Alpine council debates short‑term rental permits; council agrees to separate hotel‑occupancy accounting by unit

City staff briefed the Alpine City Council on interpretive issues that have arisen since the recent short‑term rental ordinance revision, primarily whether each rentable unit on a property must hold its own permit and remit hotel‑occupancy tax separately. Finance staff and building officials recommended separate accounting for tax receipts per rentable unit but discussed permitting options for properties with multiple units on a single premise.

Why it matters: The ordinance change affects operators of small multiple‑unit properties (casitas, duplexes, properties with casitas) and could require additional permits, inspections and per‑unit taxes. Several residents and property owners spoke at the meeting saying the change would be burdensome if applied to multi‑unit properties that were previously approved under a single special‑use permit.

Finance director Victoria Sanchez told council her department needs a per‑unit separation for tax reconciliation and auditing—staff would otherwise struggle to identify which specific unit a combined payment covers. She said making payments per unit improves timely reconciliation and helps avoid situations in which late, aggregated payments are difficult to apply to multiple accounts. The finance office said penalties are legally possible but historically have not been regularly applied; the city retains tools such as penalties, interest and property liens if necessary.

Property owners and staff asked for a practical approach: Carter McDonald, a Ward 5 owner who operates three short‑term rental units on a single property and lives on the site, asked that the council consider exceptions for units that are essentially under one roof or for properties that already completed a conditional/special‑use permit process. Building official Jessica Eisele said she did not want to retroactively force owners who had already completed the conditional‑use permitting process and paid fees to repeat the full process; she urged council to avoid mass re‑permitting of longstanding operations unless ownership transfers.

Council direction and staff recommendation: After exchange of views, the council reached consensus on two points: (1) require hotel‑occupancy tax to be accounted for and remitted per rentable unit to meet accounting and audit needs, and (2) permit the building services/permit process to remain at the premise level for properties where units are effectively part of the same structure and previously went through the conditional‑use process. The council asked staff to draft ordinance language reflecting those choices and to present a revision at a subsequent meeting.

Operational impacts: Staff noted the city’s short‑term rental software conversion had required manual reconciliation; staff said the new permitting/accounting approach would be implemented alongside the new system and would include forms to identify each unit. The building official recommended that, for sales or ownership change, individual unit permitting could be required at that time. The council also noted that the proposed building‑services fee schedule (addressed elsewhere on the agenda) would be revisited in light of this clarification.

Next steps: Staff will prepare draft ordinance language to (a) keep hotel‑occupancy tax reconciliation by unit and (b) allow permitting by premise in defined circumstances (for example, units under the same roof or existing conditional‑use approvals). The draft ordinance will be agendized for further review before final adoption.