month shows an economic advantage to short-term rental of investment properties over
long-term rental. The well publicized lack of long-term rental opportunities cannot be solely
attributed to short-term rental; however, Staff believes that allowing short-term rental of
residential units will increase demand for workforce housing by decreasing the existing supply of
rental units that will be on the long-term rental market.
This issue is especially applicable in Town where 56% of occupied housing units are rented.
However, there are many modest properties in the County that are rented long-term in places like
Rafter J, Nethercott, or Hoback. In fact, about 25% of occupied units in the County are rented.
It may be true that on the large rural properties the workforce housing impact of short-term rental
is minimal because such properties would not otherwise be in the long-term rental pool and the
employee generation to maintain such properties is the same regardless of whether they are short-
term rented. However, regardless of the impacts to workforce housing, short-term rental of
otherwise vacant homes in the County is still inconsistent with the community’s goals to
concentrate lodging uses in areas with visitor services (see below).
− Concentration of lodging uses in areas with visitor services.
The community’s desire to concentrate the impacts of development in already developed areas is
even greater in the 2012 Comprehensive Plan than it was in 1994. Consolidation of residential or
lodging units limits the use and traffic impacts on natural and scenic resources the community
hopes to preserve. By locating visitors within walking distance of visitor services they may not
need to rent a car or use their vehicle at all once they arrive. Concentrating lodging and visitor
services also makes those services more visible, available, and convenient to visitors – increasing
the benefit to the tourist based economy.
In rural areas, the 2012 Comprehensive Plan direction is to limit impacts to wildlife, natural
resources and scenic resources, and increase preservation and conservation. In these areas a vacant
second home is more desirable than a second home rented short-term while the owner is away. If
the unit is rented long-term the workforce housing benefits balance the natural resource impacts
similarly to owner occupation of the unit. The Comprehensive Plan also directs the community to
make decisions based on desired future character, even in the face of potential increased sales tax
revenue, realizing that the long-term economic health of our community is dependent upon
preservation of both our natural and social character.
ALTERNATIVES
Instead of trying to provide direction on a specific definition or LDR language, Staff suggests the Council
and Board provide direction on how certain scenarios should be addressed. With direction provided on
each scenario, Staff will propose the appropriate changes to the LDRs and/or make the appropriate
changes to enforcement policy. At the meeting, the Council and Board will discuss the 7 scenarios used
above to compare past direction. Some of the scenarios may appear obvious, and past direction on them
has been consistent. However, the obvious scenarios are included to help understand the characteristics of
the more nuanced, complex scenarios. Below are the 7 scenarios that will be presented at the meeting,
Staff’s recommended option for each scenario is bolded.
1. Scenario 1: House swap
• Example: A homeowner swaps houses for a week with a friend in California: the friend
stays here for a week in the homeowner’s unit, while the homeowner stays in the
friend’s unit.
• Options:
A. Allow (June Conclusion) (Staff Recommendation)
The current regulations are silent on house swaps; however, Staff has never
enforced house swaps as short-term rentals. Staff is aware of peer
communities that have addressed the issue by allowing 3 house swaps per
year before any additional permitting is required. Legal review indicates that
house swaps are generally considered “bread and butter” exchanges and that
treating them differently from short-term rental is standard.
Staff recommends clarifying in the LDRs that a house swap is allowed as
guest stay and does not constitute short-term rental. Staff does not
recommend instating a limit on house swaps until excessive house swapping
becomes an issue. Staff believes that the “guest” relationship between the
homeowner and the other person in the swap mitigates many of the
neighborhood impact concerns of short-term rental. The limited number of
house exchanges that occur and the lack of compensation, mitigate
workforce housing concerns. Because house swaps are of already occupied
units, they do not add impact to natural resources in rural areas in the same
way short-term rental of an otherwise vacant unit would.
B. Prohibit There has been no discussion of prohibiting house swaps to date. However,
to a neighbor, a house swap may seem no different than a short-term rental;
see above for Staff’s distinction.
2. Scenario 2: Continuous short-term rental
• Example: A homeowner rents her unit for 5 nights, turns it over and rents it for 7 nights, it
sits vacant for 8 nights, she rents it for 10 nights, and so on, with as many rentals
back-to-back rentals occurring as the market will bear.
• Options:
A. Allow To date, the Board and Council have not discussed allowing multiple shortterm rentals per 31 days outside of the Lodging Overlay, Planned Resorts,
and designated PUDs. Such an allowance is no different from allowing
lodging use. Allowing such rental of a residential unit would eliminate the
need for a Lodging Overlay.
B. Prohibit (Current LDRs) (June Conclusion) (Staff Recommendation)
The Comprehensive Plan adopted in May 2012 affirms the concept of the
Lodging Overlay and the need for distinguishing lodging uses from
residential uses. The prohibition of continuous short-term rental of
residential units is consistent with the neighborhood, workforce housing, and
natural resource protections discussed in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Scenario 3: Overlapping 31-day rentals
• Example: A homeowner rents his unit for 31 days, the renter leaves after 10 days, as soon
as the renter is gone, before the remaining 21 days of the original lease have
passed, the homeowner turns the unit over and rents the unit again under another
31-day lease.
• Options:
A. Allow There has been no advocacy for overlapping 31-day rentals. Such an
allowance is no different from allowing lodging use, but creates two-faced
contractual relationship when essentially what is being allowed is continuous
short-term rental. Allowing such rental of a residential unit would eliminate
the need for a Lodging Overlay.
B. Prohibit (Current LDRs) (June Conclusion) (Staff Recommendation)
The Comprehensive Plan adopted in May 2012 affirms the concept of the
Lodging Overlay and the need for distinguishing lodging uses from
residential uses. The prohibition of continuous short-term rental of
residential units, including overlapping 31-day leases, is consistent with the
neighborhood, workforce housing, natural resource, and transportation
impact protections discussed in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Scenario 4: One short-term rental per 31 days
• Example: A homeowner rents her unit for 5 nights, waits 26 days, rents the unit for 7
nights, waits 24 days, and so on, renting the unit for any period of time each
month so long as there is only one rental each month.
• Options:
A. Allow (June Conclusion as interpreted by Staff)
Staff’s understanding from the June JIM was that 1 rental should be allowed
every 31 days, and that the Town and County should not further regulate
occupancy. The Board and Council concluded that the impacts on residential
character and workforce housing are only a function of multiple short-term
rentals per month, and that one such rental per month does not create the a
negative impact. The Council also concluded that this has always been the
intended allowance within the current regulations. (The Board provided clear
direction in February that allowing this scenario is inconsistent with the letter
and intent of the current regulations)
With a policy that does not limit occupancy, there is no reason to require a
31 day lease that prohibits the property owner from protecting herself
through a contract. Either way, Staff has to enforce the same limitation of 1
rental per 31 days.
B. Prohibit (Current LDRs per BCC 2/18/14) (Staff Recommendation)
The amendment to the County LDRs proposed by Dan Baker in 2013, as
well as public comment received over the past 6 months on this issue would
indicate that neighbors are concerned about the impact from even a limited
number of short-term rentals. Staff also believes that in complete
neighborhoods and other areas where long-term rental product exists,
allowing one short-term rental per month poses a significant threat to
preservation of existing workforce housing stock by promoting second home
investment over long-term rental investment. Moving forward, preservation
of existing workforce housing stock is as important (if not more) as
producing new workforce housing stock, because the growth management
principles of the community will not allow us to build our way out of our
workforce housing shortage. In rural areas where long-term rental is unlikely
and neighborhood impacts are mitigated by distance, allowing short-term
rental of otherwise vacant units is inconsistent with the Comp Plan direction
to limit impacts. A vacant second home has less impact on wildlife and
natural resources than a short-term rented second home.
This scenario represents the policy the County Planning Director
implemented in 2007, which the Board has stated is inconsistent with the
letter and intent of the current regulations. Staff recommends that the Town
and County prohibit allowance of any short-term rental of residential units
outside of the Lodging Overlay, Planned Resort, and designated PUDs.
C. Telluride A third option would be to allow a certain number of short-term rentals each
Model year as an accessory use to a principal residential use. This is the model
Telluride, Colorado uses because for 3 different weeks per year Telluride
transforms from a community into a festival venue. As a result, each year
Telluride allows 3 short-term rentals for a total of 21 days. While our
community does not have the festival character of Telluride, a similar
approach, using whatever numbers we find appropriate, could be
implemented to allow a limited number of short-term rentals each year. If
such a model was adopted, any other scenario trying to achieve short-term
rental outside of the limited allowance would have to be prohibited.
5. Scenario 5: 31-day lease, with a clause limiting renter occupancy
• Example: A homeowner rents his unit through a 31-day lease, however the lease includes a
clause limiting renter occupancy to 9 days, once the 31-day lease expires he
rents it for another 31 days with the lease limiting renter occupancy to 7 days,
and so on, with the rental occupancy limitation equaling the period the
vacationer intends to stay.
• Options:
A. Allow (June Conclusion)
The Scenario 4 discussion of the conclusion of the June JIM applies to this
scenario as well. The community perceives no difference between a 31-day
lease with a 7-day occupancy clause and a 7-day lease.
Requiring a 31 day lease may make it less likely that a unit will be rented
multiple times in one month, but requires the homeowner to enter into a
lease for a period of time when the renter has no right to occupancy.
B. Prohibit (Current LDRs per BCC 2/18/14) (Staff Recommendation)
The Scenario 4 discussion of the impacts of 1 short-term rental per 31 days
applies to this scenario as well. The community perceives no difference
between a 31-day lease with a 7-day occupancy clause and a 7-day lease.
Staff recommends that the Town and County prohibit allowance of any
short-term rental of residential units outside the Lodging Overlay, Planned
Resort, and designated PUDs, including short-term rental achieved by
limiting occupancy within a 31 day lease.
6. Scenario 6: 31-day lease, renter voluntarily leaves early, owner moves back in
• Example: A homeowner rents her unit through a 31-day lease, the renter voluntarily
terminates the lease and leaves after 8 days, the homeowner moves back in for
the remaining 23 days in the original lease period, following that period of
owner occupancy, the homeowner then rents the unit for another 31 days, the
renter voluntarily terminates the lease and leaves after 4 days, the homeowner
moves back in for 27 days, and so on, for as many months per year as the
homeowner wants and can find a vacation renter.
• Options:
A. Allow (June Conclusion)
The Scenario 4 discussion of the conclusion of the June JIM applies to this
scenario as well. The community perceives no difference between a 31-day
lease where the renter voluntarily leaves after 7-days and a 7-day lease. In
addition to the Scenario 4 discussion, the Board and Council questioned
whether we can prohibit and enforce the homeowner from occupying her
unit.
Allowing this scenario while prohibiting Scenarios 4 and 5 would require
that in order to achieve one short-term rental per month, the owner and renter
would have to come to an under-the-table agreement and the renter would
have to terminate the lease upon leaving. This additional burden may limit
the number of short-term rentals because it increases a property owner’s
exposure, however it still allows for under-the-table short-term rental.
B. Prohibit (Current LDRs per BCC 2/18/14) (Staff Recommendation)
The Scenario 4 discussion of the impacts of 1 short-term rental per 31 days
applies to this scenario as well. The community perceives no difference
between a 31-day lease where the renter voluntarily leaves after 7-days and a
7-day lease. Prohibiting this scenario does not prohibit the owner from
occupying her unit. The re-occupancy by the owner is the indicator that the
owner rented her unit for less than 30 days. The remedy is not to evict the
owner; the remedy is to enforce the violation, which was the rental for less
than 30 days.
Staff recommends that the Town and County prohibit allowance of any
short-term rental of residential units outside of the Lodging Overlay, Planned
Resort, and designated PUDs, including the allowance for a renter to
voluntarily leave and the owner move back in after less than 31 days. If the
unit is rented for 31 days the renter should have the right to occupy the unit
for all 31 days. If owner and renter occupancy of the unit at the same time
meets the standards of the LDRs, the Town and County would regulate when
the owner and renter occupy the unit. If owner and renter occupancy of the
unit at the same time would be prohibited by the LDRs (i.e. would not meet
the definition of family) the owner must decide whether to rent the unit or
occupy it.
7. Scenario 7: 31-day lease, renter only occupant
• Example: A homeowner rents his unit for 31 days, the only occupant of the unit during that
period is the renter, the renter may not be there every day but the renter is
allowed to be there every day.
• Options:
A. Allow (Current LDRs) (June Conclusion) (Staff Recommendation)
This scenario is the month-to-month lease. Month-to-month lease is
consistent with building code and tax code distinctions between residential
and commercial use. Some have argued that there could be a month when the
renter is there for less than 31 days and the rental has the perception of a
short-term rental. However, Staff has never had a complaint related to this
scenario. Complaints are generally the result of Scenarios 4, 5, or 6. The
presence of Scenarios 5 and 6 is a result of the lack of homeowner comfort
with a 31-day lease to achieve a short-term rental objective. In fact, public
comment has indicated that neither visitors nor owners are interested in a 31
day lease period for vacation rental without limitations such as those
discussed in Scenario 5. Generally, Staff does not believe that 31-day leases
will result in what is characteristically equivalent to short-term rental. While
renters and owner-occupants may have slightly different characters, staff
believes that month-to-month rental is a residential character not a lodging
character. Staff also believes that allowing month-to-month rental provides
workforce housing opportunities.
Staff recommends that month-to-month rental of residential units be allowed
to continue. Staff recommends that the LDR language be clarified to state
that renter occupancy may not be limited to less than 31 days.
B. 90-Day An alternative would be to require that any rented residential unit be rented
Rental for a term of at least 90 days. This requirement would be consistent with the
Minimum current County requirement for rented Accessory Residential Units. The
purpose of the County’s ARU requirement is to ensure that rented ARUs are
rented to the workforce.
Staff is concerned that requiring a 90-day lease term for all residential rental
may actually reduce available workforce housing, as some owners do not
want to commit to a lengthy term, but would rent their unit month-to-month.
The likelihood of abuse of the 31-day rental rule is greater for ARUs than
primary residences, because in the case of the ARU, the owner is still there
to monitor the unit, and renting the unit for a full 31 days does not impact the
owner’s living situation. In the case of ARUs, staff feels that a 90-day
requirement is appropriate, but believes a 31-day rental requirement for
principal residential units best implements the Comprehensive Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
n/a
STAFF IMPACT
The Staff impact of enforcing an allowance of short-term rental will be greater than the Staff impact of
enforcing a prohibition of short-term rental. There will likely be fewer violations if short-term rental is
fully prohibited than if some short-term rental is allowed. Bending the rules of what is allowed is more
common than violating a prohibition. In addition, the Staff impact of researching and demonstrating
violation with an allowance will be greater than enforcing a prohibition. For example if the code
enforcement officer gets a complaint under the prohibition, the research involves proving the term of stay
and evaluating the lease. If some short-term rental is allowed, the research involves tracking past rentals,
evaluating their terms, and proving the stay of past occupants.
LEGAL REVIEW
The Town Attorney’s office has researched house swaps and believes at this time that they can be treated
differently from short-term rentals. The County Attorney’s office has reviewed this report and supports
Staff’s findings and recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS
•
Public Comment received since July 3, 2014 (public comment submitted prior to July 3 has been
provided in previous staff reports and is available upon request)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following direction with regard to the seven scenarios presented.
Scenario
Staff Recommendation
1. House swap
Allow
2. Continuous short-term rental
Prohibit
3. Overlapping 31-day rentals
Prohibit
4. 1 short-term rental per 31-days
Prohibit
5. 31-day lease, contract limits occupancy
Prohibit
6. 31-day lease, renter voluntarily leaves early, owner moves back in
Prohibit
7. 31-day lease, renter is the only occupant
Allow
If the Board and Council provide direction to propose only minor changes to the LDRs to provide clarification
as recommended by Staff, those changes can be implemented in the LDR restructure and administrative update
process that is currently underway. If the Board and Council provide direction to propose significant changes
to the current LDRs, such as developing the Telluride model or changing to a 90-day requirement, then Staff
feels strongly that any proposed changes need to be reviewed through a separate process. That process could be
a standalone LDR amendment, or it could be a part of one of the larger amendments to update the LDRs.
SUGGESTED MOTION
County:
I move to direct Staff to implement the direction provided by the Board of County Commissioners on the
seven scenarios presented today by Staff through appropriate Land Development Regulation amendments
and enforcement policies.
Town:
I move to direct Staff to implement the direction provided by the Town Council on the seven scenarios
presented today by Staff through appropriate Land Development Regulation amendments and
enforcement policies.
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Becky Frisbie <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:31 AM
County Commissioners
Short term rentals
Dear commissioners After reading yesterday's paper, I would like to voice my opinion. When I show property to prospective buyers, I always make the statement that only certain neighborhoods allow for vacation rentals. These areas are resort areas. Anything out of the resort areas are not transient neighborhoods. The 30 days or longer definition of long term rentals apply to all areas outside the resort designation. By allowing a shorter term within that month only opens the doors to the same situation we have been dealing with for years. The policing of this ruling will again be left to neighbors. If the county is alerted to an infraction, what happens next? In john dodge we have dealt with one home that was constantly rented on a short term basis and the owner, when confronted, responded that the visitors were family members and friends. The county employee accepted this explanation and nothing was further done. Interesting that family and friends had to go on‐line and look at the calendar of availability! In a perfect world, one might think the proposed rule would be followed; however, I feel if the door is slightly ajar, vacation rentals will continue with no regard for the rules. Owners of properties in resort zonings purchase many times with the intent of receiving rental income. Many times, premiums are paid for this privilege. Other buyers purchase in a neighborhood where consistency of neighbors is professed. Please don't blend the two! Thanks Sent from my iPhone Becky Frisbie Associate Broker JH Sotheby's International Realty Box 3281 Jackson WY 83001 307.690.2832 cell 1
G. Bland Hoke, Jr.
July 3, 2014
Teton County Commissioners
Teton County Court House
Jackson, Wyoming
Dear Commissioners,
Over the past several months I have been following the discussion on short term
rentals. When the initial discussion started, I was most supportive since I felt
that there might be a real effort to stop the illegal rental of property to
vacationers for short periods of time. Where this discussion went off the rails
and has morphed into the impending disaster is anybody’s guess, but from what
I can tell from the news articles something has gone dramatically wrong.
In our new Comprehensive Plan, one of the goals was the protection of existing
neighborhoods. The residents of these neighborhoods did not bargain to have a
quasi-commercial hotel operation next door. People buy into neighborhoods
with a certain expectation that their neighbors will be homeowners or long
term renters with a certain respect for their neighbors. The introduction of
transient overnight guests is just not compatible with this concept.
The idea that the citizens of this community who have elected you are now
going to be expected to divine by some means whether their neighbor is renting
one/five or ten times a month is not reasonable. And if they do contact the
authorities what would the action be? Are you going to cancel all the further
reservations of unknowing tenants who will find no other place to rent? This
would really reflect horribly on the Jackson community.
In many subdivisions in the County, the Covenants did not spell out the
restriction on short term rentals, depending instead on the long held position of
the County that rents had to be for 30 days or longer unless in resort districts. If
you take what appears to be this new direction you will be putting all of these
residential areas in a state of limbo with regard to short term rentals. This is just
not an acceptable change.
I could go into the whole issue of workforce housing and its negative impact but
I am sure you have heard this before.
For so many reasons I implore you not to change this 30 day rule. That rule is
not broken but just needs attention to enforcement, as was the original intent
of the discussion.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bland Hoke
Elizabeth S. Hoke
July 4, 2014
Teton County Commissioners
Teton County Court House
Jackson, Wyoming
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to echo Bland’s comments to you in a separate letter opposing any change to the
County’s long-standing regulations limiting short term rentals outside the resort districts. I
would also like to add one illustration.
For several years there was a homeowner in the John Dodge Subdivision, Third Filing, who
rented their home through VRBO. The home was advertised as sleeping 24 people (in illegallybuilt apartment spaces, I might add). It was very evident that they were renting it on a weekly
basis beginning in mid May through October, then starting again during the winter season,
because the vehicles changed every Saturday. You could also see the rental bookings on the
VRBO website. The renters wandered through the neighborhood, oblivious to private property
yards. Their trash frequently littered the roads. There were sometimes four to five vehicles
parked in the driveway, roadside, and in their yard.
During this period of time the County enforcement officer was contacted repeatedly over the
years, but not one thing was ever done – no letter, no communication with the owner –
nothing. The abusive rentals continued. Finally the enforcement officer did reach the owner,
who claimed that the use of the house was only for “relatives”. Still it was advertised in RVBO.
Eventually the property was sold, and the new owners continued the illegal rentals with hardly
a break. It was only until the homeowner’s association took legal action that the illegal rentals
stopped.
Unless and until the County can enforce the existing rules they have on the books, how can you
possibly think about adding more complexity to the laws? I also resent the notion that
enforcement is left to the hands of citizen vigilantes rather than county government.
Thank you for your consideration. Now let’s have a decision and move on.
Best,
Liza Hoke
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jessica Crandall <[email protected]>
Monday, July 07, 2014 11:05 AM
Town Council; County Commissioners
Short Term Rentals
Dear Commissioners, Town Council Members, and Mayor:
I have lived in Jackson for 3 1/2 years so I am either a local or brand new to town, depending on your
perspective. I am lucky enough to have an affordable, conveniently located apartment that allows me
to have a dog. However, if my landlord decided to sell, raise the rent exorbitantly or rent the
apartment short term in order to make more money, there is literally, and I mean that, literally,
nowhere for me to live. Even if I gave up my dog at the shelter - which I would never do, as my dog is a
member of my family and I couldn't just dispose of her because it was no longer convenient for the
landlords around here to accommodate pets- I would have to move to another state or another county
in order to continue working at my job as a paralegal and living in place that is my home. And even if I
was willing and able to move to Idaho or Alpine, there is barely any housing available in those towns,
either. The fact of the matter is that if I lost my apartment, I would be forced to leave Jackson, leave
my employer with almost no notice, and be ousted from Jackson simply because there is nowhere to
live because the people who buy property here and live here for a few weeks or months a year are
greedy and don't care about the character of the valley, about the people who live here and make their
homes here, and simply bought a vacation home without any thought for - or perhaps an intentional
disregard for - the people who live here full time, year round, and not when fancy takes them.
I understand that property rights are an important right. But if preserving "property rights" means
that you have to be wealthy to live in Jackson, if it means that only rich people get to live here and the
minions who serve them are not worthy or capable of living here, this will no longer be a good place to
work, or live, or vacation, or visit. It will still be beautiful. But it will no longer be a place with class
diversity, where you can make it if you just try hard enough.
Please stop allowing landlords to dispose of long term tenants when it suits them just to get richer.
Say no to short term rentals.
Sincerely,
Jessica Crandall
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Olivia Goodale <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42 PM
Tyler Sinclair; Alex Norton; Paul Anthony
Olivia Goodale; Stephanie Hix
FW: Vote AGAINST legalizing short-term rentals
From: Nick Grenoble [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Town Council
Subject: Vote AGAINST legalizing short-term rentals
Dear Councilmen:
I understand that today you are debating short-term rentals in Jackson. I am emailing to urge you NOT to
legalize short-term rentals, and I encourage you to do more to enforce our existing ban on short-term rentals.
We have a housing crisis in this community and I expect that any politician representing the members of our
community will not exacerbate this crisis by increasing the demand for our limited housing supply.
I run a small business in Jackson, and I can no longer hire people to join my team because they cannot find
places to live. As of this morning, July 7, there are two Teton County properties listed for rent in the classifieds.
Despite the current ban on short-term rentals, there are 7 properties listed on airbnb.com, a vacation rental byowner website. The Clear Creek Group has an entire portfolio of vacation rental properties available.
I live in East Jackson next to a short-term rental. The noise is a nuisance. We don't know our neighbors on that
side because they rotate weekly. That house could be sheltering some of Jackson's community members, but
instead it serves tourists. Our visitors have options of places to stay and a thriving lodging market to support
them. The middle class does not have housing options unless they are willing to live outside of the county. The
ones who are lucky enough to have rental housing and a means to pay for it are being abused by their landlords
amid this out-of-control rental market. Upon re-signing my lease this year my rent went up $450/month, and my
landlord explicitly said he felt he was cutting me a break and could get even more if he opened the place up on
the market. I no longer have tenant rights de-facto because no matter how neglectful landlords are, in this
market they will have no trouble filling even the most dilapidated and expensive housing. Although I am a
strong proponent of free markets, this is one market that needs to be managed if we are going to sustain a
community in Teton County.
This is a housing crisis. The middle class is struggling. Local businesses are hurting as a result. Vote against
legalizing short-term rentals and do more to enforce this ban. We must address the housing crisis with every
available resource if we want to keep our middle class in Jackson.
I will be attending the meeting this afternoon and available to answer any questions you may have for me. As a
business owner employing sixteen educators, a single man, and a twenty-something-year-old trying to
determine if I can build a life and family in this lovely community, I may be able to offer some perspective on
what this housing crisis is doing to my peers and me.
Thank you for your time reading this email and your service to our community.
Sincerely,
1
A. Nick Grenoble
Director, Teton Educational Services
(307) 201-1451 (Office)
[email protected]
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, July 07, 2014 11:23 AM
County Commissioners; Town Council
Short-Term Rentals
Good Morning,
I understand that today at 3:00 p.m., your informational meeting will include a discussion of legalizing short-term rentals in
Teton County. I am writing to express my deep opposition to this proposal.
In addition to ruining neighborhood character and burdening adjacent or nearby residences with the parking difficulties
and noise issues that are associated with short-term renters, permitting more short-term rentals in Teton County will place
a tremendous strain on our already dire rental housing market. Our local workforce is being squeezed out of Jackson by
unprecedented increases in monthly rent and a dramatically decreased rental housing supply. It is destroying the fabric of
our community and forcing people who have lived here for a decade or more to move away, which is, in turn, leaving local
business owners with a critical shortage in employees. Some businesses have been forced to close on certain nights due
to understaffing, which has a direct impact on our economy, our sales tax revenue, and ultimately our viability as we try to
maintain our position as a worldwide tourism destination. What good does it do to encourage more people to visit
Jackson if there is no one to work at the establishments that serve them because those employees couldn't find a place to
live?
Property owners in this area clearly stand to earn more money by making their homes available to short-term renters than
by renting them to year-round residents. But there are far more individuals in need of long-term housing in this area than
there are property owners (who are already at a distinct advantage over those of us without the means to own a home
here) in need of even more income. We need to take care of the low- and middle-class year-round residents, or we will all
suffer.
Please remember that you represent every resident of this county, and not just wealthy property owners.
Thank you for your time,
Rosslyn Read
Rosslyn Read, Attorney at Law
TREFONAS LAW, P.C.
P.O. Box 2527, Jackson WY 83001
80 East Pearl, Jackson WY 83001
Telephone: (307) 203-9019
Facsimile: (800) 572-6458
www.TrefonasLaw.com
***Note***This email and any attachments may contain confidential information and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sections
2510-2521. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you received this
transmission in error, please destroy it and notify me immediately at the telephone number provided (collect if needed). Reproduction, including forwarding, of this
email without permission is prohibited by law.
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leah Shlachter <[email protected]>
Monday, July 07, 2014 9:09 AM
County Commissioners; Town Council
NO to short term housing!
Please keep short-term housing illegal.
Leah Shlachter
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Becky Frisbie <[email protected]>
Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:20 AM
County Commissioners
Short term rentals
I plead again to not allow short term rentals in any form or fashion outside the resort zonings. I am not sure who is convincing you to go the direction you are going. If you are listening to property owners who say they need this form of renting to pay their mortgage, or if it is the big property management companies who say they received permission to handle rentals this way, they are not the majority of owners in the county. I think you will making a huge mistake if you open this door! Thanks for your consideration. Sent from my iPhone Becky Frisbie Associate Broker JH Sotheby's International Realty Box 3281 Jackson WY 83001 307.690.2832 cell 1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Olivia Goodale <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:17 PM
Tyler Sinclair; Alex Norton; Paul Anthony
Stephanie Hix
FW: Short Term Rental Debate
Public comment From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Stanford
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:25 PM
To: Jim Stanford
Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rental Debate
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: STACY FISHER <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM
Subject: Short Term Rental Debate
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Hi Jim,
My husband attended the town/county meeting yesterday hoping to give public commentary. That was not
allowed, nor was there much indication of that happening anytime soon. What can we do to voice our opinion
as the working class of JH? We have been here 11 years, lived in our same cabin for 9, and it recently sold. We
are now being dumped into the rental market of our nightmares this coming September 30.
We have followed 20 different leads on housing, all of which were dead in the water as soon as we called. We
applied for affordable ownership, and even though we were approved by 3 banks for a loan, did not win the
lottery because it is completely saturated with people just like us scrambling to continue to exist here. I do not
understand why the town and county can let people like us, two small business owners, face the possibility of
having to close our businesses and move. The argument that these people need short term rental income to
sustain their mortgage payment is a weak and irresponsible point. They should not have been able to purchase
the property if they could not afford it on their own. They could absolutely pay it the way they used to: with
long-term responsible renters like us. Greed....is the issue. This issue has already created an even bigger divide
between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Have hotel owners complained over the fact that they pay taxes and licensure, and anyone now can be a
hotelier? Do elected officials want tourism to be the only source of economy? The businesses my husband and I
operate support the year-round, local people of JH, not tourists. I thought Jackson was to be known first as a
town, and second as a resort.
Obviously we are frustrated, upset, and feeling defeated. I know you are working hard against a very strong,
wealthy majority. Please continue to fight for the real people that work and are trying desperately to remain
here. Please advise us how we can voice our opinion. I plan on writing to the other members of the town and
county separately.
Thank you,
Stacy Hamby
1
-Jim Stanford
Editor, Jackson Hole Underground
www.jhunderground.com
307.690.0626
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Olivia Goodale <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:16 PM
Tyler Sinclair; Alex Norton; Paul Anthony
Stephanie Hix
FW: Town Council
Public comment From: Jim Stanford [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 12:02 PM
To: Jim Stanford
Subject: FW: Town Council
Jim Stanford
writer/photographer
(307) 690-0626
www.jhunderground.com
From: [email protected]
Subject: Town Council
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 08:11:05 -0600
To: [email protected]
Dear Jim,
Nuth’in but the truth, and the whole truth……keep the mayor’s feet to the fire.
In Kelly, Danny Budge ousted two worker rentals so he could short term rent to tourons for the
summer and make more money.
Also, the short term rental rules proposed by the mayor are unenforceable unless you become a full
time policer of your neighbors. Who has the time or interest, a bigger nuisance than a hotel next
door.
And a data point: Last summer in my area of Kelly, covered by covenants, we had a short term
rental situation. Sixteen of seventeen lot owners voted to make the short term rental period sixty
days because we could not police thirty days. Nerver seen such unanimity on any issue in Kelly as
this one….people do not want a hotel next to the house they worked their lives to own…..
Are we going to be a community first or a resort first?
justin
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike Fischer <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 09, 2014 6:12 PM
County Commissioners
short term rentals
I am constantly amazed when county issues that should be a no brainer become embattled.This county needs
foreword thinking intelligent decisions that further a logical stable future. Logical decisions I am afraid are
seldom made.This is not an issue about real locals trying to make ends meet,it is about second, third,tenth home
owners enriching themselves further at the expense of quality of life and viability our community.Every person
in this community whom you are out to touch with feels the same as I . Mike&Marcy Fischer, Wilson
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Olivia Goodale <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:43 PM
Tyler Sinclair; Alex Norton; Paul Anthony
Olivia Goodale; Stephanie Hix
FW: Vote AGAINST legalizing short-term rentals
From: Nick Grenoble [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:22 AM
To: Jim Stanford
Subject: Re: Vote AGAINST legalizing short-term rentals
Thanks for your email, Jim. I was recently discussing this issue with our mutual friend, Pamela Periconi, and
she recommended that I contact you directly. I appreciate your efforts as well as your comment in last week's
meeting that the concerns of Phibbs, Ellis, and Barron regarding house-swapping is not the real issue that we
need to focus on.
This is an issue that I care deeply about, and I want to do what I can to help build some grassroots pressure. If
you have the time, I would love to grab a coffee and discuss which strategies you think would be most effective.
Ideas have been churning in my head ranging from a Facebook group to a Terkel-esque collection of stories
about the affects of this housing crisis. If you have the time to share your advice about what strategies would be
most effective, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn from your wisdom and experience. I am
generally available Tuesday-Friday before noon, and I have some flexibility in my schedule during other times
as well. Of course, I am always in touch by email also. Please let me know if you have time to get together and,
if so, what works best for your schedule.
Again, thank you for all of your efforts to address our housing crisis. I will be in Maine during the August Joint
Info Meeting, but I am eager to do whatever I can in the meantime to illuminate the extent of this crisis before it
may be exacerbated with short term rentals.
Regards,
Nick
617.407.9171 (Cell)
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Olivia Goodale <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:55 PM
Tyler Sinclair; Alex Norton; Paul Anthony
Stephanie Hix
FW: Nancy Kobylski
From: STEVEN NANCY [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Jim Stanford
Subject: Nancy Kobylski
Hi Jim,
I am very concerned about changing laws that would allow a homeowner to rent out their home on a short term
lease.
This would be extremely detrimental to our neighborhoods.
Can you tell me what is happening with this and what I can do about it.
I am your neighbor. I live across the street from you in the yellow house next to Greg's house.
Thank You,
Nancy Kobylski
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mo Oleary <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:12 AM
Mark Barron; Don Frank; Bob Lenz; Jim Stanford; Hailey Morton Levinson
Editor, JH News & Guide
Short term rentals
To the Mayor and Town Council:
Why is it that elected officials are so set on changing our community that they ignore the advice of the town and
county attorneys?? These are not residential homes, they are a business and as such need to follow the same
rules as the rentals in the lodging overlay.
I believe that all short term rentals, under 1 month, should be restricted as they are currently supposed to be, to
the lodging overlay area.
As a property owner in a residential neighborhood, I do not want to have new renters next door every
week. Oh that's right, you say they can only rent for 1 week a month. Who is going to enforce that?? The same
people that are supposed to enforce not more than 3 unrelated people can live in one place? I am sure the
property owners and the companies that handle the rentals aren't. They are making lots and lots of money, I
saw one home for rent for $15,000 for the week. Who else is making money off all the services needed for
these rentals, the elected officials or their friends businesses?
Short term renters are here on vacation, to have fun, stay up late, enjoy themselves and do not care about
community neighborhoods. If I wanted to live with new neighbors every week, I would have bought in the
lodging overlay.
We do not need more vacation rentals, we need affordable rentals for the people who are trying to work and
live here.
Sincerely
Maureen O'Leary
790 E Broadway
Jackson
[email protected]
733-9075
1
2
Alex Norton
Cc:
Subject:
Armond Acri <[email protected]>
Friday, July 18, 2014 4:27 PM
County Commissioners; Mark Barron; Jim Stanford; Don Frank; Bob Lenz; Hailey Morton
Levinson
[email protected]; Tyler Sinclair; Audrey Cohen-Davis; Keith Gingery
Short Term Rentals and the IBC
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
From:
Sent:
To:
As you continue to wrestle with the issue of short term rentals, I thought that you might find it interesting that
‘airbnb.com’ advises that owners follow all safety regulations including the IBC:

“Make sure your property meets government safety regulations for your area (ex: International Building
Code)”
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/509
They also advise that owners are responsible for paying any local sales and lodging taxes unless they have
negotiated a collection agreement with the local community. It appears they have not negotiated a collection
agreement with very many communities. One wonders why when they have been donating funds to advocate
for short term rentals: “The Short Term Rental Advocacy Center (STRAC) was created by Airbnb, HomeAway,
TripAdvisor and FlipKey.”
http://www.stradvocacy.org/about-us/#.U8mdEvldXZJ
Armond Acri
Save Historic Jackson Hole
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathy Karahadian <[email protected]>
Monday, July 21, 2014 3:28 PM
[email protected]
County Commissioners; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Re: Short-term rental issue
That is an excellent letter..hopefully since Hank used to be a neighbor and HHR board member, he will have a
personal interest in this letter. Thank you Rich and Irene.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:21 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Hank Phibbs
Chairman of Teton County Commissioners
July 21, 2014
Dear Hank,
We hope this finds you and Leslie well and enjoying summer.
This correspondence relates to regulations regarding short term rentals (less than 30 days) being
allowed in residential areas in the County. It has been disconcerting to learn that weekly rentals
are currently being offered in some H-H-R homes even though commercial use is explicitly
forbidden in the CCR document. We believe there are some homes in Wilson Meadows large
enough to be used for short-term rentals as well. Reasons for our opposition to this practice
are summarized below:

Security concerns for the residents of the neighborhood, especially as many unaccompanied
children ride bikes on the streets and nearby pathways.

Additional traffic and noise related to late-night vacationers’ revelries.

Increased sewer and water usage and problems due to disinterested occupants. At least one home
is offering sleeping accommodations for 12. This causes increased sewer and water costs which
cannot be attributed to the specific homeowner. All customers of the Fish Creek ISD (residents
of H-H-R and Wilson Meadows) bear these additional costs.

It seems unfair to owners of commercial properties who must observe regulations and collect
appropriate taxes to allow this unregulated competition.

We would like to see measured consideration of the following: continued regulations to
disallow short-term rentals of less than 30 days in residential neighborhoods

Consideration of requirements that make it more difficult for homeowners to disobey the law
(such as requiring sprinkler systems, etc.)
1

Substantial fines for non-compliant homeowners (advertising in any form would make a
homeowner liable for such fines)

Publishing notice of these fines in the local newspaper to help serve as a deterrent

Prosecution of property management firms blatantly disregarding County regulations
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our ideas.
Sincerely,
Richard and Irene Steeg
(residents of Wilson Meadows and owner of vacant lots in H-H-R)
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, July 21, 2014 3:22 PM
County Commissioners
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Short-term rental issue
Mr. Hank Phibbs
Chairman of Teton County Commissioners
July 21, 2014
Dear Hank,
We hope this finds you and Leslie well and enjoying summer.
This correspondence relates to regulations regarding short term rentals (less than 30 days) being allowed in
residential areas in the County. It has been disconcerting to learn that weekly rentals are currently being offered
in some H-H-R homes even though commercial use is explicitly forbidden in the CCR document. We believe
there are some homes in Wilson Meadows large enough to be used for short-term rentals as well. Reasons for
our opposition to this practice are summarized below:

Security concerns for the residents of the neighborhood, especially as many unaccompanied children ride bikes
on the streets and nearby pathways.

Additional traffic and noise related to late-night vacationers’ revelries.

Increased sewer and water usage and problems due to disinterested occupants. At least one home is offering
sleeping accommodations for 12. This causes increased sewer and water costs which cannot be attributed to the
specific homeowner. All customers of the Fish Creek ISD (residents of H-H-R and Wilson Meadows) bear
these additional costs.

It seems unfair to owners of commercial properties who must observe regulations and collect appropriate taxes
to allow this unregulated competition.

We would like to see measured consideration of the following: continued regulations to disallow short-term
rentals of less than 30 days in residential neighborhoods

Consideration of requirements that make it more difficult for homeowners to disobey the law (such as requiring
sprinkler systems, etc.)

Substantial fines for non-compliant homeowners (advertising in any form would make a homeowner liable for
such fines)

Publishing notice of these fines in the local newspaper to help serve as a deterrent

Prosecution of property management firms blatantly disregarding County regulations
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our ideas.
1
Sincerely,
Richard and Irene Steeg
(residents of Wilson Meadows and owner of vacant lots in H-H-R)
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Denny Emory <[email protected]>
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:20 PM
County Commissioners
Alex Norton; Irina Adams; Tyler Sinclair - Teton County; Keith Gingery
Short Term Rentals
Dear Commissioners It is with dismay that I continue to follow in the press the continuing saga of short term rentals in
Teton County. Our current regulations are unambiguous regarding short term rentals. There is no
need for staff "interpretation"; legal clarification; or, further input from the Wyoming Attorney General.
The established residential neighborhoods in Teton County have been defined and addressed in our
comprehensive planning documents and land use regulations since the 1994 version of the original
1978 Comprehensive Plan. Areas are clearly designated for resort activities; and, those activities, to
include short term rental, are clearly excluded from our Neighborhood Conservation lands.
These lands are so designated to preserve our residential county neighborhoods. These areas are
where a significant number of our county residents live; a portion of our county work force lives;
where our children learn to ride a trike / then bike; our dogs walkers walk; our moose browse; and
currently our 4H'rs walk their steers and lambs. Our county residential neighborhoods are not the
place for our short term guest more focused on their vacation activities than on the safety and well
being of those actually living in the surroundings.
Short term rentals may make huge economic sense for a property owner or property manager; yet,
certainly do nothing positive for the long term rental pool. With an extreme shortage of long term
housing in the county and the greater area, allowing the further expansion of short term rentals in our
residential county neighborhoods makes a really bad situation even worse.
Short term rentals in our county residential neighborhoods also pulls from our established pool of
hotels, motels, and short term lodging opportunities that have been established and operate within
the framework that has been established through our long standing planning efforts.
The course is quite simple. Enforce the current land use regulations as currently written. Anything
less calls to question the validity of the entire planning effort, and the underlying concept of
predictability.
Regards Denny
Denny Emory
4505 Nethercott Lane
Wilson, WY 83014-0190
1-307-733-3601
1
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Peter Moyer <[email protected]>
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:52 PM
Denny Emory
County Commissioners; Alex Norton; Irina Adams; Tyler Sinclair - Teton County; Keith
Gingery
Re: Short Term Rentals
Denny
Great letter.
Peter
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Denny Emory" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Commissioners It is with dismay that I continue to follow in the press the continuing saga of short term
rentals in Teton County. Our current regulations are unambiguous regarding short term
rentals. There is no need for staff "interpretation"; legal clarification; or, further input
from the Wyoming Attorney General.
The established residential neighborhoods in Teton County have been defined and
addressed in our comprehensive planning documents and land use regulations since
the 1994 version of the original 1978 Comprehensive Plan. Areas are clearly designated
for resort activities; and, those activities, to include short term rental, are clearly
excluded from our Neighborhood Conservation lands.
These lands are so designated to preserve our residential county neighborhoods. These
areas are where a significant number of our county residents live; a portion of our
county work force lives; where our children learn to ride a trike / then bike; our dogs
walkers walk; our moose browse; and currently our 4H'rs walk their steers and lambs.
Our county residential neighborhoods are not the place for our short term guest more
focused on their vacation activities than on the safety and well being of those actually
living in the surroundings.
Short term rentals may make huge economic sense for a property owner or property
manager; yet, certainly do nothing positive for the long term rental pool. With an
extreme shortage of long term housing in the county and the greater area, allowing the
further expansion of short term rentals in our residential county neighborhoods makes a
really bad situation even worse.
Short term rentals in our county residential neighborhoods also pulls from our
established pool of hotels, motels, and short term lodging opportunities that have been
established and operate within the framework that has been established through our
long standing planning efforts.
1
The course is quite simple. Enforce the current land use regulations as currently written.
Anything less calls to question the validity of the entire planning effort, and the
underlying concept of predictability.
Regards Denny
Denny Emory
4505 Nethercott Lane
Wilson, WY 83014-0190
1-307-733-3601
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hank Phibbs
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:16 AM
[email protected]
County Commissioners; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Short-term rental issue
Rich and Irene - thanks for your comments - the county land development regulations only allow rental for less
than 30 days in designated areas such as Teton Village, the Aspens and Pines and areas in and adjacent to Golf
and Tennis - there is no current proposal to change that regulation - that regulation has been in effect since
1994- if some homes in HHR are being rented for less than 30 days, they are being used both in violation of the
county LDRs and the HHR covenants - I strongly recommend that action be taken on both fronts - if a report is
provided to the county planning office of short term rentals in non-resort areas, the county will respond to
a complaint - equally important is the private covenant enforcement - I believe that the HHR covenants have an
attorneys fees provision in place - that will require the violating owner to pay the attorneys fees incurred by the
HOA in enforcing the covenants - that is an economic hammer that the county does not have I feel it is important that both kinds of enforcement actions get publicized so the word will be out that if you
violate the county LDRs you will be fined, and if you repeat the violation you will be enjoined - Concurrent
enforcement of private CCRs will reinforce the message The role of the internet, through VRBO (vacation rental by owner) and Away from Home, has added to the
regulatory problem - it will come down to having adequate county staff and a consistent program of
enforcement - our planning staff researched those sites and found out that most, more than 80% of the
properties listed, were located in areas approved for short term rentals - the remaining properties need to be
identified and notice given to owners that short term rentals violate county LDRs and if they happen
enforcement action will be taken there will be a discussion of what I have described above, the policy component of this question, at the August
JIM (joint information meeting) of the town and county Hank
PS - there is a side issue which I hope will be clarified soon - many people in Teton County exchange their
homes with folks in other places for a couple of weeks at a time - that is fundamentally different from short
term rental but it technically violates the county's LDRs - I hope to get the LDRs clarified so house exchanges
not more than 3 times a year are exempted -
On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Mr. Hank Phibbs
Chairman of Teton County Commissioners
July 21, 2014
Dear Hank,
1
We hope this finds you and Leslie well and enjoying summer.
This correspondence relates to regulations regarding short term rentals (less than 30 days) being allowed in
residential areas in the County. It has been disconcerting to learn that weekly rentals are currently being offered
in some H-H-R homes even though commercial use is explicitly forbidden in the CCR document. We believe
there are some homes in Wilson Meadows large enough to be used for short-term rentals as well. Reasons for
our opposition to this practice are summarized below:

Security concerns for the residents of the neighborhood, especially as many unaccompanied children ride bikes
on the streets and nearby pathways.

Additional traffic and noise related to late-night vacationers’ revelries.

Increased sewer and water usage and problems due to disinterested occupants. At least one home is offering
sleeping accommodations for 12. This causes increased sewer and water costs which cannot be attributed to the
specific homeowner. All customers of the Fish Creek ISD (residents of H-H-R and Wilson Meadows) bear
these additional costs.

It seems unfair to owners of commercial properties who must observe regulations and collect appropriate taxes
to allow this unregulated competition.

We would like to see measured consideration of the following: continued regulations to disallow short-term
rentals of less than 30 days in residential neighborhoods

Consideration of requirements that make it more difficult for homeowners to disobey the law (such as requiring
sprinkler systems, etc.)

Substantial fines for non-compliant homeowners (advertising in any form would make a homeowner liable for
such fines)

Publishing notice of these fines in the local newspaper to help serve as a deterrent

Prosecution of property management firms blatantly disregarding County regulations
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our ideas.
Sincerely,
Richard and Irene Steeg
(residents of Wilson Meadows and owner of vacant lots in H-H-R)
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Justin Adams <[email protected]>
Friday, July 25, 2014 7:43 PM
Denny Emory
County Commissioners; Alex Norton; Irina Adams; Tyler Sinclair - Teton County; Keith
Gingery
Re: Short Term Rentals
Dear Teton County Commissioners,
Your recent notion of allowing one rental every thirty days without regard to the number of days of
the rental strikes me as an enforcement nightmare. And that is assuming that you intend to
enforce your ordinance. Neighbors will have to police neighbors, spy on one another, and that
might be more onerous than short term rentals, no matter how much they degrade neighborhoods
and the value that many people worked their entire lives to accumulate. Why not enforce
the ordinance as written. The words of the ordinance speak for themselves. For what undisclosed
interests do you speak?
Sincerely,
Justin Adams, Kelly, Wyoming
On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Denny Emory <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Commissioners It is with dismay that I continue to follow in the press the continuing saga of short term rentals in
Teton County. Our current regulations are unambiguous regarding short term rentals. There is no
need for staff "interpretation"; legal clarification; or, further input from the Wyoming Attorney General.
The established residential neighborhoods in Teton County have been defined and addressed in our
comprehensive planning documents and land use regulations since the 1994 version of the original
1978 Comprehensive Plan. Areas are clearly designated for resort activities; and, those activities, to
include short term rental, are clearly excluded from our Neighborhood Conservation lands.
These lands are so designated to preserve our residential county neighborhoods. These areas are
where a significant number of our county residents live; a portion of our county work force lives;
where our children learn to ride a trike / then bike; our dogs walkers walk; our moose browse; and
currently our 4H'rs walk their steers and lambs. Our county residential neighborhoods are not the
place for our short term guest more focused on their vacation activities than on the safety and well
being of those actually living in the surroundings.
Short term rentals may make huge economic sense for a property owner or property manager; yet,
certainly do nothing positive for the long term rental pool. With an extreme shortage of long term
housing in the county and the greater area, allowing the further expansion of short term rentals in our
residential county neighborhoods makes a really bad situation even worse.
Short term rentals in our county residential neighborhoods also pulls from our established pool of
hotels, motels, and short term lodging opportunities that have been established and operate within
the framework that has been established through our long standing planning efforts.
1
The course is quite simple. Enforce the current land use regulations as currently written. Anything
less calls to question the validity of the entire planning effort, and the underlying concept of
predictability.
Regards Denny
Denny Emory
4505 Nethercott Lane
Wilson, WY 83014-0190
1-307-733-3601
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Barron
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:36 AM
[email protected]; County Commissioners; Town Council
RE: Short-Term Rentals
Dear Rosslyn,
I'm very sorry to have waited so long to answer your concerns. First, to my knowledge, no one has proposed legalizing
short-term rentals in Teton County or Jackson. In fact, the Town worked most of last year on an ordinance to help with
the enforcement of illegal short term rentals. Summers past and on behalf of town residents who report illegal short term
rentals, I have followed up with town staff to enforce town laws and eliminate the illegal rentals.
Since the 1994 masterplan the town and county interpreted illegal short term rentals as more than one rental per 30 day
period, whether weekly or nightly. We had not been concerned with the teacher who leaves for a month and rents the
home out one time, or neighbors who trade homes.
The town's last workshop on illegal short term rentals was Dec 16, 2013. The town process was stopped in it's tracks by
a town building official's request to the state fire marshal concerning the building code. In short, town and county staff
have adopted the interpretation that one rental of 30 days or less in one year, or one house trade, would be in violation
of the International Building Code which would require that home to be fully fire sprinkled and meet ADA compliance,
because the residential use had been over ridden by the one "short term rental" and that the PRIMARY USE of that home
was now a COMMERCIAL USE.
This is the issue that is currently being investigated. Does a property owner who primarily uses her or his home for their
residential purposes have to meet the IBC and install sprinklers and ADA compliance if they wish to rent their home once
in a 30 day period, one time.
I hope you can understand that this goes well into the rights of every working person's home ownership rights and,
should this interpretation stand, will change the rights of homeowners across the state of Wyoming. I would offer that
this is a gross over reaching of government and I oppose this.
I represent ALL the people of Jackson and have striven to provide meaningful workforce housing in Jackson. I detest the
fact that we elected officials are almost 8 years down the road with the Jackson/Teton County Masterplan and not one
single land development regulation that was intended to increase residential/workforce opportunities has been publicly
reviewed, debated and passed. This is the only way that this community will address this ongoing issue.
Is there leakage of workforce housing due to illegal, multiple rentals in 30 days, short term rentals. Yes. But the solution
is going to be found in both stopping illegal short term rentals and passing LDR's that will allow appropriate housing
density in appropriately zoned land while protecting the expectation of a quiet single family neighborhood.
Please call me if I can offer more to you, Rosslyn, at 307-690-4166.
Thank you again for your email!
Always best,
mark
Mark Barron
Mayor
Town of Jackson
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 11:22 AM
1
To: County Commissioners; Town Council
Subject: Short-Term Rentals
Good Morning,
I understand that today at 3:00 p.m., your informational meeting will include a discussion of legalizing short-term rentals in
Teton County. I am writing to express my deep opposition to this proposal.
In addition to ruining neighborhood character and burdening adjacent or nearby residences with the parking difficulties
and noise issues that are associated with short-term renters, permitting more short-term rentals in Teton County will place
a tremendous strain on our already dire rental housing market. Our local workforce is being squeezed out of Jackson by
unprecedented increases in monthly rent and a dramatically decreased rental housing supply. It is destroying the fabric of
our community and forcing people who have lived here for a decade or more to move away, which is, in turn, leaving local
business owners with a critical shortage in employees. Some businesses have been forced to close on certain nights due
to understaffing, which has a direct impact on our economy, our sales tax revenue, and ultimately our viability as we try to
maintain our position as a worldwide tourism destination. What good does it do to encourage more people to visit
Jackson if there is no one to work at the establishments that serve them because those employees couldn't find a place to
live?
Property owners in this area clearly stand to earn more money by making their homes available to short-term renters than
by renting them to year-round residents. But there are far more individuals in need of long-term housing in this area than
there are property owners (who are already at a distinct advantage over those of us without the means to own a home
here) in need of even more income. We need to take care of the low- and middle-class year-round residents, or we will all
suffer.
Please remember that you represent every resident of this county, and not just wealthy property owners.
Thank you for your time,
Rosslyn Read
Rosslyn Read, Attorney at Law
TREFONAS LAW, P.C.
P.O. Box 2527, Jackson WY 83001
80 East Pearl, Jackson WY 83001
Telephone: (307) 203-9019
Facsimile: (800) 572-6458
www.TrefonasLaw.com
***Note***This email and any attachments may contain confidential information and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please
destroy it and notify me immediately at the telephone number provided (collect if needed). Reproduction, including
forwarding, of this email without permission is prohibited by law.
2
Alex Norton
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joe Linhares <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:27 AM
Editor, JH News & Guide; County Commissioners; Town Council
Rentals in Jackson
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
I have been coming to Jackson the past 20 years and have owned a home since 2009. We bought our home and
occasionally rent it and am really frustrated and confused on why this right might be taken away. I am
surprised that the whole grocer, snake river grill and skinny skis are not up in arms about this issue. The renters
that come specifically want the experience of staying in a home, yet are consumers at all of these venues. I
don't think people have really studied the economic impact this would have on the valley. Why don't we have
a simple common sense plan on how to regulate the activity, like if you rent you need to register with the
town. if you violate it fine them $250.00
it seems pretty simple to me.
Kind Regards, Joe Linhares
1