Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Realtors’ alliance presents short‑term rental research; councils ask for Utah‑specific analysis
Summary
The Park City Board of Realtors and WMRA presented short‑term rental (STR) research drawn from similar mountain markets, highlighting STR economic activity and urging caution about heavy-handed regulation; councils requested a customized Summit County, Utah report.
Jamie Johnson, CEO of the Park City Board of Realtors and executive of the Western Mountain Resort Alliance (WMRA), introduced a multi‑jurisdiction study funded by a $250,000 National Association of Realtors grant. RRC/WMRA presented comparative data from Pitkin, Summit County (Colorado) and Teton County to illustrate how STRs function in resort economies and the regulatory tradeoffs communities face.
Jack Greshen of WMRA/RRC said the association’s research shows STRs are deeply integrated into resort economies: in one example from Summit County, Colorado, STRs were estimated to generate roughly $1.7 billion in total economic activity and support direct and indirect jobs. He told the councils that most STR owners use their properties a few weeks a year (the presentation estimated 4–6 uses annually for the majority of owners) and that STRs often channel visitor spending into local retail and restaurants rather than only into resort hotels.
On housing effects, the presenter cited academic literature and his firm’s analysis, saying the quantified impact of STRs on local rents and housing prices is small (presenter estimated less than 1% total effect), and argued that supply‑side development constraints are the dominant driver of affordability problems. He cautioned, however, that strict regulation such as outright bans or severe caps can have unintended consequences; he cited South Lake Tahoe’s 2018 moratorium and Palm Springs’ caps as case studies of outcomes the presenter said led to vacancy increases and price effects.
Council members asked several clarifying questions: multiple members requested a Summit County, Utah‑specific analysis rather than comparative results from Colorado and other markets; staff and presenters agreed to provide Utah‑specific metrics and follow‑up materials. No regulatory action was taken at the meeting; councils signaled interest in receiving more localized data and exploring policy options in subsequent, jurisdictional meetings.
