The software for the short term rentals is something the city has purchased every year for several years. This year it just actually got put to use. The $14,000 is an annual expense.
The Short-Term Rental Software is currently budgeted at $13,000 a year. The first fiscal year that it was budgeted was the 2021/2022 budget. The software has helped bring into compliance over 75 short term rentals that either didn't know the rules or were ignoring the city ordinance. The software helped collect over $54,000 in back resort tax when these short-term rentals were brought into compliance. With the high turnover of new owners or the rental being taken in/out of the rental pool, the software has helped the city maintain an accurate data base of active rentals as well as the number of days each is rented. There are additional pros to the software, including uploading licensing and fire/health inspections as well as accurate contact information for each rental.
Thanks for letting us know that this investment is paying off, Jody! I'll reach out to you and the new administration soon and write a thorough article on the implementation and enforcement of the new STR regulations.
It's not just about the investment paying off, it's also about creating an accurate data base of active short-term rentals and making sure that everyone is following the rules and regulations for safety and licensing. Our property managers and some of the privately managed STRs have always been great about following the rules. It was time that everyone else had to follow those same rules and regulations.
Just a quick fact-check on this oft-repeated but false statement: "The survey conducted by the City showed 79% of 966 Red Lodge respondents did not think short-term rentals (STRs) were a problem."
First, of the 966 respondents, a minority, only 460, are from Red Lodge.
Second, none of the survey data takes the form of a percentage "yes/no," but rather a 0-100 scale of agree - disagree.
Third, whether STR's are or are not "a problem" is not a question that was asked anywhere in the survey. The question that corresponds to the "79" figure on the agree-disagree scale is actually, "Do you believe short-term rentals are a threat to the safety of your neighborhood?" Clearly that is a different question than, "Do you believe short-term rentals are a problem?"
Finally, response to the question arguably most relevant for Council decision-making, "Are you in favor of exploring short-term rentals regulations per City zone, eg. limiting the number of short-term rentals in some neighborhoods" actually falls just on the "Agree" side of the spectrum at 49 for Red Lodge residents and 44 for Red Lodge residents who do not own short-term rentals, 0 representing full agreement and 100 representing full disagreement. (see page 27 of the actual survey results linked below)
So the statement "79% of Red Lodge residents think STR's aren't a problem" is simply false from every angle. The figure is not a percentage, the question cited doesn't exist in the survey, and the figure cited includes a majority (< 50%) of respondents who do not live in Red Lodge, including at least 175 who do not even live in the State.
At a minimum, for the sake of the extensive work already done by the STR Committee, Council, and Planning Board, as well as for the sake of future decision-making, please refrain from making the false claim found within this reporting and stick to the facts found in the survey results themselves when reporting on this subject in the future.
The survey results cited in this article have been referenced several times in Council Chambers discussions without corrections offered. In the future I will look into numbers cited more carefully and/or state the source. Thank you for being a reader and helping me improve the quality of my reporting.
As with much that's said in public discussions, both inside and outside of City Hall, it takes more work to refute false claims than it does to repeat them. As a result, some assumptions go unchallenged. I appreciate anyone willing to put in the effort to question and arrive at the facts independently, so thank you.
The airport project is substantial, and when completed, will be in place for many years. There are several layers to be addressed, and different individuals addressing those facets. From the survey, the indemnity, the zoning, the rents, the building codes, utilities, and many others. All of this takes time. Through all of this one important fact is in my mind, imperative. The acreage currently used for emergency staging must remain just that. It should not be sacrificed for some pet project or ulterior motive. All the other issues may be altered, but the emergency space is the first responsibility of government, the wellbeing and safety of the people. I am confident that the new administration will have a more comprehensive knowledge of reality than the one it is replacing.
The software for the short term rentals is something the city has purchased every year for several years. This year it just actually got put to use. The $14,000 is an annual expense.
Do you know how many years the City has been paying for this service?
The Short-Term Rental Software is currently budgeted at $13,000 a year. The first fiscal year that it was budgeted was the 2021/2022 budget. The software has helped bring into compliance over 75 short term rentals that either didn't know the rules or were ignoring the city ordinance. The software helped collect over $54,000 in back resort tax when these short-term rentals were brought into compliance. With the high turnover of new owners or the rental being taken in/out of the rental pool, the software has helped the city maintain an accurate data base of active rentals as well as the number of days each is rented. There are additional pros to the software, including uploading licensing and fire/health inspections as well as accurate contact information for each rental.
Thanks for letting us know that this investment is paying off, Jody! I'll reach out to you and the new administration soon and write a thorough article on the implementation and enforcement of the new STR regulations.
It's not just about the investment paying off, it's also about creating an accurate data base of active short-term rentals and making sure that everyone is following the rules and regulations for safety and licensing. Our property managers and some of the privately managed STRs have always been great about following the rules. It was time that everyone else had to follow those same rules and regulations.
I've updated the article with your comments and information from Bo Ewald.
Will you be updating the reporting on the survey results?
I’m thankful they started using the software. However they wasted $26,000 before they collected $54,000.
Just a quick fact-check on this oft-repeated but false statement: "The survey conducted by the City showed 79% of 966 Red Lodge respondents did not think short-term rentals (STRs) were a problem."
First, of the 966 respondents, a minority, only 460, are from Red Lodge.
Second, none of the survey data takes the form of a percentage "yes/no," but rather a 0-100 scale of agree - disagree.
Third, whether STR's are or are not "a problem" is not a question that was asked anywhere in the survey. The question that corresponds to the "79" figure on the agree-disagree scale is actually, "Do you believe short-term rentals are a threat to the safety of your neighborhood?" Clearly that is a different question than, "Do you believe short-term rentals are a problem?"
Finally, response to the question arguably most relevant for Council decision-making, "Are you in favor of exploring short-term rentals regulations per City zone, eg. limiting the number of short-term rentals in some neighborhoods" actually falls just on the "Agree" side of the spectrum at 49 for Red Lodge residents and 44 for Red Lodge residents who do not own short-term rentals, 0 representing full agreement and 100 representing full disagreement. (see page 27 of the actual survey results linked below)
So the statement "79% of Red Lodge residents think STR's aren't a problem" is simply false from every angle. The figure is not a percentage, the question cited doesn't exist in the survey, and the figure cited includes a majority (< 50%) of respondents who do not live in Red Lodge, including at least 175 who do not even live in the State.
At a minimum, for the sake of the extensive work already done by the STR Committee, Council, and Planning Board, as well as for the sake of future decision-making, please refrain from making the false claim found within this reporting and stick to the facts found in the survey results themselves when reporting on this subject in the future.
Thank you!
https://www.cityofredlodge.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/boards_and_commissions/page/11624/str_community_survey_full_final_1.pdf
The survey results cited in this article have been referenced several times in Council Chambers discussions without corrections offered. In the future I will look into numbers cited more carefully and/or state the source. Thank you for being a reader and helping me improve the quality of my reporting.
As with much that's said in public discussions, both inside and outside of City Hall, it takes more work to refute false claims than it does to repeat them. As a result, some assumptions go unchallenged. I appreciate anyone willing to put in the effort to question and arrive at the facts independently, so thank you.
The airport project is substantial, and when completed, will be in place for many years. There are several layers to be addressed, and different individuals addressing those facets. From the survey, the indemnity, the zoning, the rents, the building codes, utilities, and many others. All of this takes time. Through all of this one important fact is in my mind, imperative. The acreage currently used for emergency staging must remain just that. It should not be sacrificed for some pet project or ulterior motive. All the other issues may be altered, but the emergency space is the first responsibility of government, the wellbeing and safety of the people. I am confident that the new administration will have a more comprehensive knowledge of reality than the one it is replacing.