Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourist Rooming Houses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sawyer County updates tourist-rooming-house licensing as state rewrites lodging code
Summary
Sawyer County environmental health staff reported on the first year of enforcing new tourist-rooming-house ordinances, a modest net decline in licensed facilities, enforcement and neighbor‑notification requirements, and potential impacts from a pending state rewrite of the lodging code (proposed ATP 72).
Matt McKay, an environmental health staff member with Sawyer County Health and Human Services, told the board Sept. 9 that the county has completed its first renewal season under newly adopted tourist-rooming-house (TRH) ordinances and is monitoring enforcement and a pending state code rewrite.
McKay said the county issued about 960 types of facility licenses during the renewal season and that the number of TRH licenses fell from roughly 600 earlier in the year to about 550 as of Aug. 15; he said some reductions reflected consolidation of multiple unit licenses under single owners and about 74 newly added facilities during the same period. The county also began sending cease-and-desist letters to facilities that did not apply to renew.
The county's TRH ordinance includes several new requirements that generated the most questions from owners during implementation: an owner's agent if the owner lives more than 60 miles away; an advance mailed notice to neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary; and a sign posted at the property naming local contacts and the license. McKay said the sign requirement prompted “a lot of phone calls, emails, sort of strongly worded letters” from owners. He said inspectors must balance complaint investigations with the practical effect of performing inspections when units are not rented.
McKay said the county used a contracted web-monitoring and hotline service, Granicus, to find unlicensed listings and to record complaint calls. He described the county’s goal as educational rather than punitive, noting that although some facilities produced repeated complaint reports, the county had not yet issued any “strikes” or revoked licenses because investigations often show multiple perspectives on complaints.
A pending change at the state level could change licensing categories and affect county workload and fee structures. McKay described proposed revisions to the state lodging code (referred to in the meeting as ATP 72) that would further subdivide lodging categories (for example, single cabins, 2–4 units, 5–9 units, etc.) and formally recognize specialty lodging such as yurts or other structures without fixed plumbing. He said the state rule was in late review phases with joint committee review anticipated and that a final rule could be adopted by December, with an effective date 90 days after promulgation — which could compress county work in time for spring licensing.
McKay said the state is also considering fee adjustments; the state would take a portion of county-collected fees and the county would need to recalculate to remain budget‑neutral. He urged updating county ordinances promptly once the state language is final to avoid falling out of alignment.
Board members asked about fiscal impacts, prior vendor support, and complaint volumes. McKay confirmed Granicus had been contracted to help identify unlicensed listings and to run a 24/7 complaint line; he said the county was still reconciling licensing data with the vendor but expected to use that tool to catch more unlicensed operations.
What happens next: county staff said they would continue inspections, pursue compliance letters for unlicensed operators, and monitor the final state rule so the county can amend its ordinance and possibly its fee schedule once the state language is finalized.
