The Yachats City Council will vote Wednesday morning whether to keep the city’s cap on the number of vacation rental licenses at 125.
The vote comes before consideration of other much-discussed vacation rental regulations because the cap expires Oct. 14 and needed to be approved to stay in effect, said Mayor John Moore.
The other potential changes in rental regulations – license transfers, fees, inspections and the like — are being worked on by the city’s attorney and may not be finished until October or November. When they are ready, there will be council discussion and a public hearing on any changes.
“The only provision that has a sunset clause is the cap …” Moore said. “We need to take care of that, then we can take our time going through the regulation’s details.”
But Moore said the council will finish up its work by the end of the year so that licensees clearly know the new rules before renewing by Jan. 1.
Although the 125-license cap is controversial and unusual – just two Oregon cities have one — there is little suspense whether the council supports it. During several previous discussions and a “consensus” vote on the limit, it received support from the four of the five council members. Councilor Leslie Vaaler supports a cap, but has unsuccessfully argued it should be less than 125.
The city recently reported that there were a total of 141 vacation rental licenses, that 111 were being used regularly, eight were being used very little, and 22 not being used at all.
The ordinance up for a vote at Wednesday’s 9:30 a.m. meeting also removes the “sunset clause” from the ordinance, meaning it won’t have to be periodically reviewed unless this council or a future one takes up the issue again.
What is less clear is the last section of the emergency ordinance under consideration Wednesday.
The proposed amendment to the city’s municipal code says the city will have 125 licenses available and that priority will be given to existing licenses seeking renewal if delivered by Dec. 29. It does not directly address what happens if the 141 current license holders all want to renew.
Moore said Friday that he couldn’t speak for the rest of the council, but that the discussion over many meetings has been to let all current license holders renew.
Another reason for the 125-license cap listed in the new ordinance is the city’s limited resources and staff “that can be devoted to vacation rental complaints, so limiting the total number of vacation rental licenses eased the burden on city staff.”
The city recently hired a code enforcement helper on a four-month contract to aid current city planner/code enforcement officer Dave Mattison. The council also reached a consensus in its previous vacation rental discussions to more than double the yearly licensing fees in order to cover the cost of code enforcement.
In regards to the letter that we are finding in our Post Office boxes dated Sept. 24, it seems the battle continues over the issue of vacation rental transfers and limits.
I do not feel any real estate broker not residing in Yachats proper has the right to discuss what Yachats does or does not need. It is written that there are no jobs in Yachats,therefore no need for month-to-month rentals. This is blatantly untrue. The folks who work in Yachats or want to work in Yachats find it very difficult to due the fact that there is a shortage of month-to-month rentals.
I do not wish to be surrounded by vacation rentals. Each summer it has become busier, louder and messier due to so many people visiting. We want tourism, good for business, we want to share our beautiful, pristine environment and we want our quality of life maintained.
The 125 license cap has not affected real estate sales. We have had a robust market and added wonderful people to our growing community, a community that needs protection — protection from an over abundance of vacation rentals surrounding homes where people actually live full time.
Thank you Rheychol, I completely agree.
Here’s the my replies to each part of the letter from Neville, and my cover letter to our city on the subject:
“Yachats Alliance”
Candy Neville, et al
631 Shoreline Way
Eugene, OR 97401
ahalodge@comcast.net
541-465-9010
Re: Vacation Rentals
cc: Mayor John Moore
Yachats City Council
Dave Mattison, Yachats City Planner
Matt Phillips, Yachats Code Enforcer
Ms. Neville:
Thank you so much for including me on your recent mass-mailing. I am a homeowner, a permanent and year-round resident of Yachats, and I live within city limits in a residentially zoned neighborhood.
However, I must correct you on several inaccuracies in your letter:
(Neville letter paragraph 1)
It is a fact that vacation rentals within residentially zoned neighborhoods, often unregulated, untaxed, and managed by owners who are ill-trained in safety and hospitality, or worse, negligent, actually REDUCE property values to those existing properties occupied year-round by permanent residents. Furthermore, speculation and promises of untaxed rental income have inflated property selling prices beyond sustainable levels, out of reach for most working people and retirees. The market is therefore limited only to the wealthy, non-residents, and rental companies who continue to exploit loopholes in city codes, now finally being addressed and regulated in cities around the world. This regulation is necessary and long overdue.
(Neville letter paragraph 2)

Flatly misleading statement. Yes, TOTAL room tax revenue for all vacation rental sources is around $1mill annually, but taxes on non-hotel vacation rentals such as yours contributed only $300k to the general fund in 2018.
(Neville letter paragraph 3)

Your property rental rights have not vanished. You and I are entitled to do whatever we want with our property which is allowed under existing use code. This protects us all from illegal and dangerous property use.
(Neville letter paragraph 4)

It is wholly unsurprising someone like Wendy Snidow would advocate such an opinion, as a direct benefactor of the current system. Everyone’s rights are at stake here, not just yours. The pool of potential purchasers of properties is actually limited by your particular activity. No one who works an average job can afford a home here because of the proliferation of vacation rentals.
(Neville letter paragraph 5)

Real Estate ownership in not a “liability”, it is an asset.
Those who wish to buy and live here cannot, due to this vacation rental nightmare.
Furthermore, you incorrectly invoke some kind of “rights” as result of a previously unregulated industry.
Perhaps retroactive taxes and fees should be charged you and all other freeloaders who have for so long rented without oversight or regulation.
(Neville letter paragraph 6)

Month to month rentals are allowed, and should continue to be, since these properties are generally rented to actual residents, who work here and contribute to the economy and culture of Yachats. They pay taxes, and may eventually become home buyers. The disappearance of banks and gas stations, or the absence of hospitals and police stations have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of vacation rental regulation. If there were more affordable rentals available to permanent year-round residents, perhaps families might move back and create a greater need for such services.
(Neville letter paragraph 7)

False. For many of us, Yachats is our permanent year-round home. It has, as many other places with unregulated or unlimited vacation rentals, become economically hostile to those who wish to make it their home.
Much of the revenue of stores and restaurants is from tourists, but allowing more tourists during already impacted times will only exacerbate our current state of overcrowding, parking problems, public service availability, etc. Ask any bar owner if they’d rather have more tourists on a busy summer day, or more regularly recurring patrons throughout the cold, dark winter. They can’t handle the summer crowds now, and spreading revenue throughout the year would allow for more such businesses to flourish.
(Neville letter paragraph 8)

Your argument against the “benefit of the few” supports my views that vacation rentals such as your should be eliminated. The population of Yachats is 658, and the number of homes is 400. With 125 vacation rental permits, that’s 31%. Way too many.
(Neville letter paragraph 9)

Anyone actually living here is certainly aware of this issue, and is also notified monthly by the City of such issues.
What IS actually “legally questionable” is the entire vacation rental industry. It is not the responsibility of Yachats citizenry to do your financial planning, make your investments “safe”, or plan for your heirs continued exploitation of our town.
Kevin Cannon
Yachats Property Owner and Year-Round Permanent Resident
PO Box 546
Yachats, OR 97498