By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews.com
Except for one issue, The Yachats City Council has finished wrestling with changes to its 2-year-old vacation rental regulations – keeping a 125-license limit, not allowing license transfers and more than doubling fees for renewing licenses.
The council reached consensus on five more issues from an 12-item list during its workshop session Wednesday. Six issues were agreed upon last month.
What the council couldn’t agree upon Wednesday – it asked for more information from City Manager Shannon Beaucaire – was if or how to require vacation rental owners to carry liability insurance.
Mayor John Moore said the council will take up the insurance question at its Sept. 18 meeting.
After that, city staff or its attorney will have to incorporate the changes into the current code and then present that revised code to the council, he said.
“… If the revised ordinance can be ready by the council meeting on Oct. 16, we could finalize it at that time,” Moore told YachatsNews.com. “I’m not sure at the moment if that would need to be a public hearing or not, but I would definitely plan to take public input prior to having the council vote on it.”
The council has been debating for months what to change – if anything – in its two-year-old pilot program that limits vacation rentals in the city. The city has been regulating vacation rentals for years, but two years ago instituted a temporary cap of 125 licenses, becoming one of the only Oregon cities with such a limit.
Because city ordinances do not allow licenses to be transferred, the cap effectively stopped owners from passing along their license to buyers of their property or to family members.
Vacation rental of private homes is currently one of the hottest issues in most every Oregon and West Coast tourist town. Cities rely on lodging taxes to prop up budgets and owners use them as investment property, for income or to help pay the mortgage. But they also create livability concerns after some neighborhoods have become dominated by rentals and the constant coming-and-going of visitors.
Details of the decisions
In August the City Council reached a consensus to:
- Continue to prohibit transfer of a license to either heirs or buyers of a vacation rental property;
- Not allow a buyer of a vacation rental property to apply for and immediately get a city license;
- Allow people holding but not using a vacation rental licenses to renew them;
- Continue to exempt five vacation rental properties from a four-bedroom rental limit established in previous ordinances;
- Require applications for new vacation rental licenses for homes in residential zones to go through a conditional-use approval process with the Planning Commission;
- Raise fees to $150 for the first vacation rental inspection and to $100 for any subsequent re-inspection and require those every two years.
On Wednesday the council tackled how to handle “home shares,” large events at rentals, the 125-license limit, if or how to create a license waiting list, fees and liability insurance.
With little discussion, the council supported keeping the 125-license limit, especially with new city data that said 22 of 141 license holders were not using them at all.
But it struggled with how or when to develop a waiting list for people who wanted to get a license. Councilors Leslie Vaaler and James Kerti – who have lately been on the short-end of council votes or consensus – wanted to start a list this fall.
“People want to be able to plan,” Vaaler said. “Why not start it immediately?”
But Moore and councilors Max Glenn and Jim Tooke wanted to wait until licenses renewed Jan. 1 and agreed to start some sort of list 30 days later.
Moore also proposed – and it was accepted – a more than doubling of yearly license fees. Current fees range from $200 to $400, depending on the number of bedrooms. Moore proposed increasing them to $500 to $900 – which would raise about $72,000 if all 141 licenses are renewed.
Moore said the higher fees might also spur the non-active license holders to not renew, lowering the total number and possibly opening up room for new applications. Glenn said the higher fees should cover the cost of inspections, code enforcement, and city staff time.
“There should be no tax dollars to underwrite a business,” he said.
The council agreed to require vacation rental licenses for people renting out a bedroom or two for short-term stays, but not put any restrictions on rentals longer than 30 days. It also declined to put restrictions on large gatherings at vacation rentals, instead to respond to complaints about parking or noise using current city ordinances “assuming we have reliable code enforcement that can be responsive …” said Kerti.
Council gets some pushback
Two people – Yachats Brewing + Farmstore owner Nathan Bernard and vacation rental owner Candy Neville of Eugene – used the public comment portion of the meeting to criticize the regulations.
Bernard, who has battled with the city over building permits and other issues, said there are “legitimate complaints” over vacation rentals, but the process has “somehow ballooned into a vicious circle of more regulation, more expense and more fees.”
“For what?” he asked. “How does this move the needle on the real needs of the community?”
Neville, who owns an 8-bedroom house and vacation rental on King Street, has been trying to organize license holders to convince the city to allow license transfers. Until two years ago, the ability to transfer was part of her retirement and estate planning.
Neville argued that vacation rentals and motels are the main financial contributors to the city – generating more than $1 million in lodging taxes last year – “and we’re treated like crap.”
“This town when I came here in 1978 was a vacation town and it still is,” she said. “Now you’re trying to design a town and make it a retirement country club.”
Disgusted with this council and the lack of their own agenda from day one. Why are they ignoring the majority of the property owners, asking for less regulation?. I stopped going to meetings, because of their lack of respect for all who spoke at the meetings.
This Mayor & Council need to be recalled!
We don’t have a vacation rental problem in Yachats, we have rules with no enforcement from the City of Yachats.
If only 125 vacation licenses allowed why shouldn’t homeowners be allowed to transfer that license to heirs, or a homeowner to sell a vacation-licensed property and transfer.??..It does not change the total # allowed, just who owns them and pays the fees. The example property on Lemwick Lane is pictured as having a lot of cars there. I walk the 804 twice a day, and rarely see that much use there, and have never heard any noise/music comming from any of the properties there. A homeowner has every right to transfer an existing license to heirs or to sell it, if needed. A lot of these homes are their retirement livelyhood, and shouldn’t be taken from them. If we’re going to be all about the money, we’re basically going to be another Cannon beach…all touristy, and only rich people who can afford to live here. I love our small. friendly town, keep it friendly, please!
Thank-You Jill!
Well said. We have been coming to Yachats for nearly 20 years and have in the past felt that it was a small friendly community. Thanks for pointing out that Yachats is headed in a vastly different direction.
Thank you to the city council for the efforts to come up with a workable solution, and being open to reviewing and tweaking it for the needs of the community.
The questions I have with respect to the above comments from vacation rental owners, business owners and realtors.
If a business is sold, doesn’t the new owner have to apply for a business license? If so, why wouldn’t a vacation rental business have to do the same?
Of the reported $1 million income generated by motels and business, how much does the city get that isn’t designated to be used for tourist related activities? Just stating the generated income doesn’t provide an accurate or complete explanation.
Purchasing a home for investment/retirement planning doesn’t guarantee a positive return on your investment. Similar to investing in the stock market
I agree we have an enforcement problem, and that needs to be addressed asap.
I am a full time resident and home owner.
It’s far from workable, they promised us for 2 years to wait and see if they would change the cap, all they have done is put more restrictions on vacation rentals and made it impossible for these properties to be sold at full value. The majority of our city council & mayor have lived in Yachats for less than 10 years. I worked on the task force and we put good rules into effect, they worked with a code enforcer!
Agreed far from workable and definitely NOT open to tweaking. As for equating the need to apply for a business license with applying for a rental license the 125 cap makes this a mute point. There is no way to apply, no waiting list etc…
Portions (39 percent) of the money generated is supposed to be used for tourism and the rest (61 percent) for city needs not related to tourism. No one has really pushed back, but as restrictions keep mounting I imagine this will change. If so permanent resident can be sure to shoulder the burden with an increased tax on something.
Agreed investments don’t always yield a positive result BUT you can pass them to your heirs. We have spent nearly 20 years playing by Yachats’ rules, supporting the community and in general being good people. Now we either sell or risk handing our kids a liability instead of an asset.
I think you should ask yourself “is there any reason that could occur in my life that would necessitate me renting my property?” If so be advised you are giving up that right.
It’s a difficult task to balance the need for revenue with livability issues for the greater community benefit. The cap was not county-wide which pushed VR growth outside city limits; parking and restrooms have not been provided for these visitors who must drive to our wonderful commercial district and beaches. We also have lacked a ‘who you gonna call’ person, especially on weekends and evenings when issues arise. If it’s a VR property there is a 24-hr contact number, but nowadays we need a security-type person for issues elsewhere that aren’t 911 level concerns. By September, many of us are weary from the tourists but tax statements are around the corner and some of these VRs keep everyone’s rates lower. Each year a property has been a VR, there are more repeat guests which makes it easier for the rent to be higher which makes the taxes collected higher. From a tax revenue perspective, it makes sense to retain VRs that aren’t generating noise and traffic complaints. Personally, I’m not opposed to the Yachats cap, but believe it needs some fine tuning.
Good reply, by the way the Lincoln County Commissioners are also having meetings about VR’s
They will control by Septic revaluation. Fyi
NO CAP and VRs can be transferred!
Thank-You Shirley for being willing to meet half way. I do want to assure you that the rent doesn’t go higher and higher. I know a lot of citizens think VR owners are some rich, shady investors. Most of us are just normal people struggling with the continuing cost increases. Personally I can honestly say at the end of the year when I do taxes and include all of the upkeep, taxes etc.. nothing goes in our pocket. Yes. I do realize we are building equity and that coupled with the time we get to spend at the house make it worthwhile. However the VR restrictions have already lowered property value and created a Buyers market in Yachats.
The average person cannot afford a second home without some rental income. By creating these restrictions you will only draw the extremely wealthy crowd who can leave their second homes vacant most of the year. Yes. that should make it quieter but vacancies tend to be a magnet for crime.
You noted being weary of the tourists by September. We have had the license cap in effect for 2 years. Have you been any happier in the last 2 years? Thanks for your time sandy
Hello Sandy, I don’t dislike tourists, in fact the joy they have experiencing our area is wonderful to be around. It’s the few who are not respectful of our natural treasures and wildlife that make me welcome the off season; a friendly patrolling official could really help when issues arise. (And in answer to your question, I’ve had more dog manure in my yard since the cap!)
I appreciate that visitors keep good food service and retail here. I believe they provide a valuable contribution to our public revenue too. And I don’t care if it’s grandkids or a new owner that cashes rent checks and pays the bed tax as long as the existing VR follows the community rules. I think most people value a balance of tax revenue and the wonderful aspects of this community; defining good balance and how to get there though…