Planning and Building Services staff on Oct. 21 told the Clear Creek County Board of County Commissioners they will adopt new administrative procedures to verify primary‑residence short‑term rental (STR) licenses after complaints, and clarified how denials and revocations would be handled.

The department’s review authority presentation, led by David Danielson, described a complaint‑triggered workflow: when someone reports a suspected nonresident STR, staff would notify the property owner within 10 business days and request additional evidence such as local debit/credit card transactions, gas or grocery receipts or other documentation “that a reasonable person would expect to see if someone were living in Clear Creek County.” After review the department would determine whether the primary‑residence license should remain, be denied or be revoked. Property owners and responsible agents would retain the right to appeal administrative decisions through the county’s normal appeal process.

The proposed administrative rules would also set explicit durations for denials and revocations. Staff recommended a minimum one‑year denial/revocation period before an applicant could reapply; removed licenses would be offered to applicants on the waiting list, and the effective re‑entry date could be longer depending on wait‑list length. The rules would apply to license holders and to “responsible agents” (local management companies or on‑call contacts) and would allow code enforcement and, where necessary, fines and court referral for unlicensed violators. Staff said these rules are intended to be applied prospectively, not retroactively.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the county’s STR program aims to protect long‑term resident housing and prevent investor conversion of scarce housing stock. The county’s standard license program is capped at 4.5% of dwellings; a separate primary‑residence exemption exists but, Danielson said, complaints show some applicants are trying to claim residency on paper while operating properties as investments.

Board members pressed staff on details and limits: how the clerk verifies voter registration, how card transaction evidence would be evaluated (staff said they expect transactions tied to local merchants or gas stations), and whether a 10‑day notification window should be a guideline (staff agreed it should be a target, not a hard deadline). Commissioners also discussed how difficult it is to track investors who hide ownership behind LLCs and noted enforcement relies heavily on community reporting and staff capacity. Several commissioners urged clear public outreach explaining the new procedures, and staff offered to coordinate a newsletter or social‑media notification.

The presentation also reiterated existing policy tradeoffs: standard (investment) STR licenses are limited by quota; primary‑residence privileges are intentionally generous to residents in a high‑cost county but must be defended from exploitation. Staff told the board they plan to use complaint‑based investigations rather than proactive audits because of staffing limits, and to prioritize self‑performing enforcement where possible to reduce contract costs.

Ending: Commissioners signaled support for the residency verification and enforcement rules with requests for clearer public messaging (how residents report concerns, what documentation is acceptable) and for a flexible timeline on the 10‑day target. Staff said the new administrative rules would be applied going forward, not retroactively, and they will return with additional clarifications as needed.