The Yachats City Council made little progress Wednesday on one of its thorniest issues – working out details of potential changes to the city’s 2-year-old vacation rental ordinance.
Yachats’ vacation rental license program is one of the city’s most contentious issues, drawing hundreds to public hearings in 2017 before the council passed an ordinance limiting licenses to 125 and imposing other restrictions. Meetings still draw strong crowds, as evidence by a packed council chamber for a 4-hour meeting Wednesday, the day before a national holiday and the city’s biggest summer celebration.
The ordinance expires Oct. 1 and the council has been hearing from residents and vacation rental owners about how – or how not to – make big and small changes.
It was the council’s third public session on the topic. It has five more regularly scheduled meetings before the pilot program expires Oct. 1.
Mayor John Moore walked the council through a list of nine possible issues, getting agreement that they were the ones to tackle. These include the 125-license cap, license transfers at sale, compliance tracking, enforcement, license renewal fees, creating a waiting list for licenses, charging license holders for inspections, dealing with inactive licenses, and restrictions on large events at vacation homes.
Moore then came back to discuss specifics on three – keeping a cap of 125 licenses, transfer of licenses during a sale, and compliance.
A majority of councilors expressed general favor at keeping a cap of about 125 licenses, tweaking the number up or down depending on other decisions.
The longest discussion came over the issue of transferability – the biggest issue with most of the 133 current license holders in Yachats. Under the existing ordinance, the vacation rental license cannot be transferred to new owners after any sale.
License holders say that restriction prevents them from passing their property and its license via sale or inheritance to their children or other family members. Others claim not being able to transfer the license to anyone dramatically cuts the value of their property.
Most council members expressed support for license holders to be able to transfer property intact to heirs, but struggled on how to separate that from sales to non-family members.
Councilor James Tooke was the most adamant, saying he would not support an ordinance that allowed transfers of licenses for all sales.
“If you are going to grandfather in all those with licenses, then I will not support a cap,” he said. “By doing that you are privileging a class of people.”
Moore and Councilor James Kerti wondered how the ordinance could be worded to restrict transfers to heirs and no one else.
Councilor Max Glenn brought up his idea from an earlier meeting to allow transfer of licenses, but charging a 5 percent fee on the property sale to the new owner who wants to retain the license. Money from the fee would be used to finance compliance and enforcement programs, he said earlier. The effect of the fee, he says, could be a way to limit the number of licenses.
The transfer discussion ended without any decision or direction.
City Manager Shannon Beaucaire outlined five options for vacation rental license compliance and code enforcement, ranging from a computer program to track rentals to hiring a full-time employee for code enforcement – something that’s been approved in the last two city budgets but never filled.
The council agreed to use a license-tracking program available at no cost from its new web provider until it makes more decisions on code enforcement – full time employee, contract employee, waiting two years to partner with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, or something else.
License transfers and complaints – whether there are enough to be a big problem or how the system is not set up for the city to receive complaints — were the focus of most of the six people who later addressed the council during the public comment period.
Regarding Councilor James Tooke comment regarding grandfathering in those existing rentals would create a privileged class. Some of us have been establishing our rental business for decades and generations. It was not privilege, but hard work, that has brought these tax dollars and tourists dollars too Yachats, and employed hundreds of local help. Cooke further stated that if there was any grandfathering in he would not support a cap. I have noticed that most residents want the option of renting or not and selling the right to rent or not. I’m hope residents realize what this ordinance means to them and their property value. Even with a cap, the wait is long to get a license. As a seller, it is easier to sell a property with options than without – especially in a town with no commerce except tourism. This ordinance is a hardship on those who have invested heavily in Yachats as rental owners. And an unexpected hardship on those non-rental residents when they try to sell their home in a vacation town with no right to rent it or pass on this problem to their heirs. Values go down. Sales slow. An inherited asset becomes a liability of mortgage, insurance, upkeep with no income allowed. This ordinance causes hardship on more than the rental owners.
I think code enforcement needs to be the main focus. Part of that Should be upkeep of property and enforcing rules of rentals- ie: dogs on leashes, no parties , respecting neighboring properties-etc. Interesting option mentioned to me- Join forces with Waldport and perhaps Seal Rock too and hire one full time Code enforcer for all 3. No point having any rules at all If people know the city will not enforce them.